9 September 2022 — 0941 mdt
Updated
The accession of Charles III, Trump and the DOJ,
Biden’s speech, flawed Brown and Racicot scheme
By James Conner
Queen Elizabeth II’s death yesterday pushed the rest of the news below the fold, and will continue to do so for the next few days. Some of that news was of great importance.
The accession of Charles, now King Charles III, to the throne (and its great wealth) occurs at a time of significant political instability and economic turmoil in the United Kingdom. But it will not further destabilize his nation, of which he serves as the ceremonial head of state while the prime minister, chosen by Parliament, serves as the head of government. If anything, the long anticipated, carefully planned, peaceful accession will calm troubled waters.
During the next week or so, depending on our choice of news media, we will learn much about the value and limitation of tradition and the norms, formal and informal, that reflect and mold the United Kingdom’s character and institutions for making decisions.
The other news I’m following
Trump and the classified documents. The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging Federal District Judge Cannon’s decision to have a special master review the federal government’s examination of the documents, some classified so highly the judge probably isn’t cleared to read them, the FBI seized from Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate earlier this summer. Good. As Jennifer Rubin noted in the Washington Post, Cannon’s logic and judgment are partisan and both deeply flawed and irresponsible. Her nomination to the bench was confirmed by a lame duck Congress, a practice that ought to end. As for the documents, had Trump complied with the presidential records act and deposited them with the National Archives upon leaving office, the DOJ would not now be determining whether he should be charged with serious crimes.
President Biden’s soul of the nation speech (transcript) continues resonating and drawing howls of “Who? Me?” outrage from Republicans, both MAGAites and Never Trumpers, who, with remarkably straight faces, think it beyond the pale that the President would shine the spotlight of truth on their assaults on democracy, especially on their lies that Biden stole the election (see lostnotstolen.com) and their efforts to disenfranchise all who might vote for the Democratic candidate.
Biden delivered a devastating indictment of the MAGA GOP. He reminded us that what’s happening is far from normal, a threat to government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that must be countered before the United States is no longer a functioning democracy.
But he did not tell us that the provisions in our Constitution that enable minority rule — especially the electoral college and the composition of the Senate — must be changed before a selfish and determined oligarchy of libertarian billionaires permanently seizes the levers of power and creates an Ayn Randian dystopia from which there is no escape.
And he did not tell us why tens of millions of generally decent people so blindly follow a sociopath by the name of Donald Trump.
I will.
Trump is a dominating authoritarian. His blind followers are submissive authoritarians, people for whom complexity and the responsibility of making one’s own decisions is more than they can bear. They want, they need, to be told what to do, for that certainty brings them peace of mind. Therefore, they have surrendered mind and soul to Trump, believing he will reward their loyalty and obedience with The Truth and the true way to happiness. Their submission is the secular analog of religious surrender in which one delivers one’s soul and agency to God in exchange for God’s protection and lighting of the true way.
If Trump damages himself beyond repair with his reckless behavior, these submissives will transfer their loyalty and blind obedience to another sociopathic pied piper, most likely Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.
Bob Brown’s and Marc Racicot’s call for a top two or top four primary, published in the Flathead Beacon. Brown, a former Montana Secretary of State, and Racicot, a former Montana Governor, argue that a top two (California, Washington) or top four (Alaska) primary and ranked choice (Alaska, Maine) general election would moderate political extremes by increasing the freedom of Montanans to vote for the candidates they think best. A similar proposal was advanced a year ago by political scientists David Parker of Montana State University and Montana native Kal Munis, now teaching in Idaho.
Brown and Racicot argue that Montana’s open primary system, in which voters can choose to vote in any party’s primary, but can vote in only one primary, disenfranchises independent voters. They assume that independent voters are truly independent.
In my judgment, their scheme ensures that third party candidates would almost never appear on the general election ballot. That’s long been a goal of Montana’s Republican Party, which believes that incumbent Republican Sen. Conrad Burns lost to Jon Tester in 2006 because Libertarian Stan Jones received votes that otherwise would have been cast for Burns.
Let’s first look at Brown’s and Racicot’s argument that independents are being denied their full freedom to choose, and then at what would have happened had the 2022 Montana primary been a top two or top four.
Brown and Racicot:
In addition, according to Gallup, neither political party can claim the highest share of supporters. Instead, the largest bloc of voters in America today identify themselves as independents. These are voters whose freedom to choose the candidate of their choice is diminished by partisan primary elections.
I’m surprise, in fact dismayed, that Brown and Racicot believe that most self-identified independent voters are really independent. As FiveThirtyEight observed last year, most are closet partisans.
The problem is that few independents are actually independent. Roughly 3 in 4 independents still lean toward one of the two major political parties, and studies show that these voters aren’t all that different from the voters in the party they lean toward. Independents who lean toward a party also tend to back that party at almost the same rate as openly partisan voters.
“Independents tend not to look all that different from partisans,” said Samara Klar, a political scientist at the University of Arizona and co-author of the book “Independent Politics.” “But they do tend to be more averse to identifying themselves as a partisan when there is a negative stigma associated with partisanship. So, it’s really the arguments, the hostility, the negativity that seems to be driving this behavior.”
Closet partisans will vot e in the primary of the party with which they secretly identify. They’re not interested in voting in the Republican primary for one office, and in the Democratic primary for another. True independents, in practice low information voters who have low turnout rates, might want to vote in both primaries, but a system in which they could in effect do that comes at the cost of denying small third parties, such as the Green and Libertarian Parties, functional access to the general election ballot. My analysis of Montana’s 2022 primary suggests that a top two or four would tighten, not loosen, the stranglehold that major parties have on our elections.
Updated. On 8 November, Republican Matt Rosendate, Democrat Penny Ronning, Independent Gary Buchanan, and Libertarian Sam Rankin, will be on the ballot in Montana’s eastern congressional district. In the western district, the ballot will list Republican Ryan Zinke, Democrat Monica Tranel, and Libertarian John Lamb. For the District 5 Montana Public Service Commission seat, the ballot will list Republican Ann Bukacek and Democrat John Repke (I’ve endorsed Repke).
But, as the table below displays (download spreadsheet), had the primary been a top two, or top four, Libertarians probably would not be on the congressional general election ballots. Whether Buchanan would be cannot be answered.
Had the primary been a top two, the PSC ballot would list Republicans Bukacek and Derek Skees. A top four PSC primary would have put Republicans Bukacek, Skees, and Joe Dooling, and Democrat Repke, on the fall ballot.
Ranked choice primaries coupled with ranked choice general elections allow third parties, even small third parties, to be on the ballot while greatly diminishing their ability to be spoilers. I agree with Brown and Racicot that the general election should be ranked choice. I hope that after giving the issue further consideration, they will agree with me that the primary also should be ranked choice.