Tweet
Republican candidate Charles Djou won the HI-01 special election with 39.5% of the vote because two Democrats, Colleen Hanabusa with 30.8% and Ed Case with 27.6%, split the Democratic vote almost down the middle. This is a great example of how the design of our election laws can greatly affect our government; a poorly-designed electoral system like Hawaii’s can result in winners that don’t best represent the will of the electorate. Using almost any other election system other than Hawaii’s, Djou would likely have lost. There is something very wrong with a democracy when political party A gets 58% of the vote, the political party B gets only 40% of the vote, yet political party B is the winner.
If Hawaii had allowed for a traditional primary for special elections or even a nominating caucus system it is highly unlikely Djou would have won against a single Democrat. The whole point of primaries is to allow parties to put forward only one candidate so as to prevent exactly this kind of vote splitting. Voting splitting is a huge problem when you have a single member district with a plurality winner – a system referred to as “first past the post.”
If they had used instant runoff voting Colleen Hanabusa would likely have been the second choice of most of Case’s voters and as a result, would have won. If Hawaii had a top two runoff election when no candidate got 50% of the vote, like they do in the state of Georgia, Hanabusa would probably have defeated Djou in that following head to head matchup. If as a country we had multi-member Congressional districts with proportional representation 60% of the seats would have gone to Democrats and only 40% to Republicans.
This Hawaii special election offers a perfect example of how important effective election law is to a truly representative government. Observers should be spurred to deeper thought and action about improving our election laws. At the very least it should encourage Hawaii to replace its incredibly stupid no-primary “first past the post” system for special elections with something better.
35 Comments
Being from Hawaii I find this ass to be a facist in his attitude.We had a complecated election where the old boys wanted another Dem candidate vs. the uncontrollable Dem. This was so much the point of the break of the party that it will now split it more in the general election. This one sided control is facist and the writer wishes to interject his opinion as one.
The Winner Djou, had mostly independent votes and so has a leg up in the November.
Sen Dan Inouye is mad at the Dem candidate Case for running against Sen. Dan Akaka, so had an election of Democrat attrition from the other candidate. The win was b y 10% not a couple of points and the DCCC bowed out after trying to manipulate the election from Washington. So you stick with your ideals and close your eyes to real democracy as the voters won here not the machine and old boys. By the way where do you live?
Can you make your point without calling the diarist names?
And what is ‘facist?’
The writer believes that the outcome of the election would be changed if IRV had been used.
But because of IRV’s complexity and flawed algorithm, no one can forecast how an IRV election would turnout.
IRV is the only election model that is non additive. Meaning that you can’t simply add up the 2nd or 3rd column of votes to get the outcome.
Why? Because with IRV, the voters choices are sorted, allocated, eliminated and also reallocated until the rules declare a “winner”. There are different rules used in IRV, Cambridge uses different rules than say Aspen CO used.
But TrueBallot, the vendor who ran Aspen’s election, mistakenly programmed the voting machines with Cambridge rules. This changed the vote tallies, although the “winner” stayed the same.
In Burlington VT, IRV elected a mayor who had less votes than other candidates, but thanks to BVT’s IRV rules, Kiss was “elected”.
With IRV you can hurt your preferred candidate by voting for them.
IN San Francisco, where they’ve used IRV in elections since 2004 – the winner is usually the plurality winner.
The one time IRV actually did impact who won in SF, the winner was Ed Jew, who never got to serve because he was arrested, tried and convicted for bribery and other felonies. He didn’t even live in the district that he was elected to serve. But thanks to IRV, Jew was amongst a sea of candidates and there wasn’t good amount of debate.
In fact, Former Mayor Willie Brown made that point in an radio interview in Nov 2009: “Instant runoff voting is really really bad….it has eliminated the opportunity…” Former Mayor Willie Brown.
Listen to the interview here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUQzGTvnKIY&feature=player_embedded
Rahm could have had his guy bow out instead he gave the seat to the GOP for a few months. I agree the system should be fixed.
But Rahm gamed the system to prevent us Lefties from getting another win.
Look at the results we had much higher turnout and despite this being a three way race our candidate almost won despite Rahm’s meddling.
The Tea Baggers are not drawing in new voters for the GOP look at all the other races.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7850#more-7850
High turnout elections means are base is motivated. our candidates beat Blue Dogs across the board means the country is going even more Left.
Conclusion voters are paying attention to the issues.
We win high turnout elections because the voters are pissed about the issues and feel they have to vote. The GOP wins low turnout elections because they can always rally the 20%ers with wedge social issues and gossip/lies.
