The
Impact of Third-Party Candidates & Open Primaries
The 1998 Constitution
Revision Commission put forth nine recommendations for the public’s consideration,
including Amendment 11 to Article VI, Sections 1 & 5 of the Florida Constitution.
Among other election-law tinkering, Amendment 11, which passed with 64 percent of the
vote, contained two dramatic and far-reaching changes, the impact of which may not be
fully realized for at least two election cycles.
The first change
reduced ballot-access requirements for independent and minor-party candidates. Amendment
11’s second major revision changed the primary-election-voting rules to allow all
voters — regardless of party registration — to vote in any party’s primary
election if the winner of that election faces no opposition in the general election.
On the surface, both
changes sound refreshing — more candidates, more choices, more voter participation.
Some of these candidates, however, could be jokers in the deck who wind up tilting
elections toward unintended results. Others could be the shadow candidates of special
interests using the open-primary laws to their tactical advantage.
BELLY UP TO THE LOWER BAR
Amendment 11 lowered
the ballot requirements for third-party candidates, aligning them with those for
candidates of the two major parties, thus increasing the likelihood of a greater number of
candidates representing more parties on the ballot. From now on, to place his name on the
ballot a candidate simply has to obtain signed petitions from one percent of all
registered voters in his district (or three percent of the registered voters of the
largest political party in the district), or he can pay a qualifying fee of about $1,600.
Florida currently
has 13 political parties in addition to the Republicans and Democrats. On the political
spectrum, these third parties range from the well-intentioned to the misguided all the way
to the lunatic fringe.
There is the
philosophically pure and rarely successful Libertarian Party; the platform-challenged
Independent Party; the Green Party (whose name says it all); and, my personal favorite,
the Socialist Party of Florida, whose 87 members are convinced that Joseph Stalin was
"misunderstood" and that communism was never given a "fair chance to
work."
Third parties are
not a new phenomenon — remember Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party of 1912?
Despite their longevity, third parties have enjoyed little success in Florida and, until
recently, little or no publicity. Thanks to the 1998 Constitution Revision Commission, the
lackluster record of third parties is about to improve, especially in the area of
notoriety.
Sunshine State
voters are not likely to begin forcing the formation of coalition governments similar to
those found in parliamentary democracies such as Great Britain, Italy, and Canada, where
no political party receives a majority of the votes. Nevertheless, third-party candidates
are likely to gain their 15 minutes of fame by playing the role of spoiler.
Intentionally or
not, third-party candidates historically end up pulling votes on election day away from
either the Republican or the Democrat candidate. For example, in a three-way election, a
Libertarian candidate who stresses less government intrusion could sink a vulnerable
Republican. Or a viable Green Party candidate, advocating environmental protection no
matter the costs, could pull votes away from a Democrat.
Third-party
candidates can hurt either party, especially if they are just spoiler candidates inspired
by revenge, which many are. One who gets on the ballot and mounts a campaign — not
necessarily to promote his own candidacy, but to tear down another’s — could tip
the scales in any election. He may not enjoy the thrill of victory, but he can assure that
someone will experience the agony of defeat.
The motives of most
spoiler candidates are usually personal and almost always vindictive. They are frequently
ex-Republicans or ex-Democrats who have been shunned or rejected by their respective
partieand would enjoy nothing better than to cost their former comrades an election.
THIRD PARTY STEEL CAGE MATCH
One simply has to
examine the role of Ross Perot in the last two Presidential elections to imagine the
turmoil a third-party candidate can create in an election. A disgruntled billionaire with
a bad haircut and the ultimate Napoleon complex, Perot single-handedly destroyed the
re-election hopes of George Bush, Sr., in 1992. In 1996, with the help of the media doubts
about Bob Dole’s chances for victory, Perot and his allies helped smash the Dole/Kemp
ticket.
While some may say
Bill Clinton won on his ability, charm, integrity(?), in neither election did the
Clinton/Gore ticket receive a majority of votes from Americans. Rather, they received a
plurality — less than 50 percent. In fact, a close look at precinct results from 1992
reveals a startling (and disturbing) electoral fact.
Bill Clinton won
with 43 percent of the total votes cast, while George Bush received 38 percent and Ross
Perot received 19 percent. Thus, Bush and Perot combined for 57 percent of the vote,
meaning almost 60 percent of America voted against the candidate who took up residence at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A reverse of those results could just as easily happen to the
Democrats in the future if, for example, a well-financed Jerry Brown mounted a third-party
campaign against Al Gore.
This is not to say
that all third-party candidates intend to play the role of spoiler. Most just run for
office under the party label (or lack thereof) that best fits them. They have a right to
run and they have a right to be heard.
While a successful
third-party campaign is extremely rare, some third-party candidates can catch on and tip
the scales far enough to win an election outright. In the cases where third-party
candidates do win, it’s because they avoid the spoiler label and pull votes almost
equally from both parties.
Jesse "The
Governor" Ventura is the prime example. Here was a plainspoken former pro-wrestler
and Navy SEAL who towered over his two sniping opponents.
He told the people
he was going to give them a billion-dollar tax rebate and stay out of their bedrooms.
Ventura positioned himself perfectly for Minnesota voters: a fiscal conservative and a
social liberal.
Ventura ran a
classic populist-style campaign against the two party nominees. As an outsider he claimed
he was beholden to no one and he blasted both sides for being bought and paid for by
special interests. Because of his "wrestling star" persona, Ventura energized
the masses — young and old alike — not just to register, not just to vote, but
to get involved and work on his campaign, a sight rarely seen in American politics.
It worked like a
charm. Ventura pulled just enough votes from both parties based on the issues and garnered
the significant independent swing vote. More importantly for political watchers, Ventura
received the overwhelming majority of votes from the newly registered voters that he
inspired.
Could something like
that happen here in Florida at the state or local level? In theory, yes. Is it likely to
happen? Probably not, especially not on any grand scale. But if there were a yet
unforeseen political uprising that caused a groundswell of third-party candidates,
Florida’s move to lower the bar for minor-party qualifying will have been like
opening the flood gates.
Imagine the
hand-wringing in Democrat Bill Nelson’s U.S. Senate campaign meetings provoked by the
possibility of Willie Logan mounting a challenge outside the Democratic Primary. If Logan
— a well-respected, independent-minded, black legislator — can peel off enough
votes from disenchanted Democrats and excite the swing voters, he will be a powerful
force.
OPENING PANDORA’S PRIMARY BOX
Amore vexing problem
from the election strategist’s standpoint is the second major revision of Amendment
11, allowing crossover voting in the party primaries. Crossover voting is less troublesome
for the two major parties than it is for those who care about particular issues rather
than party labels.
Previously, Florida
was one of 18 states with a "closed" primary, allowing primary votes to be cast
only by voters having the same party affiliation as the candidate. This was a practical
and longstanding mechanism used by the parties to put forth the candidates who best
represented the views of the majority of the party members. These candidates were the
crowned standard bearers of the parties who carried the message to the people and did
battle against all foes in the war of ideas.
Backers of the open
primary felt that it was necessary because election performance has remained relatively
constant at the district level. In certain districts elected officials invariably won
their seats in a primary, gaining office without a challenge from the other party. In
1998, 88 senators and representatives won election in their primary races (63 of them were
unopposed in the primary). In 1996, 69 won, 63 of them unopposed. Thus, in 63 percent of
the 1998 races and 49 percent of 1996 races, voters from other parties were never given
the opportunity to choose between candidates; in 12 percent of the 1998 races, no one cast
a vote for a legislative candidate.
The result,
according to pro-Revision 11 forces, is a lack of interest in elections, a cynical
electorate, and lower voter turnout. Their solution was to open up the primary by placing
on the ballot, under the separate heading of "universal primary," those
candidates without other-party opposition. Registered voters of all parties would be
allowed to vote in the universal primary (known also as the "ubiquitous brawl").
The cure, however, may do more harm than the disease.
The open-primary
"solution" to voter apathy will allow Republicans to vote in some Democratic
primaries and vice versa, creating a potential for mischievous operatives in either party
to wreak havoc on the other come the first Tuesday in September of every election year.
