The November 7 elections are going to have some unintended consequences in this state.
Among the worst – and one that some of us who follow these things predicted – is the fallout from the election of vacuous political-party-boy Mark Ritchie to the Secretary of State’s office.
Ritchie – whose sole notable political experiences are “serving” as a bureaucrat and running the pressure group whose sole accomplishment was plastering those annoying “November 2” bumper stickers on the backs of rusty Subarus and gaunt Volvos nationwide – has big plans, apparently, for Minnesota elections.
Big, liberal-benefitting plans.
Which is, naturally, why the Strib loves them:
Tim Pawlenty might not appreciate being likened to Bill Clinton. But the Republican governor has at least this much in common with the former Democratic president: He was just elected for a second time by a plurality, not a majority. In Minnesota in 2002 and 2006, as in the presidential elections in 1992 and 1996, a third-party candidacy kept the winning vote total below 50 percent.
That’s not an ideal outcome — for the winner or the state. Clinton’s experience attests to as much. Throughout his presidency, he was denigrated by his partisan opponents as a less-than-legitimate occupant of the White House. Those election results emboldened those who sought to unseat him via impeachment in 1998.
But – the Strib’s editorial board should know this – the impeachment had nothing to do with Clinton’s lack of mandate, but rather his dishonesty; the weakness his lack of mandate granted his administration benefitted the country as a whole, in those prewar days when gridlock was a good thing that forced Clinton to abandon the social dabbling of his first two years.
In other words, the system worked. A divided nation was led by a weak administration, and a Congress that was mandated (in ’94) to oppose his would-be excesses. It benefitted everyone…
…except those who believe that government should operate as an efficient, well-oiled law-production machine. To them, the notion that the “efficiency” of government might be hobbled by the electoral system is an aberration.
And an opportunity to accrete more power to government – for government’s (and your) own good, dammit!:
But one thing may have been gained: a growing recognition that Minnesota would benefit from a different voting system. Ideally, it would be one that allows as many candidates to run for high office as this state’s tradition of easy ballot access permits, but that still gives the winner claim to majority support. The vote-by-number balloting method known as instant runoff voting fits the bill
Where “the bill” means “a recipe to make government more powerful and less responsive to the voters, at any rate.
But the Strib – mooning and panting at the thought of a chance for “Better Government” (read: more power lodged in Saint Paul) will waterboard all logic:
But the results of last week’s election were only minutes old when DFL voices began tagging Pawlenty as the “46.7 percent governor.” Any claim to a voter mandate Pawlenty might have made was immediately undercut. Any chance for the 53-plus percent of voters who preferred another candidate to coalesce and redirect state policies was lost too.
Let’s strive for accuracy, here: The 53-plus percent who didn’t vote for Pawlenty didn’t vote for “another candidate”. They voted for one of half a dozen other candidates; mostly Mike Hatch, but a pathetic few for Peter Hutchinson, a scraggly flotsam for Ken Pentel, and others for Libertarians, Constitution Partiers, and a small gaggle of other mini-parties.
Some of the ills big-party loyalists attribute to the rise and persistence of the Independence and Green parties are misplaced. More accurately, they are consequences of multiparty contests being decided by a plurality-take-all voting system.
And, more accurately still, they are not “ills” at all. They are how the system works, and it is good that it does so. The wishes of the voters are counted in a 1:1 ratio with the votes they cast. And if your party can’t gain a majority – if it can’t convince people that one of the most successful governors in America today, a governor who erased an “un-fixable” $4 billion deficit, isn’t a better choice than the pettifogging, temper-addled little Napoleon-complex poster child that the other party put forth – then not only will that governor’s party deserve to govern without a mandate, but the people of Minnesota will get a gridlocked, mandate-free government. People get the government they deserve.
Unless the Strib has its way. Then it’ll get the best government that an incomprehensibly-complex, computer-validated formula can give them.
Instant runoff voting would present those same candidates with an incentive to reach outside their parties’ ideological cores. Victory in close multicandidate elections would require a blend of first and second-choice votes. A narrowly partisan campaign would not get the second-choice votes needed for victory.