The GOP needs voters to be uninterested in the issues so the Gossip/ Lies don’t get much attention and scare away Moderate voters.
If only Rand Paul had talked to Rachel before the election we would have seen even better voting totals.
Jon do you realize how amazing it is that with 10% unemployment we are getting this kind of voter turnout?
Normally the party in charge of the WH, House and Senate loses seats when unemployment is this high.
But look at the numbers unemployment has been around 10% for months and we are getting high voter turnout.
The GOP should be getting these numbers. Why they are not getting these numbers is the question.
The DC establishment backed the 3rd place candidate. So us DFH’s were right all along in wanting Case out and telling the DCCC to butt out. The DCCC screws up again. Shocking, I know!!
I don’t see any bad news here if anything Rahm lost again add that to his other losses and the message is clear Blue Dogs can’t win we can.
The Blue Dogs can’t hide behind their voters and say they don’t want Lefty ideas. They can’t say by voting Left they leave themselves open to the GOP.
As a libertarian, I think this is actually a good thing. Vote for the candidate you want. I don’t have a problem with a plurality of the vote being decisive. It worked out well for Clinton in 1992, and I expect it will do alright for democrats in the fall (I expect some tea party independents to split traditional republican votes).
I’m not in favor of instant runoff voting in any circumstance. I think it prejudices the voters towards acceptance of a two party system (this is my opinion, and I accept that many people have the opposite opinion). I would prefer a secondary runoff 1-2 weeks later.
As for Hawaii, this will probably be raised up locally now. I think they will decide for themselves what works best for Hawaii.
Come on. Credit where it’s due. It wasn’t just stupid election law, it was also the stupid DCCC inexplicably running a blue
douchedog candidate in a very liberal district.We now have plan to get the DCCC under our control and the House and Senate Leadership after the election.
We have to plan what we want to do with a more Lefty Congress than the present one.
Cuts to Social Security should be phrased do you want your Social Security to pay for more war? Make a Stand on SS we get older voters the GOP’s last base.
Make a stand against oil companies we get the oil slick states. Make a stand on building Electric and Hybrid cars to reduce oil demand we get automaker states.
Provide jobs we get the unemployed in every state.
Let Rahm keep his job making Dem policy we lose everything.
Ironically, this will be twice that that SE laws have bitten Hawaii in the arse… Case was the first past the goalpost upon Patsy Mink’s untimely demise, in a highly contentious race…! 8-(
Was this election law or Dem Primary rules why were 2 Dems going for the same spot? I thought Primaries were suppose to weed out the loser so the best candidate from a particular party could win?
Talk about misleading! I saw an AP headline earlier that said “Obama’s Home District Goes Republican”. How stupid is that? Djou winning 39.5 percent while the front running Democrats split 58.4 percent is hardly “going Republican”.
Duverger’s law states that a winner-take-all electoral system tends towards 2 parties. There is at least a possibility of party replacement with IRV.
It would have been far, far better had the seat gone to the Demofatcats?
Obama Administration on the Verge of Giant Sell-Out to Conservatives — How to Stop Them
The Obama Administration’s move to the right is about to give conservatives a victory they could not have anticipated, even under Bush: the privatization of public housing.
It would have been faaar better had the seat gone to the Democrats?
“Barack Obama, running for office, gave perhaps the best and clearest characterization of what democracy is about. Democracy, he has said, is based on empathy — on citizens caring about and for each other. That is why we have principles like freedom and fairness for everyone. It is why social responsibility is necessary. The monstrous alternative is having a society where no one cares about or for anyone else.
HUD, under the Obama administration, is about to take a giant step toward that monstrous society.”
http://www.alternet.org/news/146961/obama_administration_on_the_verge_of_giant_sell-out_to_conservatives_–_how_to_stop_them/?page=2
Is it just me or does nobody in real life talk about Republicans or Tea Baggers openly with enthusiasm about their plans when they win the election?
Nobody makes their case in the bars, coffee shops etc but whats real surprising people are talking politics.
The debate seems to be Us vs people who blame the GOP for why Obama is not getting stuff done. The Blue Dog position seems to be ignored or its just assumed they are corporate or fundy hack pols saying what they are paid to say.
Obama outside the Blogosphere seems untouched by the taint.
Selling Hud homes sounds like a stealth bank loan to the banks to increase their listed assets.
What’s the largest number of ballots that instant-runoff has been used on? (I’m familiar with how it works, thank you.)
Nobody sells homes in this market without taking a loss. If Obama sold those homes when the housing market was great then yes the government would make money.
