The election of Republican Scott P. Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts on January 19 has been big news all week. Brown, and his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, were each nominated by their parties in primaries on December 8, 2009.
The Democratic primary results in December 2009 were: Martha Coakley 311,548; Michael Capuano 185,157; Alan Khazei 89,294; Stephen Pagliuca 80,217; write-ins 1,800.
The Republican primary results were: Scott P. Brown 146,057; Jack E. Robinson 17,344.
Massachusetts independent voters may vote in any party’s primary. Over half the Massachusetts voters are registered independents. All four of the Democrats running in the primary had significant support. Martha Coakley is the state Attorney General and had the highest name recognition of the four candidates. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Congressman Michael Capuano and donated $10,000 to his campaign. The Boston Globe endorsed philanthropist Alan Khazei. The fourth Democrat, Stephen Pagliuca, was a well-funded financier and co-owner of the Boston Celtics.
Consequently, it isn’t surprising that two of the Democrats each received higher vote totals than the man who won the Republican primary, State Senator Scott P. Brown. This suggests, but does not prove, that if Massachusetts had been using a “top-two open primary” system, the two candidates in the final round would have been Coakley and Capuano, and Scott Brown (the actual winner in the real world) would have washed out in the first round.
It is true that registered Democrats in Massachusetts had no choice but to vote in the Democratic primary, if they voted in the primary. But registered Democrats were free to cast a write-in vote for Scott Brown, and undoubtably some of them did. However, only 1,800 write-in votes were cast in the Democratic primary, so it isn’t likely that many Democrats did vote for Brown. As noted above, registered independents were free to vote in either the Democratic primary, or the Republican primary, so any independent would have been free to choose a Republican primary ballot and vote for Brown. Yet, he was not one of the top two vote-getters in the primary.
While I agree that Scott Brown would probably not have been on the ballot if Mass used a top-two primary, however the recent Mass primaries is not a good example to base this on. The GOP used party rules to make their primary an uncompetitive anointing which always has lower voter participation than truly competitive elections.
It is was certainly surprising. I suspect that many Democrats — not involved with the campaign — got a bit complacent thinking that a Kennedy style Democrat would replace Kennedy.
Concerning post #1, if more Republican candidates had been running in the Republican primary, Scott Brown would probably have received even fewer votes than he actually did receive in the Republican primary. I realize your point is that a more exciting Republican primary would have perhaps attracted more independent voters to vote in the Republican primary, so it’s debatable.
Good point Richard.
In the world of hypotheticals, if Massachusetts had the same Election Code requirements as Pennsylvania, the Republicans would be a minor politicial party, since their registration numbers are less than 15% of the total voter registration in the state. Therefore they would not be qualified to select their candidates in a Primary Election.
Where’s Jim Riley’s post on this? I predict he will recommend that Brown run under Democrat AND Republican in the hypothetical top two scenario. That should’ve solved everything.
P.R. NOW
— the U.S.A. Senate is one of THE most ANTI-democratic legislative bodies in Western Civilizatiion — i.e. the semi-fixed gerrymander State areas — ALL arbitrary – starting with the old English colony charters carving up North America.
Sorry – this AIN’T 1776 for getting REAL Democracy — to stop the EVIL party hack monarchs / oligarchs from destroying the human race and Mother Earth.
Sorry – Wyoming (smallest population) AIN’T equal to California (largest population) for ANY purpose — U.S.A. Senate math – 2 Senators for each State — or for any other purpose.
OH, sounds like Demo Rep has a problem with our ‘House of Lords’. Well just remember Demo Rep, majority rules ain’t so sweet if you’re in the minority. The old might makes right/ mob rule mentality sucks.
In Rome (or was it Greece), representatives were chosen at random.
iceland (once had) a nice system of picking legislative reps
see http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html
Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?
by Roderick T. Long
Can the experience of Icelandic Vikings eight centuries ago teach us a lesson about the dangers of privatization? Jared Diamond thinks so. In his article “Living on the Moon,” published in the May 23, 2002, issue of the New York Review of Books, Diamond portrays the history of Iceland in the Viking period as a nightmarish vision of privatization run amuck.
Libertarian scholars and free-market enthusiasts have often pointed to the Icelandic Free State (930-1262) as a positive example of a society that functioned successfully with little or no government control. Writing in the Journal of Legal Studies, economist David Friedman observes that the Free State “might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions.” As Diamond himself notes:
“Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor.”
But unlike those who see who see the Icelandic system as a model to emulate, Diamond charges that the Free State’s excessively privatized character made it radically unstable, ultimately leading to the system’s violent collapse in 1262; his essay has already been cited by The American Prospect as a crucial resource for those “making the case against privatization and shrinking government.” So who’s right? Does medieval Iceland illustrate privatization’s benefits, or its hazards?
snip
2.7 times as many votes were cast in the special election as were cast in the 3 party primaries.
But let’s go with your premise, and assume that voters were as likely to vote in the primary as the general election, and that turnout in the primary was in proportion to party registration.
If we scale the primary vote by 2.7, then 1.806M would have voted in the Democratic primary, 841K for Coakley, 499K for Capuano, 241K for Khazei, 217K for Pagliuca.
Meanwhile, 445K would have voted in the Republican primary, with 394K voting for Brown.
Based on 2008 enrollment, there would have been 830K Democratic voters voting in the Democratic primary, where they would have been joined by 956K independents. The GOP primary would have had 261K Republicans and 184K independents.
Independents would have chosen the Democratic primary by 84% to 16% share. If we then assume that all of the Coakley supporters went on to vote for her in the special election, then she would have only gained the support of 23% of the Capuano-Khazei-Pagliuca voters, while 77% of the voters in the Democratic primary voted for the Republican. A hardly likely scenario.
More likely was that the primary vote was largely hard core partisans. Turnout in the Democratic primary was 43% of Democratic enrollment. There may have been some independent voters who were gaming the system because they may have perceived that the vote in the Democratic primary would be decisive (the last time this seat had a Republican or non-Kennedy elected was in 1946). Brown’s challenger in the Republican primary had almost been beaten by the Libertarian candidate in 2000 when he was the GOP senate nominee.
Turnout in the Republican primary was 33% of GOP enrollment (BTW, turnout for the special election primaries was up from the 2008 regular primaries – 34% higher for the Democrats, where John Kerry had a challenger, and 213% higher for the Republicans, who had an uncontested race for the senate nomination). So it is not too likely that there were huge numbers of independent voters.
It is quite likely that participation by Democrats was lower than Republicans or independents. Compared to the turnout in the 2008 presidential race, relative turnout ranged from 50% to 84%. The areas where half the voters stayed home were heavily Democratic, which probably meant that a majority of Democratic voters did not vote in the special election. The 84% relative turnout in other areas suggests the possibility of some voters who skipped the presidential election voting.
A special election might well have been contested as a majority election, rather than Top 2; and the Democratic legislature might not have felt the need to change the law regarding gubernatorial appointments after the vacancy occurred, reversing a change made in 2004 when there was a Republican governor. It is quite possible that arrogant switch cost Coakley the election (let’s say that 40K additional voters turn up (+2%), and 3% of Democratic voters voted for Brown.
So the turnout for an open primary would have been much higher, the composition of the electorate different, and the dynamics of the election entirely different.
OK, you’ve flumoxed me. That was entirely incoherent. Hardly the basis for a system of government, now is it?
# 8 — See the ROT of the Roman Republic in 120 B.C. to 27 B.C. and its wipeout by the TYRANT emperor Augustus Caesar — due especially to the ANTI-Democracy Roman Senate (i.e. a bunch of party hack oligarchs of the OLD school).
Sorry –
Democracy = Majority Rule, limited or unlimited
monarchy / oligarchy = minority rule — ALWAYS tending to be unlimited aka tyrants. Read the DOI about 1,000 times at least.
anarchy = delusional utopian = NO government = Death and chaos
unanimity = delusional utopian = everybody agrees 100 percent about everything
ZERO new in 2,500 years (as noted by the ancient Greeks) — except separation of powers in the 1700s, P.R. in the 1800s and A.V. in the 1900s.
U.S.A. 1776-2010 — nonstop minority rule gerrymanders — now with about 97 plus percent of the incumbents in one party safe seat gerrymander district concentration camps — i.e. each party hack is the legislative monarch of *his/her* political concentration camp / district.