In other words, it’d drive the state’s government toward the mushy, dim middle. Which is no choice at all. The Strib doesn’t seem to credit the Minnesota voter with a lot of intelligence – easy to do in a state where Mark Ritchie and Rebecca Otto beat vastly-superior incumbents, but not really a spirit in which Democracy can thrive.
Last week, Minneapolis voters approved a switch to instant runoff voting for the next city election, in 2009. That exercise should be seen as a pilot project for the whole state.
Between now and then, the Legislature should give instant runoff a thorough hearing, and direct the next secretary of state, Mark Ritchie (an instant runoff voting supporter), to make preliminary plans for a switch. If the system serves Minneapolis well in 2009, it should be ready for the whole state in 2010.
“Give it a hearing, and direct Ritchie to make the switch”? Wow – sounds like a fair process!
This is madness for a couple of non-partisan reasons. For starters, a “Test” in Minneapolis would be completely meaningless; Minneapolis is to all intents and purposes a one-party town (Greens have a power base, but Greens, for all their kvetching, are just ultraorthadox DFLers). Minnesota is another story.
And does anyone else catch the absurd double-standard? A newspaper that bitched and moaned endlessly about the perils of electronic vote tabulation (as long as they were perceived to benefit Republicans – somehow, Diebold isn’t a threat to democracy these days) is suddenly ready to place full faith into a system that depends entirely on utterly-untested froo-froo technology?
This is a power grab for the left and their apologists, frustrated that the game is too close, these days, for the system to keep them in power. They want to fix that.
It needs to be stopped.
Ever notice that when the lefties don’t get their people elected they decide it’s time to change the electoral system? Runoff elections, mandatory voting, race based districting, lower voting age, instant registration, provisional ballots. They simply can’t believe that if an election is fair and honest a majority will reject their politics.
If you want to vote libertarian or green out of principle, do so. Even moral posturing should have a price.
The editorial did remind me of one undeniable fact — the republican congress elected in 1994 had a hell of a greater mandate than Bill Clinton ever did.
I think that IRV will help Republicans in Minneapolis. It allows the more moderate Democrats to vote Republican as a second choice instead of having the Green default that currently exists. The real key would be the Republicans fielding quality urban candidates.
Terry, your characterization is at odds with the Minneapolis situation. It is essentially a one party town with little short term risk under the existing voting system and they are making it easier for other parties to gain momentum.
It should probably be of little surprise that I’m a supporter of IRV – I have been since I first learned about it while visiting Ireland and found that’s how they elect their representatives.
I actually believe that it will increase the influence of conservative voters in Minneapolis. Under the current system, the 30% or so of Minneapolis that is relatively conservative really can’t get anyone elected – even on a multi-seat board. I really believe that Single Transferable Voting will change that.
Its great that Minneapolis is getting this – try living in a one party town for a while and you’d likely agree that anything that lets minority parties have a voice is a good thing. I’ll really be surprised if a system which allows candidates with a wider variety of viewpoints to get elected results in a smoother more mono-focused government.
As for computerized voting – they’ve had systems like this in a number of places for quite some time (Ireland, Cambridge MA, Australia). Computers help but aren’t absolutely required. Frankly, the idea that we can’t to a verifiable audited computer aided voting system boggles my mind. I use ATMs all the time. I get receipts. I can check online that my transaction took place just the way I thought it did. Electronic ballot machines aren’t the problem. Unverifiable ones are.
Here’s the way I look at it – IRV and STV should allow more points of view to be heard. This may mean more political parties or greater diversity of thought within the political parties. In either case, this should result in slower government that has to talk though and maybe even think more about what its trying to get done.
With any luck, it will also be a government that fairly accurately represents its constituency. Some people seem to think we have that but when I look for the party that stands for citizens that want the federal government to pretty much leave us alone and let us decide what we want to do at our state and local level, I don’t see them getting elected.
Conversely, when I look for the voters that say “Please give all our money to corporations and pork-barrel projects”, I don’t find nearly as many of them but there sure seem to be plenty of folks that get elected who are representing those who do.
