Effrontery. Chutzpah. Impudence.
I’m of course talking about partisan politics.
The case at hand is covered by Matthew Petti at Reason, “Are New Jersey Voters Too Dumb for Normal Ballots?” In this April 3rd report, Petti explains that a “federal judge has ordered Democrats in New Jersey to draw up ballots fairly instead of putting their favorite candidates at the front. But state Democratic bosses think that voters can’t be trusted to figure out how to think
This is a dispute about ballot design. Remember the notorious “butterfly” ballots that so confused Palm Beach County, Florida voters in 2000? You know, even Pat Buchanan acknowledged that thousands in the liberal county voted for him by mistake.
Well, this is similar, though here the case is not so much a confusing ballot but a simple ballot with favored candidates getting the easiest-to-spot slots. “All but two of the state’s counties endorse candidates for the primary and then place their endorsed candidates all in one line,” explains NPR’s Nancy Solomon. “It’s called the ‘county line’ or ‘the party line’ and it includes candidates for various positions. . . . The other candidates for the same seat are placed in what’s known as ballot Siberia – way off to the right on the ballot
But when the party machine tried to replace the serially indicted Senator Bob Menendez with the governor’s wife, a challenger complained. And sued. And won.
County clerks are appealing the decision — but the court still requires them to design a new ballot.
“New” . . . meaning like ballots nearly everywhere.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Words for Jersey Insiders”
Democrat Party bosses think that voters cabe trusted NOT to think for themselves.
I think I can read the ballot and find my preferred candidate.
We just experienced a 4.8 magnitude earthquake here in NJ.
Primary elections were introduced in the Twentieth Century, exactly to transfer decision-making power from party bosses to the rank-and-file. At the same time, they have further cemented the institution of partisan politics in general, and an dominance of the political process by two parties in particular.
Allowing the primary ballot to steer voters according to the desires of the party bosses claws-back some of the power that they’d lost, while allowing them to retain the benefit of the aforementioned cementing.
What really ought to happen is an elimination of state-sponsorship of primaries, with any party allowed to hold its own, in accordance with its party constitution and by-laws. (And, if they want the party bosses to be able to rig their primary, then so be it.)