Nothing to Fight Over but Personalities and Trivialities

The two-party state and duopoly system of government is today virtually antithetical to constitutional government: Democratic-Republican party government represents a crisis of democracy and representative republican government.  In an opinion piece at the Maryland Gazette, Blair Lee provides a rundown of the situation following the primaries in the Old Line State:

In Afghanistan, voters dodged Taliban rockets and death threats, waited hours at polling places and dealt with widespread fraud. Yet, voter turnout was 40 percent. Maryland's Election Day was peaceful, sunny and went off without a hitch, yet voter turnout was only 24 percent, the lowest on record. . . .

I believe, voters stayed away in droves because there wasn't much to vote for. Thanks to gerrymandering, closed primaries, one-party government and the power of incumbency, a vast number of candidates, including the comptroller and the attorney general, ran unopposed.

In the races for the General Assembly, 120 candidates ran unopposed, including a majority of the incumbent state senators. And 78 percent of the incumbent local County Council members and county commissioners were safely re-elected.  Where spirited primaries offered voters real choices, turnout went up. For instance, Baltimore's brutal state's attorney's race boosted the city's turnout from 15.1 percent in 2006 to 21.5 percent this year.

But in most counties the closed primary system eliminated real ideological choices, resulting in like-minded Democrats running against like-minded Democrats and like-minded Republicans running against like-minded Republicans. In these closed affairs, devoid of issues, the candidates had nothing to fight over but personalities and trivialities.

Democratic-Republican Party Government is a Crisis of Democracy

In recent weeks, the so-called "enthusiasm gap" between likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters has been cause for serious concern among Democratic strategists. In a post at FireDogLake, JonWalker articulates the problem faced by partisan Democrats as if it were the result of third party competition. He writes:

It is sometimes much easier to understand American elections if you look at it as a three party system instead of a two party system. While Republicans and Democrats tend to be the only two parties that win most elections, there is the informal “just stay home” third party which is often the top choice for many Americans and can end up tipping the balance in many elections. In many elections, easily one quarter or more of people who have voted at least once before will not go to the polls, a share of the vote that many parties in true multi-party democracies would envy. Tom Jensen at PPP found that the alternative choice of just staying home could cost Democrats control of the state legislature in North Carolina . . . While Jensen is only looking at North Carolina, I suspect that we are seeing almost the exact same pattern elsewhere.

I think Walker underestimates the strength and numbers of the Just Stay Home Party. Even in the "historic" presidential election of 2008, in which voter turnout was higher than it had been at any time over the previous forty years, still only 56.8% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Over 43% of eligible voters sided with the Just Stay Home Party, far exceeding the turnout for Democrat Barack Obama, who likely received votes from under 30% of eligible voters. The Just Stay Home Party isn't just "the top choice for many Americans," as Walker states. Arguably, it is the top choice for the large majority of Americans in the great majority of elections. In the 1996 presidential race there were more Americans who sided with the Just Stay Home Party than there were who cast a ballot at all! If the figures linked above are to be believed, that is. But is that really so hard to believe? And what does that say about the state of American democracy under the conditions of Democratic-Republican party government? Democratic-Republican party government is a crisis of democracy.

Orwell in New York: Predictable Partisanship and Non-Partisan Elections

As you may or may not know, the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, has assembled a commission to review and suggest reforms to the city's charter. Among the most prominent issues being considered by the commission is that of nonpartisan elections. New York is one of the few cities in the country which still has partisan elections. According to statistics at the National League of Cities, of the nation's ten largest urban centers, only three still retain partisan elections: New York, Chicago and Philadelphia. A proponent of non-partisan elections, Nancy Hanks has been following the commission very closely over the past few weeks at the Hankster, be sure to check in there for updates on that front.

In early May, an article in the New York Times laid out some background issues on the measure and the coalitions that were likely to take shape both for and against the idea. Ironically, the antagonism has coalesced along a predictably familiar partisan fault line: leading Democrats and the Working Families Party are strongly against the reform, while Republicans and the Independence Party have come out in support of it. From the NYT:

Several Republican leaders have also expressed openness to the idea . . . Many of the city’s Democratic leaders are steadfastly opposed to nonpartisan elections.

supporters, including leaders of the city’s Independence Party , said that party politics had outlived its usefulness in city elections . . . In a strongly worded letter to the Charter Revision Commission . . . leaders from a cross section of groups, including the Working Families Party, the N.A.A.C.P. and Common Cause New York, said that asking voters to consider nonpartisan elections “strikes us as highly cynical” [Emphases added.]

Yesterday, Democratic leaders held a press conference to voice their opposition to nonpartisan elections in NYC. Revealingly, however, rather than defend partisan elections, speakers instead emphasized the virtues of the two-party system, which is not surprising, but all the more absurd, given that New York City has a one-party state. The New York City Council has 51 members: 46 Democrats and 5 Republicans. From the New York Observer's report on the press conference:

Outside New York's Municipal Building on Wednesday, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio stood at the podium--backed by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and former comptroller Bill Thompson--to dismiss the notion of nonpartisan elections . . .

