|
By Tim Baldwin
On June 3, 33 percent of the voters voted for Ryan Zinke for U.S. House. Sixty-six voted for another candidate, and only about 30 percent of the voting population even cared to vote at all. Yet, Zinke is headed to the general election as the Republican candidate. This election demonstrates a fundamental problem with our election laws. First, our laws destroy the purpose of political parties and primary elections. To illustrate, Democrats can and do prevent Republican candidates who are loyal to the principles of that party from getting elected by voting on the Republican ballot. Looking at the number of voters who voted on the Republican versus Democrat ballot, this is what happened on June 3. Second, our laws are anti-Democratic. Instead of sending to the general election a candidate against whom 66 percent of the voters voted, we should require candidates to receive a majority of votes or face a run-off of the top-two vote getters. Zinke has stated he wants to unite the Republican Party. This seems rather outlandish when 66 percent of the voters did not vote for him and when 70 percent of Montana’s voting population did not vote at all. Until we change our election laws, I don’t think “unity” will be on most Montanans’ minds. |
By Joe Carbonari
To feel included, as full members, with full rights in our “community,” we need to have a meaningful voice in how, and by whom, it is run. We would prefer that our officials thought a lot like us. We also like them to be effective at the job – ideology aside. Locally, prevailing political thought tends to the “conservative,” and in our primaries only a little above one in four of eligible voters cast a vote. Those who voted tend to be, on average, more active or “extreme” than the populace as a whole. This is true of both “liberals” and “conservatives.” Not surprisingly, candidates tend to reflect this skew as well. Those whose views tend to be more to the middle of the electorate’s as a whole often don’t win their primaries. Ryan Zinke’s winning is an exception. He may have won because some Republican votes were cast in ideological “error,” but it’s also possible that a plurality of the voters thought it through and considered him the best man for the job – value of his “conservatism” duly considered. It is also possible that cross-over voters from the Democratic side played a significant part. No doubt there were some that felt that Zinke was strong enough, or that Rosendale or Stapleton weak enough, to warrant it. If that were so, then perhaps our system works well, and it can work both ways. |