Instead we sell at a low price and chances are poor people many of them African Americans will be forced out by higher rents as the banks charge more.
Realize, if you approve of letting the Dem ‘establishment’ run the show, then we wouldn’t have the pleasure of watching Sestak kick that Dem/Rep/Dem 80 year old Arlen Specter to the curb. Jeez. It’s time for the establishment to back the fuck off and let democracy flower again. Get rid of the old white guys (bye bye, John McCain, et al.) and let someone else come in. If the newbies screw up, we’ll go after them. God willing, the newbies won’t be worse than the sludge that is being cleaned out.
Howzit bra…! Much of what you say is true, however, Colleen would’ve won if Case/DCCC hadn’t stuck it’s nose where it don’t belong…! Case thoroughly pissed us Outer Islanders off…! Btw, D’jou had better lay low in DC…! He’s wont to be the next Michelle Bachmann if doesn’t watch out…!
Not the first time the Dem party machine would rather lose an election to the GOP than to a Dem who isn’t in it’s pocket.
It’s not the stupid election law. It’s the stupid Democrats who ran two candidates who split the vote.
It is used by Australia for their lower house and will likely be used by the UK for its next parliamentary election.
Yesss, and now in an effort to keep anti R Senate Candidate Millionaire Lowden voters from the polls, Nevada has decided to Disenfranchise Chickens in the coming November Elections.
Joyce McCloy can’ seem to keep her arguments straight about her opposition to instant runoff voting. She blames IRV for preventing election of a Republican last year in Burlington’s mayoral race last year when the votes of the two more progressive candidates came together to defeat that Republican even though he in the first round with a third of the vote -very much like the Hawaii race.
She says the Burlington rules were unusual, but in fact they were the usual ones, and the winner Bob Kiss would have won under all the forms of IRV being used anywhere in governmental elections. And any variation of those rules would have elected a Democrat in the congressional race on Saturday no matter what she says because Democrats had majority support in this district.
McCloy then criticizes IRV in San Francisco for often electing the candidate who leads in the first round — even though voters have the right to do that too. Io so doing she bungles the Ed Jew story, including missing the fact that he had the most votes in the first round, was the clear candidate of choice of Asian American voters in an Asian American majority district and did serve time in office — and the fact that not everyone elected in an IRV election is an angel is as weak an argument against it as would be one against having elections at all because not everyone who wins an election is an angel.
IRV keeps being used in more American elections, including this year for the first time in three California cities, Oakland, Berkeley and San Leandro. It will be put on the ballot as a national referendum in the UK. Follow the latest at http://www.twitter.com/fairvote and instantrunoff.com
Sen. Inouye interfered in this campaign and that is what helped lead to this defeat.
“Hey Jon, were you saying the same thing when Ross Perot split the Republican vote that led to a Clinton victory?”
I doubt it. 39+ % is nothing to sneeze at and the Democrat machine is hiding serious information in violation of Hawaii’s very own “sunlight laws”. The lies, corruption, false promises, massive spending, not reading the very product that will effect every American has sealed the fate of many liberal incumbents. And this includes republicans.
By the way, which certification of nomination form did Nancy Pelosi provide the Hawaii Sec. of State to get Barry Soetoro and the village idiot on the ballot? The one that references the constitutional requirements or the one that does not? That would be an interesting story for you to pursue.
Actually, this short-lived win by Charles “Soup” Djou could be a blessing in disguise (short-lived in the sense that there will be another election for this seat later this year, but only between a Democrat and probably Djou).
Why a blessing?
“A Republican candidate has prevailed over a crowded special election to represent President Obama’s HAWAIIAN BIRTHPLACE in the House of Representatives.” (quote from Washington Monthly post quote)
If right-wing “news” outlets play-up Djou’s “win” like I expect they will, then they will highlight that President Obama was born in HAWAII, not in Kenya or anywhere else, which will create even more cognitive dissonance among the Birther Tea Party Republicans who get their “news” only from Faux “News” and other right-wing propagandist “news” outlets, probably causing their heads to explode and all the peas to spill out.
Other than a few bragging rights, I am not sure what this election actually does for the GOP.
Don’t they have to defend the seat in November? (Six months from now?) And, at that time, it will be one Democrat versus one Republican, and they will lose. Because it is a very Democratic seat.
Hawaii was a plantation economy after the whites showed up, so how ironic it is that the modern Party of the Plantation won a seat there. He can hang out with his Southern boys in Washington.
And in reply to Hugh 25: The Democrats did not “run” two candidates. In special elections in Hawaii, there are no primaries or run-offs. So, it’s a free-for-all, with winner (i.e., plurality winner) taking the election.
