Tweet
Montana Senator Jon Tester
This year features an usually high number of competitive Senate races that could result in a candidate winning with less than a majority of the vote.
The US Senate races in Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and Maine have at least three candidates on the ballot polling at more than six percent. In these close elections the candidates in third place could end up act as a “spoiler” by drawing votes away from one of the more popular candidates, because we use an inferior voting system.
In the Indiana, Montana and Missouri senate races some recent polls have shown the Democrats with a small lead over the Republicans. Importantly, though, all three races also feature a Libertarian candidates whose current standing in the polls is greater than the margin of difference between the Republican and the Democrat.
For example the New Howey/DePauw Poll of Indiana found Democrat Joe Donnelly has a two point lead over Republican Richard Mourdock, but Libertarian Andrew Horning is currently polling at 7 percent.
This dynamic may not only potentially hurt Republicans this cycle. Angus King is the independent candidate running in the Maine Senate race but is expect to caucus with the Democrats. There is a chance that Democrat Cynthia Dill, who is currently in third place, could end up splitting enough of the the center left vote with King that it allows Republican Charlie Summers to win a plurality victory.
Indications are that most of the supporters of the Libertarian candidates would prefer a Republican-controlled Senate. Similarly, Dill’s supporter in Maine would probably prefer that King wins rather than Summers. Yet if these voters stick with their first choices and don’t switch to their second choice in the final days of the election, it could result in their least favorite candidates winning with pluralities.
If we used a sane election system, like other democracy that have run-off elections or alternative voting to deal with elections featuring more than two candidates, this won’t be an issue. Voters would be able to support their preferred candidates and still decide among the remaining candidates if their top choice was not popular enough.
Unfortunately, we are stuck with our current bad election rules. As a result a handful of third-place candidates might indirectly decide several senate race and theoretically even control of the chamber this year.
Photo by DoubleSpeak Media under Creative Commons License
8 Comments
I blame Lani Guinier.
The Republicrats will want to end the “spoiler” situation by creating a Top Two election law, in which the top two candidates in the primary are the only ones whose names go on the ballot in the final election.
“If we used a sane election system …”
What are you saying, Jon?
“Unfortunately, we are stuck …”
Stuck and insane (presumably).
Why?
Is it not because the political class, the REPUBLICANS and the DEMOCRATS, essentially, WANT things the way they are?
Practical and pragmatic.
Can we extrapolate, from recent, or even longer, experience, that the REPUBLICANS and the DEMOCRATS, together, DO NOT WANT any substantive change? To “stuck and insane”, that is?
Or, are things the way they are owing to accident or the instructions of the equivalent of the invisible hand, call it the jack-booted “foot”, if you like, of “tradition” or of some “creator” who has need of making sport of his not-very-well-endowed creatures … the ones that go around exclaiming how clever they are and “in the image” and all that?
If we are not to premiss our “stuck and insane” plight on divine intervention or authority, than how, in heaven’s name or even in the name of heck, do you imagine that anything can change if we keep voting for “more of the same”.
Never mind, I realize that such a question is unfair and smacks of the imponderable …
Perhaps, the only parties who are permitted to “play” have a “contract” of sorts, between them … and the obvious solution lies in all of the rest of us insisting, firmly and periodically, that the problem is the interlopers, the third party scum?
It certainly couldn’t have any thing to do with something like money, could it? This “it” being the “stuck” thing and the “insane”, um what did you call them?
Oh, yes, the election “laws”.
Considering the perilous state of the RULE of Law, perhaps it is a thing that these “laws” do not seem under ANY significant “assault” or likely to be changed in any meaningful way, shape, or “form” owing to the “stuck” aspect.
It is a good and grand thing we are Number One, despite all this insurmountable stuckness.
Perhaps, if we keep doing the same thing, over and over, everything will turn out just fine?
DW
So according to the masterminds of the Democratic Party, the Democrat is considered the spoiler in Maine, and her supporters should vote instead for the third-party candidate who hasn’t even pledged to vote with the Democrats?
http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247853-maine-democrats-say-dc-leaders-are-too-confident-about-angus-king
Bwahahahaha! Next time someone tells you third parties are spoilers, ask them about Angus.
Third Party candidates don’t “hurt” the loathsome legacy party candidates…
The loathsome legacy party candidates hurt themselves by being loathsome…
Get it? It’s really quite simple…
and I’ll be voting for Jill Stein and progressive third party candidates on down the ballot.
It’s positively bizarro to hold the electorate responsible for the failings of a candidate and opine about how unfair it is that they won’t drag your “popular” candidate of choice across the finish line.
Perhaps the Democrats would do better if, I don’t know, they actually followed their party platform, pandered to it’s base and didn’t play punch the hippy whenever the opportunity arises.
But no, instead it is ALL the ELECTORATE’S fault that the Democratic leadership took progressive policies like single payer off the table, or that the Democratic Leadership has decided to ante into austerity for the elderly, ad nauseaum.
It’s nice to see the blame the victim mentality is alive and well and that LEADERSHIP from either side doesn’t have a responsibility in the world when it comes to appealing to people. (rolls eyes)
ditto all the above.
I am voting third party every chance I get.
Also, here in the great state of NC, we have runoffs for EVERY primary, so why the heck not for the general election too? Does not seem to hard to me.
I did not vote for O`Bama because the word democracy was not among his Campaign site issues.
In the Republican Primaries I did not vote for Rom Paul because `Mr Constitutions` website did not mention Jury nullification.
Libertarian Gary Johnson’s website does not mention democracy either – except to complain: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gop-accused-of-attempting-to-keep-gov-gary-johnson-off-ballots