Category: political challengers

Votes Without Poison

ranked choice, vote, voting, democracy, clown, illustration

Strange election. So … round up the usual suspects!

Immediately after Hillary dried her tears and conceded, out came the Tweets, then the analyses: the “third parties” are to blame!

Over the weekend, I focused* on one such election post-mortem. The basic idea is not altogether wrong: minor party efforts together may have cost the Democrat her Electoral College advantage this time around, just as Nader’s Green Party run spoiled Al Gore’s bid in 2000 and several past congressional races have been spoiled for the GOP by Libertarians.

Is there a problem here? Yes. But do not blame the minor party voters. It’s the way we count their votes that is “problematic.” The current ballot-and-count system turn voters most loyal to particular policy ideas into enemies of those very same ideas.

When we minor party voters turn away from a major party — usually because said party tends to corrupt or betray our ideas, or make only small steps toward our goals — our votes aren’t so much wasted as made poisonous.

Because the candidate least preferred may prevail.

But there’s a way out: On election day, voters in Maine showed how to cut through the Gordian Knot. Voting in approval for Question 5, Maine now establishes “ranked choice voting.”

Under this system, you don’t “waste” your vote when expressing a preference for a minor party candidate. You rank your choices and, if your first choice proves unpopular, your second choice (or maybe your third) gets counted. So you don’t “poison” your cause.

Republicans and Democrats have more than enough reason, now, to adopt ranked choice voting across the country.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* See yesterday’s links page to my weekend Townhall column for the basic references. But there were many, many articles on the Minor Party Effect, including a skeptical one by Sasha Volokh’s.

Questions Answered:

What is the effect of minor parties on major party outcomes?

What causes those effects, voter intent or something else?

Is there a way to prevent this, short of further sewing up the ballot access system to minor parties?

The Next Question:

What might our elections look like if people spent more time discussing issues and ideas … and less about class, culture wars, and sex crimes?

Printable PDF

Tags democracy, elections, Ranked Choice Voting, votes, voting

Accountability moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers too much government U.S. Constitution

Term Limits Trump

Donald Trump, term limits, president, first, illustration

Entering his campaign’s homestretch, underdog Donald J. Trump gave an important speech at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. He emphasized his support for term limits in what he called his “100-day action plan to Make America Great Again.”

“[R]estoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington” is the top item on Trump’s agenda, along with a pledge to begin the drive for “a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress” on his very first day in the Oval Office.

Public disgust with the corrupt status quo in Washington — and the hope that he will shake things up — drove Trump’s victory.

Yet, today, the Elections Committee of Michigan’s House of Representatives hears testimony on several bills to weaken or repeal term limits. Have the limits lost public support? Not on your life.

Politicians simply want to stay ensconced in power, reaping the many benefits they’ve bestowed upon themselves. They want to stay in power longer.

Just look to California. Back in 2012, a dishonest ballot explanation tricked voters into thinking they were tightening their term limits law. But what they were actually doing was voting to weaken it.

Now, Golden State legislators can stay in the same seat for a dozen years. And special interests have noticed. They’re “investing” more heavily than ever before.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the result in its headline: “Longer terms for California’s Legislature mean a flood of cash from interest groups …”

Here’s for enacting real term limits at every level of government. And if the politicians and special interests don’t like it — good!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags agenda, Donald Trump, president, term limits, U.S. Term Limits

Accountability general freedom ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

The Wisdom of the Founders

Constitution, voting, democracy, Ed Crane, fear

“At a certain point, you have to let go for the democracy to work,” President Barack Obama told HBO’s Bill Maher last week, praising “the wisdom of the founders.”

“There has to be fresh legs,” he continued. “There have to be new people. And you have to have the humility to recognize that you’re a citizen and you go back to being a citizen after this office is over.”

Maher failed to ask Mr. Obama how this “fresh” viewpoint squared with his support for Mrs. Clinton. Nevertheless, let’s applaud the president’s endorsement of term limits.

Speaking of the founders, and limits on power, and this being Election Day, I’m reminded of a commentary in Forbes, back on Election Day four years ago, written by Ed Crane, the man who built the Cato Institute into one of the nation’s preeminent think tanks. Bemoaning the “interminable presidential race,” Crane wished for “a nation in which it really didn’t matter who was elected President, senator or congressman.”

“Don’t get me wrong, because I’m not saying it doesn’t,” explained Crane, “only that it shouldn’t.” He added, “I believe the Founders had a similar view.”

His point is simple: Getting to vote for your next president and senator and congressman is swell, but it’s important to have a Constitution that restrains those elected, so they “don’t have a heck of a lot of power over you or your neighbors.”

“We are a republic of limited governmental powers,” or should be, argued Crane. “Such a nation allows for sleep on election night.”

Instead of gnashing of teeth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, constitution, democracy, Ed Crane, fear, voting

Accountability ballot access incumbents moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Vote Early & Often?

Voted yet? The Pew Research Center thinks about 50 million Americans have, representing 38.5 percent of the voter turnout forecast.

I’m for making it as easy as possible for people to cast a ballot. Who isn’t? Well, I mean who among normal people isn’t? I’m not counting politicians and their hacks.

But even I am opposed to extended “early voting.”

Here’s why:

First, the longer the voting period goes, the greater the cost — as more paid advertisements, phone calls and mailings are needed to keep reaching voters over many weeks. No problem here with more money in politics — money is essential, and my candidates and ballot issues could certainly always use more promotion. But let’s not artificially advantage big money by running the meter.

Several states now allow more than six weeks of voting prior to so-called Election Day. Even a three-week voting period is far more expensive than building toward a single day — or, say, a weekend through Tuesday voting period (four days).

Second, we ought to vote together, close to the same time, all of us privy to the latest public knowledge. This year’s drip of near daily “October”* surprises, thanks to WikiLeaks and the FBI, shows the potential problem should a major scandal or incident impact the race after so many folks have already voted.

Third, early voting tends to advantage incumbents. Challengers often don’t catch up to the better known and organized incumbent until the final days of the race.

As for voting often, as in more than once, that’s a crime. Plus, with these candidates, once is more than enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*Well into November, some of these surprises, eh? I mean, it is as if they saved the blood rituals for last.

Printable PDF

Tags democracy, early, early voting, joke, meme, often, vote, voters

ballot access general freedom government transparency media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Brexit Effect?

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

Before the Brexit vote, the likelihood of British secession from the European Union garnered a mere 25 percent chance. That was according to European betting markets, which are usually more accurate. In June, the Brits voted Brexit.

Donald Trump has made much hay of this, understandably.

On Tuesday, the odds of a Trump victory hit the same mark: 25 percent.

Gwynn Guilford’s report on this was drolly titled “Donald Trump has the same odds of winning as Jon Snow ruling Westeros, according to betting markets.”

On June 11, Business Insider had reported that Hillary was increasing her lead; on October 18, it exulted that the Irish betting markets had “already declared a winner” — not Trump. On November 1, the news aggregator merely noted that Moody’s is calling the election a landslide for Clinton.

But BI is also covering the scandal that has disturbed the Clinton camp. There’s no love lost between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, explains Natasha Bertrand in “‘The Antichrist personified’: ‘Open warfare’ and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks.” The meat of her representation is that “much of the agents’ frustration … may boil down to partisanship”; the FBI is “Trumpland.”

Yet the article ends quoting another FBI official insisting that both Trump and Clinton are awful candidates.

A plausible judgment.

Whether late-in-the-game revelations of Clinton corruption and FBI probing can defy current odds and produce a Clinton defeat remains to be seen. As of Thursday evening, polls-only forecasts placed the odds of winning at 67/33 in favor of Mrs. Clinton, while electionbettingodds.com placed them at 70.2/29.2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. Late-breaking Brexit news: The United Kingdom’s high court ruled yesterday that Parliament must vote to approve Brexit before the secession can proceed.

Printable PDF

Tags betting, creative commons, Donald Trump, election, gamble, Hillary Clinton, illustration, presidency, president, voting

Accountability insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

The Democracy Now

Donna Brazile, CNN, Hillary Clinton, question, illustration, Common Sense

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was fondly referred to as “The Democracy.”

But that was a long time before the Clintons took control of the party’s heart and soul. It’s certainly been an insider’s game since.

Case in point? The deliberate scuttling of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost her chairperson-ship of the Democratic National Committee because of her (WikiLeaked email) collaboration with the Clintons over the dirty tricks that made sure Bernie got nowhere near the top levers of power.

And now we have Donna Brazile, covertly doing all she can to ensure the election to the Presidency of arguably the most corrupt politician of our time.

This political operative left CNN’s talking head ranks under a cloud — she had leaked to Clinton campaign communication director Jennifer Palmieri details about a question to be asked at a CNN-hosted presidential debate. Though CNN is not for nothing popularly known as the Clinton News Network, even CNN muckety-mucks felt betrayed.

But when interviewed by the indefatigable Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Brazile defended herself from the charges — “as a Christian woman” who understood “persecution”; she also compared her interviewer to a thief, and blamed Russian hackers.

Now, as a result of another WikiLeaks email exposure, Brazile has been caught again. The network has severed ties with her, and she’s defending herself with lines like “I try to learn as much as I can, share as much as I can.”

Unquestionably.

Having proven her loyalties, it looks like Ms. Brazile’s on track for a job in the new administration.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF