All right, now that I’ve Heimliched that Trump blockage, let’s look at what Sioux Falls house painter and hovercraft impresario Reginald Poppenga has to say about Amendment V, the open non-partisan primary proposal that would remove party labels from our ballots:
“It would make people look for something different: what does [the candidate] believe in?” said Sioux Falls resident Regie Poppenga, a Democrat who supports Mr. Trump for president. The two political parties “haven’t been serving our purpose,” said Mr. Poppenga, a paint contractor. “That’s why Trump and Sanders are doing so good” [Kristina Peterson, “Effort in South Dakota Aims to Drop Parties,” Wall Street Journal, 2016.03.28].
Amendment V would not affect our Presidential primary—we can’t change our state constitution to put all Presidential candidates on one primary ballot and place the top two vote-getters on the November ballot while the rest of the country follows the standard partisan nomination process. But let’s think about the two Presidential candidates who Poppenga says are doing so well (well, Regie, well) in the context of party labels. If you could use just one adjective to describe Donald Trump, would you choose Republican? If you had to explain Bernie Sanders in one word, would you say Democratic?
Put the question in more personal terms. Suppose you had to pick one word, or even one phrase, one Tweet, to convince people you’ve never met to trust you. What word or words would you choose? Would your party affiliation be the first word out of your mouth? Would you talk about your family situation (devoted mother), your occupation (successful businessman), or your personal history (lifelong South Dakotan)? Or would you try for a more practical, detailed explanation of your political views (fiscal conservative but social liberal)?
Back to our Presidential candidates: I can see Republicans making the case that labeling Donald Trump “Republican” isn’t accurate, that a more factual description for the ballot would be, “businessman and TV star with little history of activity in the Republican Party politics.” I can envision Sanders supporters saying that “Democratic” would be misleading, that his ballot line should read, “Socialist Junior Senator from Vermont, long registered as Independent, running as a Democrat because of better chances of getting on the ballot and winning.”
Now, to the state-level candidates whom Amendment V would affect: think about Mike Rounds. He gets to put Republican next to his name, but I left the GOP specifically because Mike Rounds didn’t stand for anything that I thought were Republican principles. As Governor, he expanded government and raised taxes. Now in the Senate, he’s rejecting his Constitutional duties and acting solely to prop up the power of his party. For Mike Rounds, is Republican anything more than convenient branding?
Might not some Democrats make a similar argument about Stephanie Herseth Sandlin? Granted, adopting Democratic as one’s brand in South Dakota doesn’t have the same selling power as the big R, but we can find some disaffected Democrats (i.e., the tens of thousands who have sat out elections since 2010 and who had better come back this year to support our ticket and our ballot measures!) who would contend that Herseth-Sandlin’s Blue Dog votes in during President Obama’s first term made her much more a conservative than a Democrat.
Amendment V says the state should not provide any description of candidates on the ballot; instead the state should just state the candidates’ names accurately and leave it to the voters to seek information about the candidates before they get to the voting booth. Even if we acknowledge that there is a place on the ballot for additional information about candidates, should the party label be the sole information tagging our candidates?
Bernie caucuses with the Dems. Drumpf flows where ever the whims of political winds get on their knees and blow him. Wishy washy doesn’t come close to encapsulating Drumpf’s penchant for switching parties at an election’s notice.
Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ says there is a dem who supports trump and that’s factual and newsworthy? I’m either “out there” or it makes me nervous DFP is written by a former republican who left because a George bush smart (built a home below the largest earthen dam in the country sitting between him and the rocky mountains) republican senator who was elected under felony cover up circumstances (the entire EB5 debacle-an apparent benda bollen conspiracy) didn’t act like a real republican? shudder!:(
I know NO dem that supported thune; I can’t imagine one exists.
rounds worked with USACOE for 8 years. he knows big dams flood. yet build away. was it a money deal? profit on the lot? similar to Dakota dunes? perhaps. “short sighted profit” I think joni Mitchell called it in 80s or 90s lyrics. building that is like saying “bring it on”. or even “howz that hopey changey thing goin for yah?”
Bernie is fine with me if he gets it. His ideals are democratic. he is a good person. But we may lose to the GOP. If we lose, the nation and the world are in very deep trouble.
stupid is as stupid does. and trump easily fits the gross stupidity and lack of integrity GOP has demonstrated every day since 1.20.09. and before, of course. Obama’s inauguration is just a convenient reference. the world is hardly a reality show.