"Nonpartisan elections undermine our democracy," said the towering Mr. de Blasio, who appeared to have something of a sunburn. [He continued:] "They create a system that is dominated by wealth, suppresses voter turnout and makes it harder for minority candidates to compete." . . . "I think we can all agree the two-party system has served America and served New York pretty well," Mr. Markowitz said.

Are such statements not perfectly Orwellian in character? The professed deference to the two-party system is nothing but a cynical defense of the ruling political class – which, in this case, comprises a one-party state. Further, imagine the gall of any Democratic or Republican leader who would defend the two-party system's one-party state by implying that it is not dominated by wealth, that it doesn't suppress voter turnout, that it does not work against the interests of minority candidates. This disconnect is particularly obvious in the case of New York City. As mentioned above, one party has monopolized the city council. The mayor's office was purchased by Michael Bloomberg for $102 million in 2009. Voter turnout numbers in 2006 reveal that roughly 2 out of 3 New Yorkers opted not to cast a ballot (these are numbers for the state, but are likely comparable with the city). Finally, even despite the successes of minority candidates, structural racism is indisputably endemic to the ruling parties, their politics and their policies. We have not even broached the topic of topic of independent or third party politics, ballot access issues etc.

The Democrats' defense of "democracy" here demonstrates the willingness of the ruling political class to engage in outright falsification of reality to maintain the system that ensures their hold on power.

A Crisis of Democracy? Voter Turnout in the Pennsylvania and Kentucky Primary Elections

Is the non-vote a vote of no confidence in the two-party state and duopoly system of government? We are told that yesterday's two most closely watched US Senate primary elections represent a significant defeat for the Democratic-Republican political establishment: Democrat Joe Sestak defeated career politician Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania (54% to 46%), while Republican Rand Paul routed Trey Grayson in Kentucky (59% to 35%). (Via Memeorandum.) Yet, these results are not nearly as impressive as they may seem when one considers them in the context of overall voter turnout numbers, which hovered around 30% in both states. US News and World Report provided the following statistics in the case of Kentucky:

Kentucky Secretary of State spokesman Les Fugate said early turnout appeared to be low, but was expected to be around 30 percent statewide. In 2008, with a presidential primary on the ballot, turnout came in at between 25 and 30 percent. In 2007, with a gubernatorial primary on the ballot, turnout was about 21 percent.

Pennsylvania's Commissioner of Elections sounds almost as if he'd be surprised if a third of all voters cast ballots in the election. From a local CBS News affiliate:

a disproportionately low number of voters will actually cast their ballots on Primary Day 2010 according to Pennsylvania's Commissioner of Elections Chet Harhut. "I think, generally speaking, it will be lower than a Presidential (race)," Harhut said. "I think if we can reach the 30% turnout, it'll be a good day." In 2006, the last time Pennsylvania held an off-year, primary election statewide turnout was 18%.

Let's consider the actual numbers in the Democratic and Republican Senate primary races in Pennsylvania and Kentucky respectively. According to the elections returns page at the PA Department of State, in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak received 564,169 votes (54%) to Arlen Specter's 481,351 (46%). Thus, 1,045, 520 Democrats voted in the US Senate primary. As I noted yesterday, PA's primaries are closed, so only Democrats could vote in this race, and there are 4,310,317 registered Democrats in Pennsylvania (out of 8,443,188 registered voters). Just over 24% of registered Democrats cast ballots in the PA Democratic primary. And, in the end, 13% of registered Democrats voted for Sestak, providing him with a "major upset." Considered as a percentage of total registered voters, these numbers are even more telling: just over 12% of all registered voters cast ballots in this race and Joe Sestak received the support of just 7% of all registered voters!

Now let's turn to Kentucky. According to the state's most recent voter registration statistics reports, the Bluegrass State has 2, 851, 996 registered voters. Of them, 1,618,011 are Democrats, 1,044872 are Republicans and 189,113 are registered "other." The State Board of Elections puts voters turnout in yesterday's primary election at 32.65%, with 931,145 voters casting a ballot. 351,912 voters participated in the US Senate Republican primary: Rand Paul received 206, 812 votes, or just under 59%, soundly defeating Trey Grayson, who received 124,710 votes, or 35.5%. Considered as a percentage of registered Republicans, these numbers look quite different. Just 20% of registered Republicans cast a ballot for Paul, while Grayson garnered the support of only 12% of the same. Interestingly, as a percentage of total registered voters, Paul's support in Kentucky is roughly equivalent to that of Sestak: only 7% of registered voters cast a ballot in favor of Rand Paul in Kentucky!

And this brings us back to my original question: is the non-vote a vote of no confidence in the two-party state and duopoly system of government? Less than a third of all voters participated in the Kentucky and Pennsylvania primary elections. Democratic and Republican US Senate candidates are capable of scoring "major upsets" with the support of just 7% of registered voters. Of course, the apologists of the ruling parties explain such facts away by alternately, and contradictorily, asserting the existence of voter apathy or voter contentment. But is this not a crisis of democracy?