An inkling of future mugwumpery

The other day I happened to find some notes I wrote in July 1994 where I use the word mugwump.

mugwump (good word to use to describe independent thinkers in parties, moving back and forth)

It was in the context of my writing on For A Truly General Form of Election for The Minnesota Libertarian.

Here's the context...

**** 12 jul 94 ****

Changing the Primary to a Runoff Election

Under this system, the primary election would select two candidates, regardless of party, to compete in the general election. One ballot would list candidates from all parties at the primary election; the top two vote-getters would go on to the general election. The major political parties would endorse only one candidate; that candidate would carry the party's label on the ballot. Others vying for the position would have to organize and attain a substantial number of signatures to get on the primary ballot. They would be listed on the ballot with some oparty designation other than DFL or IR.

This idea is proposed as a way to increase political participation. It could provide a direct connection between the work of the caucus and the results at the primary. Plus, candidates who do not win the major political party endorsement would have to organize political support just to get on the ballot. It could encourage greater primary election participation because of the wider range of candidates on the ballot.

It is also seen as a way to better define the role of a party member and make the work of party activists more meaningful. It would reward the work of the party activists who, after a deliberative process, would be able to place their candidate on the ballot with their party endorsement.

Opponents say the existing primary system works well as a check and balance with the parties' candidate endorsements. They fear that some of the advantages of our two-party system would be lost under the new arrangement. For instance, in this system the potential for two Democratic gubernatorial candidates running against one another in the general election is very real. (Only one could bear the DFL label; the other could not be DFL, even though his/her ideology and positions could be closely aligned with Democratic principles.) Presenting voters with two candidates of similar ideology distorts the reasons for having competitive elections in the first place. In this case, voters won't be given a real choice of plans and policies. They would have to choose a candidate based on differences in nuance instead of differences in values and policy positions.

Minority groups could have cause for concern in that run-off elections could lead to under-representation of minorities in public offices.

Another concern is that the new system would encourage intra-party dissension and the formation of new political parties as splinter groups form around candidates who lose the endorsement. The preponderance of many smaller, active parties could lead to a dysfunctional multi-party system where public officials are elected with only small pluralities. Contributing to this trend of a factional, multi-party system is the effect of allowing voters to vote for a candidate of one party for one party for one position and a candidate of another party for other positions.

Citizens League (1991) - The Party Caucus: An Inquiry, pp 26-27

[CRB: An idea that occured to me reading this is as follows:

The primary election would be as described above except for ...

• The primary would allow the candidates to throw their votes behind another candidate receiving a larger number of votes.


• The first two candidates to reach a tally of 1/3 of the votes each, or the two with the highest tally after a defined (short) period (including a presentation), become the two to compete in the general election, although write-ins should be allowed even in the general election.


• There shall be a public presentation of the pre-recorded arguments of each candidate, proportioned in time to the percentage of votes in the primary, before this post-primary tallying.


• There shall be a public presentation of the pre-recorded arguments of both general election candidates equally proportioned in time, or alternatively, if mutually consented to, a public debate between the two candidates before the general election.]

[CRB (14 jul 94): flowing vs. still party, standing, stagnant, fresh, stale, stirring

Title of article: 'GO ON, CREATE A STIR.' or 'LET'S CREATE A STIR'
- There shall be a public voting of all candidates in ascending order of tally, except for those receiving less than a given percentage of the vote, say one percent, with an equal time limit on all, say a quarter-minute, with no commentary.

General Primary Election vs. Closed Primary Elections

mugwump (good word to use to describe independent thinkers in parties, moving back and forth)]

[CRB: * 17 jul 94 * term to use: party 'incrustation' (see W 1974) and 'party gridlock' and 'party entrenchment'

'freeflowing' democratic electorate as a basis for the classical republican offices of one, few, and many

'freeflowing political conversation and party organization']


...


**** 21 jul 94 ****

a general primary for all the people and all the parties
biplurality election

let the people together choose two major candidates through fresh parties with equal status

rather than having to divisively choose them through stagnant parties with special status

For a Truly General Form of Election

The alternative domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty... A fire not to be quenched, [the spirit of party] demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

---

Synopsis (Jun 20, 2008): The basic idea here is to hold a primary which is party-neutral. After the primary, losing candidates can throw their support behind leading candidates. This avoids the problem of spoilers. The two leading candidates then have a run-off.

---

Preface (2008): An earlier version of this article was originally published in the August 1994 Minnesota State Fair issue of the Minnesota Libertarian. The idea arose during my experience witnessing the ballot access process in Minnesota and the partisanship suffusing it.

In the decade since I have noticed a most pernicious effect of the privileged station enjoyed by the two major parties. If barriers to electoral competition are sufficiently high, then only the irrational tend to stay in "third-party" parties.