Term limits,
however, take effect in 2000 (assuming the courts don’t overturn that constitutional
amendment) and will create a record number of vacancies — 55 of 120 in the state
house and 11 of 40 in the state senate. This means that Florida’s Republican and
Democratic parties will be scrambling to fill the vacancies. They will need to concentrate
their efforts and resources on holding their current numbers and winning the open seats,
leaving little time to "play" in the other party’s primary.
The same is likely
to happen in the next election cycle. In 2002, term limits will again play a major role,
adding more open seats. But an even bigger predicament will be redrawing the district
lines following the 2000 Census. The parties will again have to concentrate their energy
and resources on the seats they have to hold, leaving little time for anything else.
Partisan primary mischief
doesn’t have to be limited to actions by the parties, however. Just because one party
may not venture into the other’s elections doesn’t mean there won’t be
political shenanigans.
STIRRING THE PRIMARY BREW
The 2000 primary
season has all the makings of an all-out special-interest war, rather than a typical fight
between philosophical labels (liberal v. conservative). Special-interest groups could take
advantage of these new laws to elect politicians who support their causes. This would most
likely be attempted in the seats where one political party is a dominant force and the
seat rarely changes partisan hands.
Take the House seats
in Broward County for instance, where Democrats have a stranglehold on the ballot box.
Democrats tend to elect the most liberal from their party, knowing they won’t have to
contend with general-election opposition. Even when the Republicans do field candidates in
these seats, they are usually sacrificial lambs almost assured of political slaughter.
A good example is
House District 97, currently represented by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who is likely to run
for the state senate in 2000. District 97 will become an open seat in a district where
Democrats outnumber Republicans 55 percent to 35 percent (the remaining 10 percent are
Independents and others).
Democrats dominate
all the races in District 97 on election day. In the last four election cycles only one
statewide Republican — U.S. Sen. Connie Mack in 1994 — garnered over 50 percent
of the vote. Wasserman-Schultz has been contested by a Republican in every election cycle
this decade and she has consistently won with over 60 percent of the vote.
Because the district
is so Democratic and perceived as extremely liberal, the successful Democratic candidate
will rarely deviate from the wishes of the Democratic Party’s base supporters, as
evidenced by the voting record of Wasserman-Schultz. Not that her voting record is
underhanded or dishonest in any way. It’s just liberal, like her district. It’s
simply natural for Wasserman-Schultz to support the people who got her elected.
Among her main
supporters — and among the Democrats’ biggest backers — are the trial
lawyers, who pump millions of dollars into the coffers of the Democratic Party and its
candidates. Democrats in turn vote accordingly. In 1999, 41 out of 63 Democrats in the
Legislature voted against tort reform (three Democrats did not cast a vote; one pro-reform
Democrat, Rudy Bradley of St. Petersburg, has since switched parties). Leading the charge
was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The open House
District 97 seat presents a quandary for trial lawyers who must replace
Wasserman-Schultz’s reliable pro-trial lawyer vote with a new one. In turn, there is
an opportunity for the business community to impact the election and maybe even pick up a
vote for business.
What would happen if
the business community were to recruit a qualified pro-business candidate who fits the
district demographic profile and then backed that candidate with resources and manpower in
the Democratic primary? If there were no general election opposition, Republicans (35
percent of the electorate) would be allowed to vote in the primary and they could likely
be persuaded to vote for the pro-business (more moderate) Democrat.
Theoretically, that
candidate would need only 16 percent of the Democratic primary vote (plus all 35% of GOP
votes to claim victory). There is no guarantee of success, but it is an interesting
proposition to say the least.
So it would be
foolish for anyone to deny the ability of a traditionally liberal or historically
pro-trial-lawyer district to elect a pro-business candidate. All it takes is the right
candidate, a well-run campaign, and maybe a little help from some primary crossover
friends.
Conversely, the same
situation is true for the Republican primary. In House District 13 in Jacksonville, where
Republicans have conquered the Democrats in 29 of 30 statewide elections in the last 14
years, Republican member Steve Wise must vacate the seat because of term limits. If the
trial lawyers were to field a GOP candidate and there were no general-election opposition,
the Democrats would be able to vote in the GOP primary and could easily decide the
election, because the Democrats make up over 40 percent of registered voters.