There were actually about 4 or 5 Dems and 3 or 4 Repugs, plus some independents, all vying for votes.
There was no conscious decision by any Dem boss to “run” more than one candidate. Indeed, Rahm and DCCC tried to knock out Hanabusa in favor of good old boy Ed Case, who had actually been a Blue Dog Caucus member when he was in the House. Conversely, Inouye, Akaka, and the unions were none too happy that Case stayed in. (Since Case ignores anything that they say, it would have been a waste of breath for them to have tried to get him to drop out. They may have tried indirect pressure through Rahm and DCCC, but we and the Hawaii Dem establishment know that Rahm and DCCC love Case.)
So, Hugh, don’t blame the party for this. Blame the law. We’re working on getting it changed.
OTOH, to make lemonade out of this Djou lemon:
a) Djou will have to run again in November;
b) At least this kept Case out of the seat, and prevented his using this for his next political step. [I have no doubt he'll try for the seat of whichever of the current Hawaii Senators retires/dies first];
c) Case got fewer votes than Hanabusa. Maybe this too will quell his future candidacy, although with his $$$, he can just run and run and run;
d) Hopefully it showed a few more people what nimrods the “establishment” Democrats are, in that they’d allow this idiocy to happen.
New slogan: “Ed Case: the Tammy Duckworth of Hawaii.” [For those with short memories, Rahm tried to cram Tammy --who does have many redeeming qualities, but was a sure loser in the race Rahm was promoting her for -- down the throats of Illinois voters back in 2006 when he was head of the DCCC.]
1. thank you r&r, as a fan of IRV you saved a lot of legwork in tracking down ms mcelroy’s disinformation… her puzzling contention that a 1st round leader tending to win IRV tallies disproves it’s usefulness, is, um, stupid… *of course* a 1st round leader would tend to win, duh…
the other weird contention that it would discourage third/etc parties, is equally nonsensical…
both by the nature of the tallying, *AND* by specific (unconstitutional ?) exclusionary ‘laws’, ‘rules’, and ‘customs’, the two-faced Korporate Money Party prevents third parties from participating in any virtually every avenue of meaningful political participation…
2. further, i maintain projecting *current* voter practices under an enforced duopoly (with minor distinctions between their pro-korporate agenda), is not valid… probably 80-90% of the sheeple have NO IDEA of what IRV is, nor -most importantly- the impact it could have in increasing the range of VIABLE, third party candidates for offices at all levels…
and *THAT* -increasing the political range of viable candidates- is EXTREMELY valuable in and of itself: it FORCES the others -dem’rats and rethugs AND any others- to pay attention to the popular issues/ideas the other candidates are espousing and/or running on that prove popular amongst the great unwashed…
as it is now, one of the main problems of the limited political debate and stifled infotainment, is that the two dominant parties simply agree to be ‘civil’, ‘polite’, and -you know- ‘judicious’ in NOT discussing a myriad of issues, causes, ideas, and solutions which are simply NOT ALLOWED to have meaningful public discourse…
it DOES NOT MATTER if 51-99% of us li’l peeps DON’T want to go to war with (fill in the blank), The They ™ have determined that ‘our’ (sic) War Machine needs to be fed, so war it is… not a word about ‘peace’…
it DOES NOT MATTER if 51-99% of us stupid saps WANT a single payer REALLY reformed healthcare system for all, The They ™ have determined they need to parasitize billions more off of our sick, unemployed asses, so pay we MUST… not a word about what we want…
and so on, ad infinitum…
3. pet hobbyhorse to follow:
Paper Ballots
Hand Counted
Locally Reported
computer-based voting systems are NOT reliable, they are NOT trustworty, they are NOT auditable, they are NOT fair, and they are NOT transparent…
that *should* be the end of that discussion… but it isn’t…
why not ?
(hmmm, i wonder if it serves the purposes of enriching cronies and providing surefire control of votes for the power elites… hmmm… eek, what will the herds of innocent soccer moms think ?)
thanks for excellent article, i am hopeful that IRV (if instituted universally) could provide a non-violent means of reclaiming OUR democracy and overturning the tables of the moneychangers…
totherwise…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Well, seems we have another city which has dumped Ranked Choice voting in the selection of its Mayor:
Sunnyvale, CA.
“Council members decided the ranked system was too complicated for the public to understand”
I believe Sunnyvale is in the heart of the Silicon Valley where there are probably more engineers per capita than anywhere else.
http://www.mercurynews.com/sunnyvale/ci_15130532?source=rss