The main goal of an election process is to elect the right good capable person to do the job. To have an inplace party system that gives some long term stability and experience to that process by two party system is far better than what ever media idol happens to put themselves into the spotlight at the moment.
So why did Trump get so much attention and frustrate the GOP leadership so bad and did it right under their noses. Well the politics in Washington got way to partisan and way to bought out by big business. Those in control did not realize that if you forget the people and just go for the big business contributions that the voter may at some point turn on you. So after the Congress had a six percent approval rating a few years ago now we have voter revolt in both parties and both are going to someone (Trump and Sanders) who see that the worker lost when they made those cheap trade deals to help big business ship thousands of jobs overseas. This is a serious wake up call to the political parties who thought they had it all under control while they forgot their main purpose and that is to nominate people for a government for the people by the people.
Neither Sanders nor Clinton will wreak the Democratic party but Trump could wreak the Republican party or at least redefine it and if they get redefined by someone so selfish, they will be in a world of hurt for a while.
I do not think that throwing out the two party system is the solution. Getting the two parties to wake up to the problems in America is what is needed. With no party system in place any wingnut that can portray themselves as someone for a while could get elected. The party system means that you first have to pass the tests of a party that has been there for a while and are aware of the political situation before you can get on the ballot. This is still better than no system in place to buffer who gets on the ballot. So you may say that a party prefers to nominate ‘insiders’. Well and insider is one who has been participating for a while and knows the people and is known by the party and that longer term relationship tends to weed out the crazies. If you have shown yourself to be consistent and to be for what you say you are for over time, that is a good hurdle to get over before you get on the ballot.
it would be nice if GOP would elect solid people other than stooges like quayle, bush, palin, and perhaps the trump guy.
I still deathly fear cruz.
Bottom line
As set up only
Democrats
Or
Republicans
Count
Roger, interesting point about parties acting as a filter system to keep mere celebrities from getting on the ballot. Why isn’t that working right now with the GOP and Trump? Is their party that dysfunctional that they need to be disbanded and rebuilt?
“Why isn’t that working right now with the GOP and Trump?”
Hi Cory,
I think the primary cause is primaries. Fareed Zakaria wrote in one of his books that we objectively had better candidates when those candidates were hand-picked by political bosses. But the idea of the “smoke-filled room” was so repugnant to our democratic (and free-market and anti-elitist) sensitivities, we thus had a movement to put the power of candidate-selection into the hands of the voters.
A political boss would never have chosen Trump to represent their party in a general election. As Nate Silver said, Trump is “astoundingly popular with a plurality of the electorate and extremely unpopular with a majority of it.”
Because of our current primary process, he could bypass the filter. He didn’t need to earn the endorsements of current Republican office-holders or party officials. He just needed to craft a bunch of empty promises that resonated with low-information voters and keep the camera on himself. That is enough to stand out in a 14-person race, where the establishment candidates all split the votes of the high-information voters.
Kind regards,
David
“……anything more than convenient branding?”
Absolutely, I have felt increasing in South Dakota over the years that the two major political parties are like known fast food franchises and the candidates or politicians are merely investors, who successfully purchase franchises so long as they get the nomination that is…. Some choose the Democratic Party because it is easier to get a franchise. Others choose the Republican Party because if you are successful in locking in a franchise agreement, then its pretty much smooth sailing with a very well known brand name. Frankly, the Republicans are like McDonalds, while the Democrats are like A&W in South Dakota…. (Hey, they have the best root beer… A&W that is!)
Politicians, without seeming too cynical, may have some loyalty naturally or innately to their declared party’s philosophy, but frankly they often have little more concern (rather quickly upon being elected) for the party philosophy than an investor has for the longterm definition or integrity of the American hamburger so long as their investment is protected. Successful fast food franchises, however, in the short term are greatly dependent upon what is call “quality assurance” within the food service industry, but for the politicians there appears to be a looser relationship between the parent company and the franchisees. The politicians or political franchisees seem to feel free to change the local franchise’s menu or final product to their likening immediately. Thus, leaving the voter with the rude awakening of “quality assurance” run-a-muck.
By removing the party labels to force the politicians to be themselves or at least their intended image and will, politicians will be held accountable (hopefully) on an individual basis for their positions versus their later leadership decisions, if eventually elected that is; which will either offer a real choice or in the absence of choice a refreshing honesty about their “Blue Dog” or “Rhino” qualities, however.