The camp monarchs get together and pick a super party hack — aka Speaker or *majority leader* to dictate the party hack agenda.
P.R. and A.V. NOW — before the party hacks start Civil WAR II and/or World WAR III.
Loeber v Spargo 08-4323 USCA-2nd Circ and Strunk v US-DOC (Census Bureau) 09-1295 USDC-DC are ripe for decision of gerrymander / unconstitutional mis-use of alien-tourist allotment, reapportionment, and redistricting issues.
#11 Richard Winger’s premise is that voters would behave identically under a Top 2 system as they would under a partisan primary system.
For example, he apparently believes that because unenrolled voters are permitted to vote in partisan primaries in Massachusetts, that they actually do so in numbers comparable to enrolled partisans.
Alternatively, he believes that unenrolled voters would continue to (not) participate in an open primary because it was their belief or misunderstanding that the purpose of the open primary was to designate the nominees of the political parties.
But the simple fact is that voters turn out when they believe that a decision that they are interested in is being made. In 2008, only 50,000 voters voted in the Republican Primary. But there was only one candidate for the US senate nomination and no candidates for many of the legislative seats.
In December 2009, 150,000 voters voted in the Republican primary for the senate seat. There were two candidates for the nomination, and there was an open seat. But one of the candidates for the nomination was particularly weak – he had been the Republican senate candidate once before and had almost been beaten by the Libertarian nominee.
More voters voted in the December 2009 Democratic primary than voted in the 2008 primary. Many voters and candidates believed that the winner of the Democratic primary would easily be elected.
For example, after the primary, Reuters reported:
“The election is over,” said Jeffrey Berry, a professor of political science at Tufts University. “We have to vote in January, but the outcome is preordained. Coakley will win.”
Some independents may have voted in the primary, but those who might be expected to most appeal to independent-minded voters finished 3rd and 4th. The 2nd place finisher was Michael Capuano who is a career politician with 30 years as a legislator, Somerville alderman and mayor, or US representative. Someone who might well appeal to hardcore Democratic partisans, but less so to independents.
In an open primary there could have been different candidates, and different campaign strategies. When 65% of the voters are not Democrats, a strategy of “vote for me, I’m the Democrat or “vote for me, I’m a career politician” may not be a winning strategy.
Over half of Massachusetts’s voters are registered independents, and I’ll guarantee you that some of them are actually Democrats and Republicans who like having the option of voting in either party’s primary.
We usually think of Alaska as a Republican state, and yet over half of its voters are registered independents. That’s largely because independents have their choice of either the Republican primary or the Democratic/minor party blanket primary.
hi mate, excellent site Happy Holiday.
STEVE RANKIN I HAVE YOUR NUMBER
This surge by the Republicans will not last.
President Obama has been in office for one year.
The economy has been in a mess since 2007 with signs of the trouble long before that.
This mess all started with greed and the Republican way of self interest.
We are in such a hole that it may take years to get to full recovery.
It will not happen in one or two years.
Stop blaming the Dems for the economic mess.
Yes, things are bad.
Yes, people are still losing their homes and jobs.
Yes, there is fear.
What people need to do is to stop voting out of fear.
Vote with your heads.
Remember what political party put us in this mess.
It was the Republican Party.
Scott Brown will not change things.
He may help to get in the way of Health Care Reform and a few other things because the Democrats now have less than 60 seats in the Senate.
Health Care Reform is a great thing as it would give the people the power of choice.
If there is no Health Care Reform, then health care continues to be the crime it has been for years.
With Republicans, it will be the same old greed you saw before Obama.
This will take time.
Hang in there.
Remember what this country was like after George Bush, Sr. left office.
Reminds me of now.
It took a Democrat to fix it all and it took time.
Under Bill Clinton, we had economic BOOM.
Yes, the Republicans were in control of Congress during most of Clinton’s years, but they made things hard for him and did not go along with what it took to get America back on track.
So the credit for that goes to President Clinton and the Democrats.
Don’t let the Republican Party get in the way again.
George Vreeland Hill
sigh scott brown is a dream ~~~;)