I have a hard time believing that the more “casual” voters, that can barely identify the main players in an election, will make wise picks for their choice number 2 and choice number 3. I think the result could be, voters will hear the final tally and say, “Stefan Schweinenwasser of the Green Party is mayor? Who the hell is that? Did I pick him?”
Does anyone thing that the Strib would be in favor of IR if the Libertarian party had major party status?
I really don’t care what the Strib thinks but I know that getting both IRV and major party status for the libertarians would put a grin on my face.
Check that – I care what the Strib thinks because the stuff they say ends up impacting my life.
But I don’t _care_ what they think.
Y’know what I mean?
I do.
I really don’t think that IR would help Libertarians.
Granted, the Libertarian candidate would get many more votes from disgruntled Republicans who feel free to vote Libertarian with the Republican as second choice, but not enough to win. The practical result would be, in my opinion, that the Republican candidate would be elected without having to seriously try to attract the Libertarian vote and thus the elected official would be less responsive to libertarian issues than before IR.
I have a hard time making cases for party politics because from what I’ve seen political parties are far more part of the problem than any solution. However, in terms of helping libertarians, I see a couple factors that should lead towards it.
One aspect should be that Libertarian candidates would be able to garner more votes which would make it harder for them to be excluded from debates and media coverage. This not only gets their ideas and viewpoints out there, it requires the “big party” candidates to voice their opinions on them. (yeah, I know there’s going to be trouble getting those who hold the reigns of media and the debates to cooperate)
Another aspect is that you easily can have more than one Republican run. I know big government, big military, pro-drug war, who’s your daddy now type Republicans and I know small government, personal freedoms, let me live my life and run my business and I’ll let you do the same type Republicans. Let one of each of those run and tell me who the Libertarians will vote for…
Of course, this is all presuming that Libertarian ideals and ethics appeal to more than a couple percent of the population. I think they do, but I’ve often surprised to discover that my idea of where people stand are skewed by the echo chamber I exist in.
But if they do, their opinion will weigh in on who gets elected. It won’t necessarily be a Libertarian, but it will be someone who supports more of the libertarian ethics.
See, what keeps punching me in the gut is the sense that from my point of view, the argument between Democrat and Republican is largely meaningless. From the standpoint of big government, I don’t see a meaningful difference. From the standpoint of what’s happening to the environment, I don’t see a meaningful difference. From the standpoint of American foreign military and economic policy, I don’t see a meaningful difference. From the standpoint on whether or not those of my friends who choose to smoke marijuana are criminals, I don’t see a meaningful difference. From the standpoint of maintaining massive class differences and huge prison populations, I don’t see a meaningful difference.
I see two parties with the same basic vision for what they want and who are funded by and support the same basic set of people. They’re arguing over the nuances and tossing out a bit of rhetoric here and there to keep the rest of us entertained.
I believe that there are many people in the parties who figure voting the party line at least gives them the better of two nuances but might likely prefer something rather different. I often bring up the drug war because I see a lot of people – liberal and conservative – who don’t think it makes sense, but it is seldom brought up as a question to debate and never goes very far.
I’m willing to admit I might not be right about the similarity of the parties. Maybe they are significantly different in their goals, but I still see them as rather monolithic and centralized. I may be “liberal” but the DFL doesn’t come close to representing me and its pretty unlikely it ever will. I’m sure a lot of folks could say the same about the Republicans.
I think IRV and STV are ways to split those monoliths and force other ideas and points of view to be heard and discussed and maybe even voted on. I think the Libertarians will come out ahead – not necessarily because we’ll see a Libertarian governor or senator but because the candidate that gets elected will be the one of several Republicans that actually cared about the same things the Libertarians care about rather than not worrying at all about them because – what, are they going to vote Democrat?
The parties that hold the torch for issues that enough people care about (and I have to believe Liberty is one of those) will get enough votes to become major parties and candidates from the other major parties will have to consider if they can woo those voters.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Minneapolis: A Cold La Paz
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Oh Me Of Little Faith