It behooves us to find a way for other political associations, large and small, to grow in a natural way on the basis of their merits, open to ready electoral challenge. Indeed I see a future where the separation of power in government is reflected in the array of parties. Eventually I see a future of micro-parties such as the Pirate Party of Sweden, selecting an agenda limited by their expertise. Individual candidates may then assemble their platform from party components without kowtowing to mindless party discipline.

In the short term I only desire a way for an alternative liberal party to smoothly, civilly replace one of the two major parties if its candidates are of character and merit our trust.

The recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court on Washington's party-neutral top-two primary is promising. The form of election there is close to what I have in mind, but it falls short by dissuading voters from expressing their preference for less well-financed candidates.

[Note (May 10, 2010): To be clear—let me underline this—, I do not support top-two primary as proposed currently in California by Proposition 14, only the power of the state to experiment with general forms of election, subject to the regulation of Congress per Article 1, Section 4. Such regulation must be in the spirit of protecting a republican form of government. Some day a generation of Americans will see that forms of election which gamefully favor parties in power are not of such a spirit thanks to experiments at the state and local levels.]

Blanket primaries are essential, by the way. Voters must not be pigeon-holed religiously into one party or even another by the form of election we choose. Parties may have their own preliminary elections if they wish, but our constitutions must not engender crusty partisanship.


For a Truly General Form of Election
E pluribus duo, tum deinde unum

In Minnesota, there is much lamenting about the low participation in primaries and the even lower participation in caucuses.^[1] A report on Minnesota's caucus system published in 1991 by the Citizens League expressed the following concern which should attract the attention of people from all parties: "Over time, low levels of participation leave the party organization without new blood. For the health and vitality of the parties, incoming members who bring fresh ideas and new resources to the party organization are needed." (The Party Caucus: An Inquiry, Citizens League Report, p. 9)

Later in this same report, the Minnesota Party Caucus Committee offers a suggestion that would open up state elections to all voters so that they can vote anonymously and without party affiliation both in the primary and final elections: "Under this [proposed] system, the primary election would select two candidates, regardless of party, to compete in the general election. One ballot would list candidates from all parties at the primary election; the top two vote-getters would go on to the general election." (p. 26)

Currently, each voter loses the privacy of his or her political inclinations when voting in the primary as everyone must declare a party affiliation. Every vote funded by the state should be completely secret, especially to party officials. If a Minnesota voter insists on his or her privacy, that voter cannot vote in the primary and so can have no effect on the choice of the final major candidates. Now parties can always hold their own caucuses or primaries, but state-funded elections ought to be general and by completely secret ballot.

Moreover, in the present primary system the choice of candidates for different branches of government are tied together by party affiliation. The candidates for various branches (Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives), according to the separate nature of each office, ought to be evaluated by voters in different ways, using three separate gauges that may not fit the DFL-IR^[2] political spectrum. By segregating the voters in primaries by major party, the separation of powers between branches is blurred. The strong cooperation across the branches fostered by the major party organizations adds further to party polarization and the weakening of the system of checks and balances in our Constitution.

Finally, the two major parties are granted special status by the state in the primaries. On the wall of the chamber for the Minnesota House of Representatives "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principle" is yet advocated by Patrick Henry. To the first Minnesota Constitution of 1857, let's now recur: "In all cases when a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." Now how can the primary system be run according to a general law in an effective way, with proportionate influence of the serious voters and without undue influence of the true fringe?

My proposal is that we adopt a primary as described above by the Minnesota Party Caucus Committee with one change: candidates with lower vote tallies may act as electors and contribute their votes to candidates with higher vote tallies.^[3] The two candidates with the highest tally go on to a final election.

The effect would be that some 2/3 of the electorate would influence the selection of the two final candidates (1/3 or so going to each in a tight race), confirming as individual voters that support in the final election. The remainder of the voters, whose candidates end up in fringe limbo, without influence in the primary this time around, would still help decide which of the two is to receive a majority in the final election.

Minnesota voters could then risk having fresh and quick-thinking candidates, devoid of party stagnation and incrustation, without the fear of their votes being lost, without the risk of fringe candidates affecting the major candidates, and without slavishness to the slow wit of party oligarchs.

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian August 1994 excepting: the Patrick Henry quote, the revision of the sentence following, grammatical corrections, and the footnotes, most of which were added December 1995 for publication in an earlier incarnation of the Solonian Journal. The author and both earlier publications are due attribution.

Note

1. ↑This was written in 1994. In 2008, by contrast, the DFL caucuses were flooded with participants to such an unusual extent that disorder reigned, from what I understand, due to a lack of preparation.
2. ↑For those outside Minnesota, DFL stands for Democratic Farmer Labor, the name of the state party affiliated with the Democratic Party, and IR for Independent Republican, the name until 1995 of the state party affiliated with the Republican Party.
3. ↑A minimum number of votes, say 50, to qualify as an elector would be prudent (added 2008).

Update (Apr 5, 2008, 3:25 pm Central): I found a good example of the electoral problem we Americans face now. Listen to the recent interview of Bob Barr by Sean Hannity. Hannity criticizes Barr for potentially "splitting the vote". He points with fear to the Democrats. The Democrats point with fear to the Republicans. How are we to move forward in the ongoing promise of the American Revolution and the promise of the Declaration of Independence with all this dysfunction on both sides and no rational way to build a political path out of the muck. I suggest that the form of election I have described is a means towards that end. Specifically, it counters the argument against "splitting the vote".

Update (Apr 10, 2008): Here's another Bob-Barr interview where the interviewer, Neil Cavuto, tries to dissuade Barr from running, using the current form of election as a bludgeon, making my case on how this proposal is germane now. We Americans are caught up in a dysfunctional pattern.



Moreover, this proposal for a general form of election is designed to prevent the tail from wagging the dog, as happens in Europe.

Update (May 10, 2010): I oppose Proposition 14 in my home state of California. I now live in New York and am sad I cannot vote against it.

During a visit to California last year I had an idea while reading Alexis de Toqueville's "De la démocratie en Amérique" at Cafe de la Presse in San Francisco. Taking in some lessons from the experience of IRV in Minneapolis, both good and bad, it combines the two forms to produce a better form. I learned from talking with the key people in Minneapolis responsible for implementing IRV in 2009, including a dear friend, who is Assistant City Attorney there.

A mugwump awakes - Part 1

Imagine you're a mugwump, placed in a deep slumber for a century, awakening to the horrors of our government run amok. What would strike you? What would you do now, with the added benefit of experience and a few more tools in the economic-theory toolbox?

In the tale of Rip van Winkle, Rip wakes only to find himself adrift in a new land, having fallen asleep for twenty years. He missed the American Revolution.

[Rip van Winkle] now hurried forth, and hastened to his old resort, the village inn, but it too was gone. A large rickety wooden building stood in its place, with great gaping windows, some of them broken and mended with old hats and petticoats, and over the door was painted, "The Union Hotel, by Jonathan Doolittle." Instead of the great tree that used to shelter the quiet little Dutch inn of yore, there now was reared a tall, naked pole, with something on the top that looked like a red night-cap, and from it was fluttering a flag, on which was a singular assemblage of stars and stripes. All this was strange and incomprehensible. He recognized on the sign, however, the ruby face of King George, under which he had smoked so many a peaceful pipe; but even this was singular metamorphosed. The red coat was changed for one of blue and buff, a sword was held in the hand instead of a sceptre, the head was decorated with a cocked hat, and underneath was painted in large characters, General Washington.



There was, as usual, a crowd of folk about the door, but none that Rip recollected. The very character of the people seemed changed. There was a busy, bustling, disputatious tone about it, instead of the accustomed phlegm and drowsy tranquility. He looked in vain for the sage Nicholas Vedder, with his broad face, double chin, and fair long pipe, uttering clouds of tobacco-smoke instead of idle speeches; or Van Bummel, the schoolmaster, doling forth the contents of an ancient newspaper. In place of these, a lean, bilious-looking fellow, with his pockets full of handbills, was haranguing vehemently about rights of citizens—elections—members of Congress—liberty—Bunker's Hill—heroes of Seventy-six—and other words, which were a perfect Babylonish jargon to the bewildered Van Winkle.

Our mugwump then is like Rip, except everything is reversed. The liberty poles are gone, where they once abounded. All but our mugwump have forgotten who Columbia is, with her liberty pole, topped with a red cap. When he fell asleep, Americans still sang their anthem to her. Hers was the poetic name for America. As late as the Columbian Exposition in 1893 her statue stood center-stage, her liberty cap perched higher than the symbols of Congress's mace. Where has her liberty pole gone?



Here are two examples of America personified by Columbia with her liberty pole, from the 1780s.




And another from the Seated Liberty dollar, which circulated from 1840 to 1873.



Will we ever top our flagpoles with the liberty cap again and raise our liberty poles from their slumber?



Here's our mugwump in younger days.



Sources:

Dream City by Halsey Ives (1893) via Illinois Institute of Technology

Library of Congress - here and there

What's a mugwump?

A mugwump is an independent, classical-liberal voter, who strives to stand together for the general interest, for rights, for the presumption of liberty.

An excellent book on the history of mugwumps is Mugwumps by David M. Tucker.