The tightness or distance between two or more candidates, in terms of popularity, in these proposed “jungle primaries” will determine to a great point what the eventual political dialogue will be I would surmise, however. What the promises will be or the menu as well and as incumbents emerge eventually from this process their own individual “quality assurance” expectations could and most likely will kick-in…..or possibly kick them out….
Each race will have its own true personality and only as it plays out will we know the defined political philosophies of the politicians. Or, could it still be blurred due to the closeness in popularity amongst the main contenders causing none of the politicians to go rogue and unique with their own defined political philosophy? But regardless, the politicians will own their own platform whether it be to the left, the center,or to right, which will not only be interesting up front, but also down the road for the incumbents with a final product or “quality assurance” to answer to….or hamburger should we say….”Would you like fries with that?”… ;-)
John KC: party as franchise branding rather than real buy-in—I like the fast-food comparison.
David: primaries as primary problem? I like the turn of phrase and the observation. Of course, that would suggest that Amendment V could make the problem worse, removing the party labels and the party filter completely.
Then again, in response to the passage of Amendment V, the parties could choose to endorse candidates sooner. Right now, the SDDP by-laws require that it not intervene in the primary. But I seem to recall that in Minnesota and North Dakota, the party meets in the spring to endorse a candidate, but other party members can still run for the nomination in the primary. We might see the same thing happen here, especially when the party is not guaranteed to have anyone on the general election ballot. That endorsement might be the smoke-filled-room pick, but it would still be checked by the popular vote… and the SuperPAC money that’s weakening both political parties.
Suppose Amendment V passed and the two candidates for Senate who make the general election ballot were both Republicans. Would we expect the SDGOP to endorse one of those candidates over the other? Would we want the party to have the freedom to do that?
Hi Cory,
Zakaria’s observation was limited (I think) to Presidential candidates, and that’s why I used it to respond to the Trump question.
I do think partisan primaries make the country more divisive. The voters who go to primaries are on the wings of their party, so the person who is selected by this process usually represents their extreme. The Tea Party phenomenon has been exploiting this to great success.
According to game-theory research my understanding (and sorry I don’t have a link for this) is that the best way for a group to find the most-satisfactory choice among N options was to have N-1 rounds of votes where the voters are voting to eliminate one option each round. There’s no way that Trump would have survived that process. He may not have been the first one eliminated, but he almost certainly would have been voted off the island before it came down to the final 8. His campaign of aggression and division would not have worked, because this process comes down to ticking off the fewest people.
Obviously, it isn’t realistic to have N-1 elections for N candidates. But there is middle ground between that extreme and the status quo (which is 2 elections for N candidates… a primary and a general).
A middle ground solution could be this:
a) List all N candidates on a ballot, tell the voter to vote for N/2 candidates that they want to eliminate. (If we have 16 candidates, the voter fills in 8 bubbles to eliminate 8 of them.)
b) The N/2 candidates with the most votes are eliminated from the race
c) repeat until we have 2 candidates, then we have a general with 1 winner
So if we have 16 candidates, the field size would go 16-8-4-2… in other words, 3 primaries and then a general. If we’re taking the current Presidential election and making it non-partisan (putting the Rs & Ds in the same winnowing process with the Libertarians, Greens, etc.) we would need just one more primary to handle them all.
The logistics of doing that at the national level is daunting. But for SD races it’s doable. The vast majority of our legislative races have 4 candidates or less, which would be one primary and the general. I’d even say that 5 candidates should be done with one primary and a general. (Vote to eliminate 3, then have a 2-person general.)
For races with 6 to 11 candidates, add another primary. The sequence for 6 is 6-3-2 (eliminate 3, eliminate 1, general). The sequence for 11 is 11-5-2 (eliminate 6, eliminate 3, general).
The governor’s election with the most candidates was 2002, which had 9 candidates… that sequence would be 9-4-2 (eliminate 5, eliminate 2, general).
Anyway, the three principles to get better results from an electoral process are:
(a) make it all non-partisan (Otherwise factions of extreme-minded voters put forward extreme-minded candidates)
(b) votes should be for elimination, not nomination (It’s much easier to game a nomination vote… Survivor, American Idol, etc. all understand this. Their brands would be toast if they did it otherwise… can you imagine a non-musician winning American Idol? Yet, we have a non-politician as a major-party candidate for President!)
(c) have as many rounds of voting as is practical
Kind regards,
David
David, would ranked choice voting achieve the elimination you seek in one swell foop?