What the Georgia congressional election shows about ranked-choice voting

Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District just completed a run-off election for the vacant seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The record of that race reveals much relevant to the consideration of ranked-choice voting.

The first round of the election took place on April 18.  In a traditionally solidly Republican district, Democrat Jon Ossoff won 48 percent of the vote in a crowded field.  The second place finisher was Republican Karen Handel with 19 percent. 

Most of the rest of the vote was divided among other Republicans.  That’s not surprising, because they were all vying to be the GOP winner or at least the survivor getting to a run-off in the belief, correct as it turned out, that a Republican would hold the naturally GOP district.

If Georgia used the Maine system, with a plurality winner and no second round, Ossoff might have lost if the GOP had put up just one candidate, probably after holding a primary.  He might have won only if there had been a third candidate.

The total participation in the April round was 192,569.

If Georgia used ranked-choice voting, it’s also possible the Republican candidate would have won.  She might have been the second choice of all of the other Republicans, giving her 98,196 to Ossoff’s Democratic 94,201 votes, composed of his own and the second choice votes of the other Democratic voters.  (There were a handful of independent voters, so numbers don’t exactly add up.)

Handel would have had 51 percent to Ossoff’s 49 percent.

But it is also possible that, with a plethora of GOP hopefuls, Handel might not have picked up enough second choice votes to win or to win by more than a plurality.  The only way she could win a majority if she did not get all the second-choice voters she needed was to simply dump some votes and voters from the count. 

That’s how ranked-choice voting can work.  It can turn a real plurality into a phony majority by eliminating some voters.

But Georgia does not use ranked-choice voting.  In fact, no state does.  Like 10 other states, it uses a run-off.  It was held on June 20.

Handel won 52 percent of the vote and Ossoff held his 48 percent.  She won.

The number of participants was 259,486.  That’s 35 percent more than in the first round.  So much for any claim that run-offs inevitably have lower turnouts.   

Run-offs can do better for participation and democracy than ranked-choice voting.

What does Georgia show that may be relevant to Maine’s consideration of voting?

First, the plurality system may produce a different result from either a run-off or ranked choice voting.  So the threshold question is whether Mainer wants to abandon plurality elections.  That’s probably the first question that ought to be put to voters and that would require a constitutional amendment.

Second, if Maine voters want change, they should consider the widely used run-off as well as the new and untried ranked-choice voting.  After a favorable vote to amend the Constitution, they could make this choice.

Third, nobody is dropped from the voting process by the run-off system, but votes are eliminated in ranked-choice voting.

Fourth, ranked-choice voting is more costly than a run-off, according to the Secretary of State.

Fifth, the winner is selected after a clear contest between candidates by using either the plurality or the run-off, while the computer makes the choice, hidden from voters, in ranked-choice voting.  Plurality and run-offs depend on campaigns designed to convince voters not a short-cut counting system.

Finally, Mainers should avoid seeing the need for ranked-choice voting in terms of the elections of Gov. LePage or Gov. Baldacci.  Any change would last decades or centuries with unknown results.

Well-informed? Not by government, blogs, tweets

The gap between the people and their government continues to grow.  The sense that government exists to serve the people keeps eroding.

Many government leaders don't want a well-informed country, and they are supported by a new artificial media.

Last week, Sen. Angus King asked two top national intelligence officials about their conversations with President Trump.  They refused to answer, not because of legally protected presidential conversations, but because, as one said, he simply felt it would not be “appropriate.” 

King answered, “What you feel isn't relevant, admiral.”  He scolded a public official deciding on his own what was appropriate to disclose to a senator and to the citizens for whom he supposedly works.

What the admiral said was normal in Washington.  What King said was the shocker.  A senator wanting an unclassified answer from a federal employee, but greeted by a self-centered refusal, is what made news.

The exchange shows much of the business of government belongs to insiders. The people who are running the government on behalf of the public appear not to care that the survival of a true democratic system depends on an informed population. 

Nothing shows this better than the fate of “sunshine” laws adopted years ago.  In Maine, requests from the public for information that were supposed to be answered quickly, pile up for months. They should get a higher priority than the work those in charge insist on using as an excuse to delay or block answers.

Like Maine's Freedom of Access Law, the federal Freedom of Information Act is riddled with exceptions that government has given itself.  The broad reach of those laws has been whittled down by the excessive delays and myriad exceptions.

When government keeps as much as it can under wraps, leaks inevitably occur.    

Government officials don't like leaks.   They prefer to act free from public review, which might limit their actions.  They see government as being independent of citizens, and sometimes even as an adversary.

Some leaks are inevitable.  As policy is developed, those whose views are rejected seek a way to get them out to the public.  The occasional whistle blower will take the risk of leaking word of illegal or outright lying by public officials. 

Despite the certainty that there will be some leaks in a country denied much government in the sunshine, some politicians fail to adjust to reality and are ready to pursue leakers with great vigor if few results.

We have seen the curious situation of former FBI Director James Comey giving his own unclassified notes of a conversation with President Trump to a friend to reveal rather than releasing them himself.  Though that's a bit unorthodox, it not really a leak.

Trump has been angered by word filtering out about his in-house statements and activities.  Without leaks, his political vulnerability would be less.  So he attacks leaking, trying to draw attention away from the underlying issue of his policy-making by tweet.

In a way, Trump's daily tweets may be seen to make him the most open president ever.  But he also wants to completely control the discussion and disclose only what he wants public, but that policy only encourages leakers.  Trump uses Twitter, he says, because it's just like owning his own newspaper.

Ultimately, finding out about what government does not want citizens to know and helping citizens control their government depends on the media.

Much is made of the First Amendment.  But it only protects the media from government control.  Freedom of the press depends more broadly on the press itself and the public's use and defense of it.

To promote their views, Trump and friends rely on electronic media, usually blogs, that produce false news, but can easily gain visibility.  Comey's congressional testimony was twisted by one blog supporting Trump and the incorrect version gained worldwide circulation. 

His allies attack what they call the Main Stream Media, meaning newspapers and broadcasters paid to report independently.  They see the MSM as being as biased, justifying the right-wing bloggers creating their own version of the news.

Such attacks can undermine or even discredit the media.  That makes it all the more important for the MSM to do its job undeterred.  The media must find audiences and advertisers who will pay for independence, understanding that sometimes they will like the product and sometimes they won't.

The effort to keep citizens in the dark grows stronger.  In the end, it's people like Angus King or the MSM, on behalf of all citizens, that must press government to be open and responsible.

Collins should stay in Senate, not run for governor

Susan Collins, Maine’s moderate Republican in the U.S. Senate, should not run for governor in 2018. She should continue to serve in the Senate where she plays a major role for Maine and the country.

This is not a political endorsement. Right now, she is running for nothing, but serving a term that extends to 2020.

In the Senate, it often looks like Collins is the only member of the GOP moderate caucus. She represents the Maine view on issues, and her stands on principle can put her in conflict with her party’s leadership. By using old-fashioned “shunning,” they can make her pay a price for her independence.

Neither she nor Olympia Snowe, Maine's former senator and also a moderate, have had the kind of leadership roles, including committee chairs, they deserve. Too unreliably independent.

Of course, Collins must follow party leadership when she can. For example, she is a loyalist on the filibuster.

But her brand of independence and moderation is essential in a deeply polarized Congress. She has kept moderate politics legitimate in a party dominated by relentless conservatives. That has encouraged other Republicans, closet moderates, to stake out their own positions.

As the debate on a possible revision of the Affordable Care Act has shown, congressional Republican moderates have become more willing to differ from the slash-and-burn approach of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

With Bill Cassidy, the new GOP senator from Louisiana and a physician, Collins has sponsored a replacement for the Affordable Care Act that would be less threatening to those who have gained health insurance coverage under Obamacare.

Republican conservatives and Democratic liberals don’t like it. That’s a recipe for the moderates in both parties to ignore their leaders, block any extreme solution, and work together on a compromise.

It only takes a handful of senators, led by Collins and Cassidy, to produce at least some needed reform while blocking extreme solutions. Only a bipartisan deal could yield a durable solution. That has much less chance if Collins has one foot out the door.

Admittedly, the case is also strong for Collins to run for governor. First, let’s admit that if she ran, she would win. She has a formidable standing with the voters and operates at a political level well above any other possible candidate. If she announced, some other hopefuls would rush out the door.

And she may have a strong personal case for wanting to come back to the state. The stresses of being governor, particularly one capable of finding bipartisan solutions even if the Legislature were dominated by Democrats, are much less than those of being what she calls a “militant moderate” in the GOP Senate.

For one thing, she would no longer have to cater to Mitch McConnell, the mediocre GOP leader, who controls the Senate’s business. She must have been frustrated when he put together a Republican group to work on health care reform without a single woman, despite Collins’ seniority and her health care proposal.

Collins might also see the governorship as the political path to retirement. With less stress and a possible eight years in office, being governor could be a graceful departure, leaving the state in better shape than when she started.

Though she did not serve in the Maine Legislature, she knows how state government works. She headed the Department of Business Regulation, the same position as both my wife and I held, each of us under a different governor. She did an excellent job.

Maine has traditionally been a “strong governor state.” The Legislature looks to the governor for policy proposals and he (no women, yet) sets the agenda with the support of his legislative party.

Paul LePage has changed that. He offers take-it-or-leave-it proposals and seldom negotiates with the Legislature. In fact, when he makes the political debate personal, it undermines his influence, occasionally even alienating his own party.

Collins might restore the traditional role of the governor. It’s likely she could forge compromises with both parties and create a sense of good government instead of conflict.

If she stays in the Senate, as she should, the parties should not view the governorship as being so weakened that anybody could do the job. The state needs an articulate, thoughtful leader, not a political opportunist merely seeking to fill a vacuum. LePage will leave the state in need of more than routine leadership.

Collins made a deal with Maine voters to serve a six-year term in the U.S. Senate. As a person of principle, she should keep her commitment.

Trump turns page in world history: U.S. postwar leadership ends

World affairs may seem safely distant from life in a corner of the country, but events last week will affect this country for years to come.

The most powerful democracies met twice, once at a NATO summit and then at the Group of 7 leading economic powers. Among countries that count the most, only Russia and China were absent, because the two organizations consider them as adversaries.

The key event came after those meetings, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke with her supporters back home. Her speech recognized a page had turned in world history.

It was a European declaration of independence. “The times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over,” she said.

“I experienced that in the last few days, and therefore I can only say we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands, of course in friendship with the United States and in friendship with Great Britain and as good neighbors wherever it is possible, also with Russia and also with all the other countries,” she said.

“But we need to know that we have to fight for our own future and destiny as Europeans.”

Her statement reflected two major developments. The first was Brexit, the British vote to quit the European Union. The second was the rude, arrogant and ignorant behavior of President Trump last week on matters ranging from mutual defense to the environment to trade.

It also reflected a new European reality. Merkel showed strong leadership and even the opposing candidate in this fall’s German elections endorsed her position. And Emmanuel Macron, the new French president, revived hope for a recovery of leadership by his own country.

Trump had scolded sovereign nations, and literally elbowed aside the leader of another NATO member to get into his place in the front row. That’s not how one country deals with another. One result was that Macron crunched Trump’s handshake to make a political point.

If you want to receive respect, you have to give it.

Trump seems to believe that Europe and much of the rest of the world depends on the U.S., allowing him to impose his policies. Yet his “America First” approach essentially reduces this country’s influence. Other countries are beginning to realize their own abilities to operate free of U.S. leadership.

That’s a fact, so we should avoid getting defensive about it. It may be tempting to attack Merkel, because of German history six decades ago, but that hardly changes or improves a situation over which the U.S. has diminishing control.

In just four months as president, Trump has managed to bring about the kind of fundamental change he promised. The world after the Second World War, which the U.S. dominated, ended last week, and a new role for the U.S. began.

The U.S. has quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership, aimed at limiting China’s power, but the other participants proceed with it. Canada, snubbed and chided by the American president, will have a major, new trade agreement with the EU. Italy is reportedly increasing contacts with the Russians.

