by Jon Phillips
I
guess that unlike Dan Newhouse, Jaime Herrera Beutler's constituency had moved sufficiently to,
or past, the center such that a Democrat could win under our Top-Two
System. It’s a system that statistically favors stability in the center
(as a game theory problem) of any particular
District or the State as a whole since the two main Parties cannot
effectively control access to the ballot box in the primary.
Statistically, Top Two should put the outcome of the general election
closer to the average of the “public mind” over a series of election
seasons.
Our
4th District’s constituency hasn’t drifted far enough left to replace Dan,
but it is not far enough to the right for a Trumpian election denier to
win either. Dan took advantage of that fact. If we still had a partisan
primary system, the Trumper might have won and Dan (who also voted to
remove Trump) would likely have been sent home
Although
Doug White made it into the general election, having the 2nd largest tally in
the primary, Dan bested him by a landslide margin in the general. That
was an expected outcome.
I
wish more States would go to Top Two or Ranked Choice (Alaska has
demonstrated that the right wing may not be able to win there for
federal positions, and neither can the left wing). Since AK has only one
Congressional District (it’s a tiny population), gerrymandering is
impossible, and also greatly simplifies the process under Ranked Choice.
I
have my doubts about Ranked choice, except possibly for small
population States (e.g., the 5 single District States). I think it’s too
easy to attack with disinformation since there’s a culture in the US
that expects rapid simple answers on election outcomes and people
confuse the need for additional time or complexity with potential for
fraud. Ranked Choice, is a multi-step counting algorithm to come to a
conclusion.
Getting
people to accept a single step counting process is difficult enough. At
least that’s my opinion. Since I can understand how Ranked Choice
works, in principle, it has some advantages over Top Two in terms of
favoring the statistical center (it probably reduces variance over Top
Two from election to election in a sequence).
But
I think the extra time and complexity gives too much room to the
election denier mob to whip up trouble — especially in larger more
complex States. We’ll see whether it lasts in Alaska, etc. It’s already
under attack. If not, I hope they don’t back up all the way to a
partisan primary system like they had before their 2020 Initiative
cycle. Palin might come back in that case and that could move State’s
politics noticeably rightward. AK has a serious independent and
libertarian streak. That can be used to counter that a partisan primary
limits individual’s freedom to choose.
It
was delicious to watch Palin lose and the moderates sweep AK in 2022. That election was the first Ranked Choice implementation year and probably the
only thing that saved the center right Murkowski (though she would
likely win Top Two as well — she won on a write-in previous to this
election cycle, that’s the definition of small d “democratic
popularity”). Also the Democrats got the single House seat. It will also
be interesting to see if the recent shift to Ranked Choice moves
Sullivan’s (Sen. R -AK) rhetoric more toward the center before his term
ends in 2026. I wonder what he might say in 2024 as early positioning.
In
2016, Sullivan took a clear position against Trump, but dropped it in 2020
when he had to run under a partisan primary system and Trump’s nutty
cult following was maximal. Sullivan’s resume is fairly impressive.
Based on his education and experience, I would expect him to be a center
right pragmatist, not a Trumper. Former A/S of State in DOS, worked for
the Bush WH, full Col (reserves) Marine Corps, former AG of AK, DJ from
Harvard Law. Definitely well to the right of me, but doesn’t smell like
some flaky Freedom Caucus Trump lover.
People
should think harder about the value of election reforms that could
tremendously help on federal office at the State level. I think that US
public opinion writ large is to the left of the US House. Gerrymandering
is a significant part of that. But partisan primary systems also play a
role. To fix either of those is tough since both Parties engage in
those abusive behaviors. They also limit small d “democracy” too much in
my opinion
I
also think that if we had more ideological stability in election
outcomes every two years at State and National level, it could help calm
populism and work in the interest of more reforms. Perhaps broader
interest in reforms blunting gerrymandering and campaign finance might
occur in a more pragmatic environment? We really need to dial down the
Nation’s political temperature. It’s dangerously high.
It
would be nice to be able to put an election bumper sticker on my car
without worrying about vandalism. I always had one until the last 2
elections. I had an Obama sign in my yard and no one bothered it and I
didn’t give a thought to the prospect that someone might — even though I
lived in a GOP majority neighborhood. We should try to dial back to
that level of comity in political discourse.
