An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

NY23, NJ Gov. and the future of 3rd party candidates

VotingBooth.jpgExactly how important is it to Americans that their elected officials receive a mathematical majority of votes in any given election in order to carry the vaunted mantle of having a “mandate from the people?” And if we see a continuing trend of voter dissatisfaction with the normal two menu choices and 3rd party candidates carry more and more influence, will this help or hurt our great American experiment in democracy?

New Jersey’s gubernatorial race is now showing embattled incumbent Jon Corzine grabbing a slim lead in a race where he never should have stood a chance. He can thank Chris Daggett in his acceptance speech should he prevail. In next week’s special congressional election in New York’s 23rd district there is no doubt that the NY Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman, has turned the race on its ear. A couple of potentially dubious polls actually show Hoffman in the lead with only a few days to go. And his presence has split the positions of the GOP’s likely slate of 2012 presidential candidates. But whether he wins or loses, his impact will leave us with a few questions to ponder.

If Hoffman, Owens, Christie or Corzine take their respective seats with a popular vote total in the low forties, (or possibly even the high thirties) does this somehow leave a taint on their term… a symbolic weakness or lessening of their legitimacy as an elected official? Or does it actually represent the variety of opinions in our diverse population and speak well of them for beating a greater number of challengers?

As a cranky independent, I clearly choose to go with the latter. By default I believe that Americans like having choices and a wide range of voices and positions to choose from, so viable third party candidates add much needed spice to an otherwise drab, two party stew. But as with most things, we need to be careful what we wish for and remain aware of the law of unintended consequences.

In some states you can’t win with a plurality. Governor’s races, among others, are sometimes sent to a run-off election between the top two vote getters to ensure that one of them has a majority. While this is certainly legal, and appropriate if the state’s residents wish it to remain that way, it’s kind of a sad outcome. The final winner gets to strut away with the aforementioned mandate, while all of those third party voters either stayed home for the runoff or sullenly went and cast their second ballot for the lesser of two evils.

Let’s extend this thought out for a moment to our future presidential elections. It’s been a long time since a third party candidate captured a single state’s electoral votes, but if what we’re seeing today continues, it might happen. And in both of George W. Bush’s elections, if some upstart had taken a single good-sized state, we could have been in a situation where nobody manged to get 270 votes in the electoral college. Unlike some of the state and district elections referenced above there is no path to victory with 269. Nor is there any provision for a runoff election. The next leader of the free world would – according to Article II of the Constitution – be decided by the members of the House of Representatives, a group of people generally locked into party loyalty and subject to shady deals cut in cloak rooms. This is the same august body which is currently so wildly popular that they have a national approval rating only a few points higher than the President of Iran.

So the decision, originally offered to more than 300 million citizens, would fall to the choice of 435 people. Do you really want two of those levers being pulled by Michele Bachmann and Dennis Kucinich? Should we ever face another case of presidential impeachment, it’s bad enough that one percent of the votes will be cast by Al Franken.

So there is the quandary. An independent minded electorate with a variety of choices is good for America. But we have a system which can really go pear shaped if we get too carried away with our multitude of candidates. Either way, should things continue on this track, be sure to hang on to your hats. It’s going to be a wild ride.

  • We now live in a Corporatocracy where members of both political parties are controlled by the big money of Wall Street. It may sound like the Ds and the Rs are singing different tunes but they are all marching to the same drummer and that drummer isn't on Main street. We live in a world where the profits are privatized and the risks are socialized but only if you are very rich. The economic policy of the Obama administration has been no different than that of the Bush administration when it comes to the big banks and Wall Street. Even the so called health care reform has really only taken on the insurance industry, which is a small part of the problem, but not the Medical Industrial Complex.
    The Teabaggers and everyone else are unhappy about many of the same things they just don't always realize it. The rise of third party candidates is a symptom not the problem. People realize the two party system is broken or perhaps bought would be a better word.
  • DemocracyBoy
    There's an elegant and powerful solution to the problem Jazz describes above, and that's instant-runoff voting. It eliminates the spoiler effect, enables voters to "vote for the candidate they like the most without helping to elect the candidate they like least," ensures a winning candidate has a majority of votes, and reduces negative campaigning. It's a great way to show the major parties the amount of support for other ideas, too. And in our history, that has led to more responsive major parties, as they expand to include those groups of voters.

    Note, too, that instant runoff is essentially the same as having an expensive, low-turnout runoff weeks later, but it's done at once, with more voters, and saves money.
  • Doc3
    The Democrats and Republicans have stacked the election laws so as to make the success of a Third Party almost impossible.
  • shannonlee
    We have a winner!

    If you don't believe it, just ask Ralph Nader. He has documented many of these laws.
  • DLS
    Approval voting is better, still, for single-person offices.

    For multiple persons (seats in a legislature), proportional representation is the way to go.
  • mvy
    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
  • Ask Texas if they care that their current Governor received only 39% of the vote in 2006.
  • Don Quijote
    It’s bad enough that one percent of the votes will be cast by Al Franken.
    You're going to have to get over Franken winning in Minnesota. It's a state wide vote therefor there was no gerrymandering, he got into the Senate with 1,212,629 votes which is more votes than there are voters in
    Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, South Dakota, Delaware, North Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, District of Columbia or Wyoming. There are at least 34 other Senators in the Senate who have had far less people vote for them than Franken did.
  • DLS
    Direct election of the President is even cheaper, by an order of magnitude or more, than the cheapening of the office of Senator (populist democratic change) early in the twentieth century. However, I suspect it will replace the Electoral College eventually, and certainly it is consistent as well as logical, given the trends we've seen involving related changes (first and foremost being direct election of Senators).

    I'd be more intrigued by how the office of the Vice Presidency would be redesigned, if not abolished, and how the Vice President would be selected. Having him or her on a party slate with the candidate for the Presidency only perpetuates and supports the two-party Duality we have now; the office could become an appointed office, or be abolished -- either would be acceptable.

    As to the earlier improvements to the existing system, that support breaking the Duopoly, readers can view these:


    a) Approval voting

    http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot...


    b) Proportional representation

    http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC