Only three candidates were on the ballot for the Oregon U.S. Senate race, nominees of the Democratic, Republican, and Constitution Party. It appears likely that the Constitution Party tipped the outcome in this race. The results, as of November 6, are Jeff Merkley (Dem.) 814,054; Gordon Smith (Rep.) 762,035; David Brownlow (Constitution) 86,994.
The Constitution Party candidate will definitely have made the difference. Latest results show the D and R within 1,000 votes, and the slowest-counting counties are those where the D is leading by 2-1. There is no doubt that the D, Merkley, will win.
Go Dave go! Down with empire!
Go Dave go! Down with the empire!
The Rupublican, Gordon Smith, actually ran attack adds against the Constitution Party candidate, David Brownlow. It is the first time I can recall seeing an attack ad by a candidate for a major party against a candidate from a minor party.
The Constitution Party is very proud of Dave Brownlow.
This just goes to show that fighting back may not result in a win but it shows the bullies someone will be ready and waiting to suit up for a fight, each and every election. Otherwise we may as well hand them the keys to this Republic and turn off the lights.
Richard,
This may not be the only Senate race in the US in which a third party has tipped the outcome.
In Alaska Bob Bird of the Alaskan Independence Party currently has 8,919 votes, or 4.02%. This more than the current margin of 3,257 votes (1.47%) between the major party candidates!
The full results are:
Stevens (R) 106,594 48.08%
Begich (D) 103,337 46.61%
Bird (AIP) 8,919 4.02%
Others 2,863 1.28%
I hope Brownlow will have the effect of getting the Oregon Republican Party to join the IRV bandwagon.
This is not the first time recently that a 3rd party has arguably “spoiled” a major Oregon Republican. The reason we have Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski is that in 2002 the Libertarian candidate got 5% of the vote and “spoiled” Kulongoski’s Republican opponent Kevin Mannix.
The Oregon Democratic Party now has IRV as part of its state platform. The Oregon Republican Party should follow suit. Maybe soon we can make some IRV progress in Oregon.
Mary Starret for Preident 2012.
Hoshie,
I wouldn’t consider AIP Tipping Alaska. If the AIP wasn’t on the ballot, whoever wouldn’t have stayed home would have probably voted for Stevens over Begich.
Now, this is Alaska, and the AIP, Todd’s Party, so a big number may have stayed home, but one can imagine that most of these would have went Smith (Between those 2)
If the spoiler effect is such a big deal to many people, then yes, we should go to IRV or another form which weeds out people voting “against” instead of for someone. When people talk to me about “costing” someone the election, I will tell them that we’ll just need to go to IRV. I am glad Dave ran a great race. It shows that there are 75,000 people that still support constitutional government. Republicans should go for IRV,,,,at least until they realize that they are the ones finishing third because people are voting on principle instead of fear…..
IRV disenfranchises people and is very bad idea.
If I lived in Oregon, my vote definitely would have gone to Dave Brownlow, but to neither of the others if the they were my only choices. The assumption that a vote for an independent or (currently) smaller party candidate would go to a “major party” candidate if those were the only choices is falacious.
Nobody is “spoiling” anything. A growing number of us don’t want to choose from the rotten, decaying, and calified Democrat and Republican Parties. IRV is simply a new technique to attempt to perpetuate the “two-party” system. They would have us choose between candidates we don’t want just to perpetuate their duopoly.
I am sure that every state DEM and GOP organization will endorse this method to stifle voter choice. That,in and of itself, should be enough to convince anyone who believes in electoral freedom to oppose this so-called reform.
I think looking towards electoral reform is a must. The first 3 ideas that come to my head are Instant Runoff Voting, Condorcet Method and Approval Voting.
Bill,
I agree with you on your point. While the AIP votes are more than the margin between Stevens and Begich, I also think these votes could have been from people who don’t like Stevens but don’t like Begich ether.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Gary Odom.
There isn’t a single IRV law in place in any city/county in the U.S., that I’m aware of, which forces you to pick a Dem or a Rep as your second or third choice. That’s the voter’s decision entirely.
In elections such as those recently held for San Francisco Supervisor, there might be as many as a dozen candidates on the ballot, including several independents or third party members. No one is going to make me rank a Dem or a Rep on that list if I don’t choose to, and my vote still counts.
Your argument actually fails in practice considering the election in 2004 of Green Party candidate Ross Mirkarimi to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, he was in the 40s in the first round of voting and pushed over the top with their IRV put into practice just that year (he was re-elected to his seat this week with a 77% landslide in the first round, bypassing any need to run IRV for his race). In this current election in 2008, another Green, Mark Sanchez, may yet win a different seat on the SF Board of Supervisors, as he is 29% going into the second round, his main opponent only 6 points ahead of him (see http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=70720 to see how this shakes out).
Finally, IRV robs forever the most damaging argument the two-party political bigots use against us, that we are “spoiling” a win for one of theirs. If they can’t win under IRV, it’s because they are losing support to the independents.
Re #14
San Francisco prevents a voter from ranking more than 3 candidates. This may force a voter to game the system just as effectively as if he could vote for only a single candidate.