Editor’s note: This op-ed is by John McClaughry, president of Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s limited government, free market think tank.
Vermont’s 2010 elections are over, to the relief of exhausted candidates and voters alike. Now is a good time to start thinking about what a much-improved electoral process would look like.
One good thing the Legislature did this year, perhaps inadvertently, was to repeal the “sore loser” feature in the election laws. Before, a primary loser had 10 days to collect signatures to put himself on the general election ballot as an “independent”, where he could take another crack at the primary winner.
Now independents must file in June, at the same time as primary candidates. If they also file in a primary, everyone will know that they are false primary candidates planning to oppose the primary winner in November. The Legislature should go one step further and prohibit candidates filing as independents from also filing to enter a primary.
The new Legislature will have the decennial task of reapportioning the Vermont House and Senate. The paramount principle should be single-member House and Senate districts. Why? So every voter will be reasonably close to a legislator, and more importantly, so each election contest is for one seat. That would force candidates to address issues, instead of inviting the issue-free gamesmanship so often exhibited in multi-member district contests.
Existing law says that the Senate should be apportioned “on a county basis.” In fact, only two of 14 Senate districts are coterminous with 19th century county lines (Washington and Windsor). Instead, the Legislature should apportion the House first, then make 30 Senate districts out of five contiguous House districts.
This year 26 candidates ran for the six statewide offices. Get 19 of them off the ballot. The governor and lieutenant governor candidates should run as a compatible team, as they now do in 20 other states. Then voters would focus on their “One Big Choice”: Which team is best qualified to lead the state for the coming term? The General Assembly would choose the nonpartisan treasurer, secretary of state and auditor, just as they now nominate judges for appointment by the governor.
The governor would appoint and the Senate would confirm the Attorney General. Accountable to the governor, the AG would no longer have an independent license to build a 78-lawyer legal empire and run around filing all sorts of political lawsuits.
With only three or four governor-lieutenant governor candidate teams on the ballot, voters would be spared the flood of radio, TV and newspaper ads, bumper strips, phone calls, yard signs and fund raising appeals for 26 different statewide candidates. Each political party’s campaign talent, energy, and cash would be devoted to persuading the voters to make the One Big Choice in their favor.
The political parties should remain open to all comers who choose to affiliate with a party. Those who would rather remain independent – fine. But independents have no business barging into a party’s primary to influence the party’s choice of candidates, any more than Baptists would have barging in and voting for Knights of Columbus officers.
It’s quite likely that, knowing who their registered members are, the parties would develop an Oregon-style mail-in or internet-based nomination process, thus doing away with primary elections altogether.
Candidates have every right to denounce their opponents for whatever reason, real or imagined, but many voters are disgusted with the harsh charges and countercharges of this year’s race for governor. A Fair Campaign Practices Panel would provide a useful antidote. It would be composed of half a dozen knowledgeable and fair minded citizens whose partisanship, if any, has long since receded beyond recovery.
The panel would evaluate charges of false or inaccurate statements by candidates, and make its findings public. An (overly bureaucratic) example is the California Political Practices Commission.
The panel would deal only with facts, not opinions. “My opponent beats his wife” raises a question of fact. “My opponent is a loud-mouthed jerk” is a statement of opinion.
The other duty of the panel would be striving to keep campaigns in reasonably good taste. This is of course subjective, but the panel could at least frown on over the top portrayals of, for instance, an opposing candidate passed out drunk at a frat party 25 years in the past.
There are six useful ideas for greater clarity, economy, efficiency, rationality, and accountability in election season. The next one is just two years away.
