On October 4, an NBC News/Marist Poll showed that Greg Orman, independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Kansas, has increased his lead over incumbent Republican Pat Roberts to ten points. See here. Scroll down to page five: Orman 48%; Roberts 38%; Libertarian Randall Batson 5%; other 1% (which would need to be write-in votes, because only three candidates are on the ballot); undecided 9%.
Assuming Orman wins, the result will be historic. He would be the first independent ever elected by popular vote to the U.S. Senate who had not already been elected to statewide office in that state.
Open-minded supporters of top-two, who support top-two because they sincerely believe that top-two helps independent candidates, should notice that if Kansas had a top-two system, Orman’s victory would not have been possible. Orman was only at 14% in the SurveyUSA poll on July 25, in third place behind Roberts at 38% and Democratic nominee Chad Taylor at 33%. The Kansas primary was on August 4. Of course, Kansas does not have a top-two system, so the fact that Orman was in third place at the time did not injure him. But if Kansas had a top-two system, Orman would have been eliminated from the general election ballot on August 4.
Even two weeks after the Kansas primary, an August 19 Public Policy Poll showed Orman still in third place, but he was catching up. Roberts was at 32%; Taylor was at 25; Orman 23%. The normal default in is for the vast majority of U.S. voters to assume that they will be voting for a Democrat or a Republican. For a minor party or independent candidate to overcome that default position takes an enormous amount of luck, energy, hard work, and above all, time. It takes time for public opinion to decide that, yes, in this case, the normal default pattern will be overcome. Supporters of top-two might say that if Kansas had a top-two system, Orman could simply have done all his advertising much earlier in the year. But the key to Orman’s success is not his advertising. The key to his success so far is that revelations about both major party nominees came out in the middle of the season, partly after the primary. A top-two system shuts out candidates before the public learns these revelations. Timing is essential in election campaigns, and top-two shuts the door on outsiders far too early in the system. If Oregon were to adopt a top-two system, the results would be even worse, because whereas the Kansas primary is in August, the Oregon primary is in May.
Orman has said he will caucus with the party which controls the Senate after the results of the November election. It will be interested to see if he does what he says he will do.
It looks like – despite my earlier prediction – the GOP may have control of the Senate come January, 2015. If such happens, all eyes will be on Orman to see if this man, who as I understand, either supported Obama financially if not otherwise, will be a man of his word.
While one has a right to change their mind for good reason, will Orman – if elected – become like some others who abandoned their support of the GOP in the U.S. Senate for ideological reasons. I think the last person who did this was the late Senator Arlen Spector who left the GOP and joined the Democrats – only to be defeated when he attempted to seek re-election.
Did you ever see the the Saturday Night Live skit which discussed the question, “What if Napoleon had B-52s at the Battle of Waterloo?”
Both Roberts and Taylor had partisan primaries. Had it been an open primary, with Orman participating, voters might have voted for him. In the Republican primary, some supporters of Wolf may have been voting against Roberts. Or possibly Roberts and Wolf would have advanced. Taylor did not get that many votes in the primary.
What you seem to be missing is that the People should decide who represents them. You appear to have the misguided notion that there is some best representative independent of who the people voter for, and that the election system should be based on getting the “correct” result.
Jim: No, I did not see the SNL skit.
I re-read my reply and it did not to me, appear to be opposing the premise that “People should decide who represents them.” Of course I agree that people have a right to select whomever they desire – even if I personally disagree with their decision. Thank God, we still have that right in the U.S.
I was simply attempting to be academic in putting forth the question of if Orman would remain with the GOP should that party win back the Senate?
But yes, I do think that People sometimes make bad decisions regarding who they vote for – even though they have the right to vote for whomever they wish and make a bad decision. I remember the Presidential Election of 1968. It was the 1st presidential election I was eligible to vote in. I remember Richard Nixon asking Wallace supporters “did they want to make a point, or make a change?”
Well, Nixon won. And we all know the rest of the story.
I meant “…if Orman would remain caucused with the GOP should that party win back the Senate.”
“What you seem to be missing is that the People should decide who represents them. You appear to have the misguided notion that there is some best representative independent of who the people voter for, and that the election system should be based on getting the ‘correct’ result.”
And you honestly think the few months leading up to the spring/summer primary is enough time for people to make an informed decision? You think all the people are going to bother to vote in a primary, something many voters (myself included) don’t give two shits about? Yes, the people (not capitalizing) do have the right to decide who represents them, in a system with as many choices as possible on the general election ballot, not just two.
Top-two will kill opposition parties for good, and is the beginning step to one party rule.
Jed Ziggler: Didn’t know if your reply was meant for Jim or me, but you are so right “Top Two” will kill opposition 3rd parties eventually. And you are so right this will be the beginning of one party rule in America.
I know I won’t live to see it, but it would not surprise me if “Top Two” may be established in Presidential elections. This is especially true if the Republican Party implodes and becomes a regional party.
I would not put it past a Democratic dominated Congress to work for such.
