If Norm Coleman was leading Al Franken by 14,000 votes, should we require a do-over election?
That’s a possibility under an elections proposal unveiled today by State Rep. Ann Rest (D-New Hope) and State Rep. Laura Brod (R-New Prague).
I understand the temptation of a runoff in a close election — really I do — though I think it’s a terrible idea. As I’ve written before (twice today, actually), the runoff would inevitably be a lower-turnout election, and shouldn’t supplant a higher-turnout one. The cure is simply worse than the disease.
But there’s a part of the Brod-Rest plan that seems particularly wrong-headed. They’d institute the runoff if the top two candidates finish within a half-percentage point of each other. That’s cribbed from current law which mandates a recount if the margin is that close. The idea is to get rid of the recount and go straight to the runoff.
However, there were 2.9 million votes cast for U.S. Senator this time around. A half percent of 2.9 million is 14,500. Overturning a margin that big would be a travesty. (I’m pretty sure if Al was leading Norm by 1,000 votes right now, this thing would be over. But if you’re ultra-cynical about Norm’s self-interest, let’s say 2,000.)
As we’ve seen in the current race, there are at most a couple thousand votes genuinely in dispute. If you’re going to refine this bad idea, cut that mandatory runoff percentage by a factor of five, to one-tenth of 1 percent.
There are other reasons to oppose this, but I’ll leave that for future discussion. Comments always welcome, though!
One problem with any percentage trigger — no matter how high or low you set it — is that you could still wind up with a borderline case … that is, what if an election came within a few hundred votes of triggering the mandatory runoff? We’d be stuck in same boat, with leading vote getter saying “I won” and the other contender saying, “No, let’s do a recount to see if there should be a runoff.”
I think there is a more fundamental problem. If the threshold for a run off is .05% and that translates into a difference of say 14,331 votes. What if the difference is 14332. Wouldn’t the person behind have the right to recount the vote to determine that they were actually within the 14,331 and therefore entitled to a run-off. Since the proposed remedy is a run-off it doesn’t matter that the actual election totals were 5 votes apart or 100,00. The person behind has an excellent chance of winning in the run-off (maybe a third party was taking their votes in the first race). So the issue of being within the .05% threshold would have to taken just as seriously as the vote itself is taken today (recounts etc).
The ref calls the play. And nowadays, we get instant replay and challenges, but in the end the ref calls the play. We don’t run the play over again.
The election law and practice as it stands now is a snapshot at a more or less instant in time, including the campaign and external events that led up to that instant.
Besides, if there was a run off, Norm’s behavior since the first election might well cost him some support. He will lose less badly sticking with the current votes.
What happens if the runoff is just as close? Another runoff?
The triggering factor for a runoff should be the lack of a majority, not the margin of victory. If, in a multiple candidate field, no candidate wins a majority of votes, take the top two – no matter the margin of one candidate’s lead – and send them to round two.
Once you’re down to a two-candidate field, use the automatic recount when the margin of victory is miniscule.
Due to the nature of elections it is impossible to eliminate the chance of close elections, and the resulting need for recounts. But we can change the system to reduce the likelihood.
How about just using instant runoff voting? Would save the taxpayers millions in comparison to a later runoff, and would include all the voters who showed up on election day–more than who would come back for round two.
Given the facile ways in which Rep. Brod spins EVERY news story for the Republicans, I can’t figure out why Rep. Rest is co-sponsoring this bill with her.
To date Brod has reliably trotted out every Coleman talking point, even when the latest talking points directly rebutted the initial talking points.
This election was close not because Minnesotans were divided, but because we were disgusted by tens of millions of dollars worth of brain-shredding negative ads. The only real solution is to put NONE OF THE ABOVE on our ballots, then require a 50% + 1 vote for election to high office with runoff elections to eliminate spoilers like Barkley.
None of the Above is needed on all U.S. ballots as a failsafe to stop institutionally corrupt political parties from force feeding us hacks and celebrities as candidates.