Reply to Hugh Tobin's letter of 12/08/96

[Hugh Tobin]

donald at mich.com wrote:
> 
> Greetings to Methods list,
> 
> Hugh Tobin wrote:>
> >In the case of an executive office, leaving the position vacant is not
> >an option; the buck must stop somewhere.  "Status quo" means the incumbent
> >wins.
> 
> Donald writes: If no candidate receives a majority - do not panic - there
> is time between the election and the date of taking office for us to call
> for a "Follow-up Election".
>

That time period is allowed for an orderly transition to the new
officeholder, after he or she is known.  If we need to allow for another
campaign and vote, then more time is necessary.  Either a deadlock
extends the term of the incumbent, in which case his backers have reason
to engineer a deadlock, or we push back the inauguration in all cases
(e.g. to March for the President, as it once was), and have a longer
lame duck period every time the office changes hands.  Neither seems
attractive.
 
> Hugh Tobin wrote: >The alternative should be that the legislative body
> chooses the executive.
> 
> Donald writes: No No No - that would be like the parlimentary form of
> government - let us keep a seperation between the branches of government.
>

We have this possibility already for President, of course.  Powers are
separated even if one branch selects the other, so long as the person
selected does not serve at the pleasure of the body doing the
selection.  Will a selected President unduly defer to Congress in the
hope of getting reappointed if there is a deadlock, or will he try to
gain political support from the people in order to win reelection
directly?  I think the latter, but as a safeguard we could have the
newly elected House appoint, if the voters choose this option pairwise
over each candidate.  Not knowing who will control the Congress, the
President would have still less reason to cater to its whims on the
chance of a deadlock in the election.  If this isn't good enough, then
say the legislative body may not choose the incumbent. 

> Hugh Tobin wrote: > For judicial races the option of appointment by the
> >governor should probably be added or substituted, so as to avoid excess
> >caseloads, or deadlocks due to an even number on a supreme court.
> 
> Donald writes: I would ask you to consider having an even number on the
> Supreme Court at all times. Any small body should be an even number because
> it is not acceptable to have a measure pass by the vote of only one person.
> If there is a vacancy on the body the measure must still pass by the same
> even number that is the majority of the full body.
> 
Legal cases must be decided one way or the other.  A 4-4 tie affirms the
lower court, with the same effect for the parties to the case as a 5-4
ruling for respondent, but with still less moral authority and without
providing a precedent that others can rely upon in conducting their
affairs.

> Hugh Tobin wrote: >
> >I do not think "hold a new election soon" should be on the ballot,
> 
> Donald Writes: Having a request for a new election on the ballot is new to
> me - I'll think on it some more. But if we have the rule that a candidate
> must win by a majority (a majority of a share or quota in the case of multi
> seat elections) that should raise the call for a "Follow-up Election" in
> the event no candidate has a majority in a certain race - without the need
> of a request on the ballot.
> 
> Hugh Tobin wrote: >
> >this plays into the hands of well-organized or well-funded extremists or
> >special interests who can do a better job of getting out the vote in a
> >later special election with smaller turnout, after the general
> >electorate has tired of the process.
> 
> Donald writes: What you say here also applies to the primary election held
> before the general election.
>

I don't think so.  Turnout for primaries is usually lower, and many
races are not seriously contested in the primary (there are other cases
in which only the primary matters, I recognize).  In any case, after the
combined effect of primary hype and media overload for the general
election, the average voter is at least doubly tired of it, and probably
too disgusted by the level of debate to contemplate a renewal of it.

> Hugh Tobin wrote: >
> >To expect the average voter to come back to the polls to vote
> >again in a single race after the general election, is too much.
> 
> Donald writes: I disagree. In the first place these "Follow-up Elections"
> will be rare. Most single seat elections will produce a winner with a
> majority. In the second place the fact that the voters did not elect any
> candidate for this race with a majority will show their concern for this
> race - also their interest will be increased because this fact of not
> electing any candidate with a majority will attract new candidates into the
> race in the "Follow-up Election". Having the general election and maybe the
> rare time of having a "Follow-up Election" will be less boring to the
> public than having the current primary election plus the general election
> plus we still have the rare times of some race not having a candidate with
> a majority - and no acceptable solution.
> 
> Donald,

The main point is that a single race for a lesser office will not draw
nearly the turnout that a presidential contest plus a host of other
offices and initiatives will draw.  Can anyone post figures for the
special runoffs in 3 Texas districts tommorrow, for comparison with the
turnout in the general election in those districts?

-- Hugh Tobin