When California had the blanket primary, there were races where the same candidates were on the ballot in both June and November. The results were about the same in both elections were about the same, even though there were more voters in November. In fact, minor party candidates did slightly better in June than they did in November.
Voters in June who had only a couple of months before the election, voted the same as voters such as yourself who had months to study the candidates. Now did they in reality ponder the candidates for 9 months? You may have, but I doubt that many others did.
(People is capitalized when used as a Proper noun.)
And yet Mr. Winger, in his analysis of the Orman campaign, just gave you clear evidence that voters sometimes do need time to consider the candidates & weigh their options. If you’re not going to be ideologically honest and are just going to promote top-two, don’t bother posting, some of us want to have an actual debate that doesn’t involve people who ignore the facts. Yes, some or even most voters have their mind made up by the primaries, but those who don’t, even if it is a small number, don’t deserve to have their choices limited to two come November. Choosing our elected officials is an important job, and one that is hampered by limited choice.
California used a blanket primary in 1999 in the special election in which Audie Bock was elected to the Assembly. In the first round in her special election she only got 8.5%, placing third. Under top two she would have been eliminated. This is a clear indication of a huge difference in voting behavior between the first round and the run-off, and they were only 5 weeks apart.
If Orman wins it will be interesting to see what sort of position he takes and where he Caucasus (sp?). There are good indications that the Democrats have (with his agreement, obviously) taken over his campaign as their own – appropriating the “independent” vote as their own.
Gene: I understood Orman had earlier said he would caucus with whichever party won control of the U.S. Senate. He may have “backpedaled” on this – if this is what he said.
But you do raise a good question of what position(s) he may take on the major issues. Since he has ties with and support of the Democrats, I wouldn’t be surprised if he does vote “Liberal” in the Senate – even if he does caucus with the Republicans – should they pull off the Senate takeover.
However, Orman should know better than anyone else Kansas is a “Conservative” state. If he cast too many “Liberal” votes in the Senate, I would not be surprised he ends up a “single termer.”
In June 1998, there were 17 congressional districts in which there was only candidates from any party, and in which there were one or more minor party candidates.
CA-4, CA-8, CA-11, CA-12, CA-13, CA-16, CA-8, CA-19, CA-21, CA-25, CA-27, CA-31, CA-32, CA-35, CA-47, CA-49, and CA-52.
There were 13 Democrats, 15 Republicans, 12 Libertarians, 7 Natural Law, 2 Reform, 1 Green, 1 P&F, and 1 American Independent (52 total, 24 minor party candidates).
The same candidates faced off in the November 1998 election. 19 of the minor party candidates did poorer than they had in June. The 5 minor party candidates who performed better faced a single major party candidate.
Of 15 candidates who faced two major party opponents, all 15 did poorer.
Of 7 candidates who faced only a single major party opponent, five did better, and one did almost the same (21.13% and 21.09%). Only the American Independent, running against a Democrat did worse. 6 of the 7 would have advance in a Top 2 election (in one race the Libertarian would have eliminated the Natural Law candidate)
Conclusion: minor party candidates attracted more support in June as they would in November. The exceptions were when a voter for a minor party could be interpreted as a negative Not Him.
There were 6 senate and 23 assembly seats that were similarly contested. I will analyze these in a subsequent reply.
We don’t know how Orman would have campaigned if he had to campaign against the other seven candidates, or it had not been illegal for 32% of voters to even vote.
8 candidates filed. 2 of them did not even have to bother campaigning. 4 candidates were eliminated in an election in which the average voter could choose among only 2.25 candidates.
Of the four candidates who did advance, one withdrew, limiting the final choice to three candidates.
There were 5 senate districts, S-18, S-22, S-24, S-30, and S-40 where the same candidates were on both primary and general election ballot. In all 5 instances the minor party candidate received fewer votes in the general election than in the primary.
In S-38, there were four candidates on the primary ballot, one Republican, one Democrat, one Natural Law, and one Libertarian. They were joined on the general election ballot by an independent. Collectively the non-major party candidates did get more votes in the general election; but they might have received less had it been possible to vote for the independent in the primary.
There were 23 Assembly districts with the same set of candidates on both the primary and general election ballot, A-1, A-19, A-21, A-22, A-25, A-26, A-28, A-34, A-36, A-39, A-41, A-42, A-44, A-51, A-56, A-59, A-63, A-69, A-70, A-71, A-72, A-74, A-77, and A-80, with 31 minor party candidates: 16 Libertarian, 6 Natural Law, P&F 3, Reform 3, and Green 2.
In 20 of the 23, the minor party candidates (28 in total) did worse in the general election than they had in the primary.
The three exceptions were in A-39, A-63, and A-70 where the minor party candidate faced a single major party candidate. In effect, some of these votes were for the non-Democrat, or the non-Republican.
A special case was A-77 which had two Libertarians in the primary, along with one Democrat and one Republican. One Libertarian was eliminated by the primary.
But in the general election, the Libertarian nominee barely improved her primary showing (3.45% v 3.39%), despite the elimination of her Libertarian rival.
Please feel free to acknowledge this post.