The American trade deficit is treated in isolation from the foreign investment flowing into the country. “Protectionism,” which had become a dirty word, is now being polished. But it is the equivalent of “isolation,” in which the U.S. may find itself adrift in the world economy.

Why should the average American care about this? Isn’t it better to put America first and stop worrying about the rest of the world?

That policy has consequences. Increasing economic isolation, behind a wall of higher trade barriers, will raise prices on most things we buy. In confronting Russia and China, the U.S. may find other countries pursing policies diverging from America’s interests.

Cooperating with allies may have seemed to be a drain on the American taxpayer, but it produced support from countries as far apart as Germany and Australia. Now, they are alienated, reducing our options and our ability to operate across the world.

Perhaps the new style of the American president is causing a needed international realignment of power. The result is already emerging – a world in which America’s dominant role is ending.

Americans believe their country is exceptional, and we are right. It has defeated threats to world peace for more than a century. At the same time, it has stood for values that others hope to achieve.

American exceptionalism depends on our respect for freedom and a system of justice under law. Leadership is not only a result of force, but of moral values. It is threatened.

Budget battles focus on cutting taxes, key programs

Big budget battles are under way now.

In Maine, the Legislature struggles toward a bipartisan compromise, essential for adopting a state budget, with the central issues being tax cuts for the wealthy and education spending.

In Washington, President Trump’s new budget proposal focuses on tax cuts for the wealthy and reduced spending for the most vulnerable Americans. It foresees funding core budget items without boosting national debt by using new tax revenues resulting from a highly optimistic forecast of economic growth.

Republicans argue that government takes too much “hard earned” money away from individuals to fuel a bloated government. In Maine, Gov. LePage opposes voter-approved taxation, which he says will stifle the economy, while the Trump budget would use tax cuts as an economic stimulus and would save money by slashing safety net programs.

In both cases, the GOP plays to its constituency, those who believe taxes are too high, while Democrats support people who need and expect help from government programs like Medicaid, food stamps and student loans.

The only sure way to cut taxes without boosting debt is to reduce spending. The only way to reduce spending is to stop or reduce programs some taxpayers like. Most who seek to reduce the size of government would eliminate services they don’t use.

With so many diverse interests, it’s almost impossible to cut back. Besides, many activities are too small to produce big savings. Safety net programs are defended by some of the most conservative Republicans.

Cutting back on somebody else’s programs probably produces few savings unless the reductions are in major income support or military spending. Trump would not touch Social Security or Medicare and would increase defense outlays. That leaves Medicaid and support for low-income people.

Individuals and employers pay the bills. Individual income taxes and payroll taxes are four-fifths of federal revenue, but don’t cover all spending. Taxes must be supplemented by borrowing.

The GOP “deficit hawks” have derided Democrats for “tax and spend” policies. But, once in control, they look much like the Democrats. For example, to pick up votes for their effort to replace the Affordable Care Act, the House GOP readily added $8 billion in spending without matching revenues.

They once claimed that Congress would not add any spending without paying for it. Now, the GOP asserts that added costs will be covered by tax revenues resulting from almost impossible growth. If such forecasts don’t come true, the deficit will increase.

Trump and congressional Republicans also want to use cuts from health care reform to pay for tax reduction for upper income taxpayers, who would supposedly invest their tax savings, creating jobs and boosting economic growth.

With the prospect of few cuts acceptable to a congressional majority and public resistance to taxes, the federal government is in trouble.

If high economic growth doesn’t materialize and won’t pay for added government spending and tax cuts, the national debt will continue to grow. The bill for higher debt will eventually have to be paid by today’s kids. Eventually, Congress will be faced with the need to raise taxes not cut them.

In the meantime, tax reform would help. Unfortunately, tax reform seems always to be linked with tax reductions. True reform would leave revenues alone, while making the system more simple and fair.

Maine, like other states, must balance its budget, so the debt issue is less important. Like the federal government, the state spends most of its money in a few areas – health, education and transportation. All are difficult to cut, though health care spending mostly reflects national spending priorities.

For revenues, Maine depends mostly on sales taxes, excise taxes, and the individual income tax. But a large part of the budget comes from the federal government.