HOW ABOUT THOSE WACKY WRITE-INS?
An unanswered
question remains: Does a write-in candidate constitute general-election opposition? In the
1999 session, the Florida House approved implementing language (C.S./H.B. 1465) for
Amendment 11 that answered that question in the affirmative. The Florida Senate disagreed.
The two sides could not reconcile their differences before session’s end. Unless the
issue is resolved in next year’s legislative session, or if a challenge arises before
then, the decision will be left in the hands of Florida’s enigmatic courts.
Whatever the answer,
any group with a stake in legislative decisions must be prepared to file candidates right
up until the last minute of qualifying. A last-minute filing of a third party candidate, a
write-in, or, worse yet, a general-election opposition candidate who withdraws could spell
disaster for one side while being a godsend to the other.
Take, for example,
Steve Wise’s District 13 seat. If a conservative business candidate ran against a
trial-lawyer candidate in the Republican primary and there were Democratic opposition in
the general election, the primary would be closed and only registered Republicans could
vote in it. In a typical closed Republican primary — if both campaigns are relatively
equal — the odds favor the more conservative, business-friendly candidate.
But if the announced
Democrat doesn’t qualify, or withdraws from the race entirely and the vacancy is not
filled, Democrats will be allowed to vote in the open primary, increasing the odds of
victory for the trial- lawyer candidate.
Take the same
scenario back down to Broward County. In Wasserman-Schultz’s District 97, if there
were only a Democratic primary, everyone would be counting on Republicans being able to
cross over and vote for the more moderate, business friendly-Democrat against a liberal
trial-lawyer candidate.
Realizing this, the
trial lawyers could recruit a last- second third-party candidate who would qualify as
general election opposition. The primary would then be closed, allowing only Democrats to
vote and thus virtually assuring the election of the more liberal trial lawyer candidate.
THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Like the
Rubik’s Cube, there are a million combinations and scenarios created by Amendment 11
that probably never even entered the minds of its creators.
Instead of providing greater
openness and accountability, Revision 11 may actually increase the impact of special
interests on elections. In turn, candidates will be forced to rely more heavily on these
same special interests, making them less accountable to the people, which is the polar
opposite of what the proponents of Revision 11 envisioned.
Like most laws, Amendment 11 is
cloaked in good intentions, but look behind the curtain and it is a step toward political
chaos. By allowing crossover primary voting, Amendment 11 blurs the political lines by
nullifying the concept of the parties nominating their own candidates. It also stands to
further ignite special interest wars within the two major parties.
Neither result would probably
upset the cynical opinion leaders who advocated this amendment, because they find
party-bashing to be highly fashionable (and just plain fun). They choose to ignore the
salutary effect of America’s two-party system. The two parties are the primary
promoters of citizen participation in our democratic process (providing issue information,
voter- registration drives, campaign volunteers etc.). Unlike the multi-party systems in
Europe that balkanize the voting public, having two major parties also contributes to
government order and stability. Nevertheless, the two parties are under constant assault
by the "trendier than thou" in society, who see them as competition in the arena
of shaping public opinion.
Regardless of the consequences,
these self-appointed "leaders" consistently advocate limiting the parties’
ability to organize, educate, and turn out voters (as if the parties should be washing
cars instead). Amendment 11 is just the latest salvo in the ongoing battle against the two
parties and American-style political organization.
For now, though, it seems that
elections will continue to be defined in terms of Republican versus Democrat and
conservative versus liberal. But there will be a twist; not so much in terms of third
parties clashing with the two major parties as much as special interest versus special
interest. The battleground will be in the district primaries.
When the postmortem of the 2000
campaigns is complete, the side that does the best job of calculating the new election-law
changes into their plans, that recruits the right candidates, and that unites behind those
candidates will come out on top.
John Wehrung, former political director of the Republican Party
of Florida, is now with Tidewater Consulting, Inc., headquartered in Tallahassee (e-mail: jwehrung@tidewaterinc.com).
July/August 1999 -- Florida Business Insight, PO Box 784, Tallahassee, Fla.
32302
(850)224-7173, insight@aif.com