Last year, the voters dealt with taxes directly. Seeking to boost education funding, voters passed a bill adding a 3 percent tax on income above $200,000. This kind of broad-brush tax policy took the place of serious budget making.

LePage wants to eliminate that tax. Democrats want to keep it and the promise of more state aid for basic education.

The solution probably won’t be an increase in the income tax, already too high, or in pushing costs onto the property tax, also too high. At some point, the list of goods and services subject to the sales tax must be expanded.

The moral of this story is that budget reality will one day force itself on the federal and state governments. Voters don’t really want to cut government. Current tax policy must change.

Independent law enforcement, "check and balance" Trump, LePage dislike

It’s all J. Edgar Hoover’s fault.

Because of him, both Washington and Augusta still grapple with the issue of the independence of law enforcement from the political world.

Hoover, the late, former FBI director, seemed to hold a lifetime position and used his job security to collect intelligence on political figures, including the presidents he worked for, which he could use effectively to blackmail them into toeing his ideological line and keeping him in office.

Everybody, even a president, is subject to the law.  That means a chief executive must accept the authority of law enforcement officials.  Hoover, as a law enforcement official, could use his role not only to make major political figures subject to the law, but also to make them subject to him.

Congress had enough of this abuse of power and after Hoover had finally departed, it passed a law that tried to have it both ways.  The FBI director would have a ten-year term, continuing to enjoy considerable independence.  But a president could remove the director at will, thus preventing Hoover-like blackmail threats.

This formula might allow a president to remove an unethical director or one who abused his powers.  But it squarely posed the issue of the independence of justice and the law from politics.  And the question arose just as the courts themselves were becoming politicized.

President Trump, seeking to avoid potentially embarrassing revelations, wanted an end to inquiries into Russian campaign meddling.   

FBI Director James Comey continued investigating possible Russian contacts with the Trump campaign.  Trump fired Comey.

Then, Trump’s spokesperson said of the investigation, “There’s nothing there.  It’s time to move on.”  That’s wishful thinking at the highest level.

Trump, perhaps based on his business experience, has seemed to believe that winning the presidential race gave him almost unlimited power.  He has been learning, painfully and publicly, that government is unlike business, and he must deal with institutions and agencies independent of his control.

The president sees the Russia investigation as a political maneuver to undermine his legitimacy.  The FBI sees it as a way to determine if there has been a threat to the American political system.  In this conflict, Trump must give way, no matter what he thinks.

But he was so frustrated by both the inquiry and the amount of attention Comey was getting in the media that he removed the FBI director.  Trump has the right to fire him, but acting while his campaign was under FBI investigation was far from the intent of the presidential power of dismissal.

Dumping Comey, after trying to get him to halt an investigation of the campaign, has led to some in Congress to begin talking about dumping Trump as well.

His move and the reaction to it is another sign of the stress being placed on the unwritten understandings of the American system.  Clearly, Trump does not feel bound by them, and it may be reasonable to update some traditions.  And Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton emails was flawed, making his tenure questionable.

One solution may be to make the FBI director safe from firing for anything other than an illegal act.  The term would be reduced to six years, allowing presidents significant appointing authority.  But no president could impulsively dismiss a director, thus reducing the chance of the decision being purely political.

In Augusta, Gov. Paul LePage has been obviously unhappy about the independence of Attorney-General Janet Mills.  He would rather appoint the attorney-general to ensure that she would be under his control.  She angered him by refusing to sign onto to federal suits against Obama policies, opposed by LePage.

Mills has agreed to allow the governor to hire his own counsel with state funds when she will not take up the matter.  He then represents his office, but not the state.

To guarantee the independence of law enforcement from the governor, the attorney-general is elected by the people in 43 states, in Maine by the Legislature and in Tennessee by the state Supreme Court.  In only five states, the governor appoints the attorney-general.

LePage tried to get the Legislature to give him the power of appointment early in his term, but his bill was defeated with votes from both parties. 

 
Conflicts about the system of checks and balances are almost uniquely part of the American system.  No president, no governor is supposed to have unchecked power.  But, having won a general election, it seems hard for winners these days to accept “checks and balances” on their power.