Category Archives: Elections

A better Electoral College

Elections, Politics

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Voters across this country are being reminded once again this year that, if they live in 39 states including Arkansas, presidential candidates either take their votes for granted or write their votes off.

That’s because we don’t elect presidents by the popular vote but through the Electoral College. Arkansas gets six votes out of the 538 cast, and everyone knows who will win those six – the Republican, in this case Donald Trump. In a Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College poll published Sept. 22, Trump was trouncing Hillary Clinton, 55-34 percent. But the outcome was obvious long before then.

On Election Night, the Associated Press and the TV networks will call Arkansas for Trump the instant the polls close and then move on to the swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin.

If elections were decided by a national popular vote, Arkansans’ votes would go into one big pot to be counted with those from every other state. Instead, those votes go into the Arkansas pot, where the outcome is already known.

This means your individual vote in Arkansas effectively has zero influence on who becomes the next president. So if you cannot abide Trump or Clinton, you are free to join the seven percent of Arkansans who told Talk Business they are voting for someone else.

“Vote your conscience because your vote has no effect anyway” is not exactly a rallying cry for the status quo, and it’s not the only problem with the Electoral College. Because Arkansas is not a swing state, both the Trump and Clinton campaigns made early decisions to waste no resources courting it, and to make no promises that would benefit it.

The Electoral College has numerous other flaws. First, because 48 states are winner-take-all, the loser of the popular vote can be elected president, which has happened four times, most recently in 2000. In fact, it’s possible for a candidate to win the presidency by winning the largest 11 states, even if by narrow margins, while not even appearing on the ballot in the others. Second, because of the way electors are apportioned, Americans living in small states have greater influence than those living in large states. In a country that professes to believe in “one person, one vote,” a Wyoming resident’s vote has four times the weight of a Texan’s, according to the advocacy group FairVote. Third, the winner-take-all system creates a strong incentive for voters to choose the least objectionable major party candidate, making it very difficult for a qualified third party candidate with good ideas to make a dent. Finally, in 21 states, including Arkansas, electors do not have to follow the voters’ wishes. They can vote for whomever they want – and have done so 157 times in American history, according to FairVote.

The Electoral College was created by framers of the Constitution who were skeptical of giving the people too much power. If we were designing our democracy today, there’s no way we would do it this way.

One solution is a nationwide popular vote, but having to count 130 million votes one at a time could be messy and produce unintended consequences. Besides, a government that cannot produce a budget or fight the Zika virus is not going to make this big a change.

So instead of abolishing the Electoral College, why not just make it better? Multiple the number of electoral votes by 10 in each state, giving Arkansas 60 votes instead of six. That way, there would be enough to apportion them according to the results. In Arkansas, Trump would get the 55 percent he’s already getting without trying here, plus whatever else he could earn by actually campaigning, while Clinton would win electoral votes and so could the third party and independent candidates. Meanwhile, Clinton would no longer be assured of winning all of California’s 55 votes. Her total would match the percentage of 550 she earns there.

Also, either make it illegal for electors to vote against the people’s wishes, or, better yet, just get rid of electors entirely and assign electoral votes automatically.

We don’t have to repeal and replace the Electoral College. Let’s just fix it so presidential candidates can’t take anyone’s vote for granted or write anybody’s off. Let’s make every state matter, not just the swing states. All it takes is simple math: Multiply by 10 and divide according to the results.

No debate: Tough for Arkansas Democrats to win statewide races

Elections, Politics

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You can’t blame a guy for trying, and that includes trying to be a U.S. senator.

I’m referring to Democratic candidate Conner Eldridge’s latest attempt to debate Republican Sen. John Boozman, or at least to remind whoever is listening that Boozman doesn’t want to debate him.

Which he doesn’t, and why would he? Debates are unpredictable, and Boozman might make a big mistake, although this campaign is showing that a candidate can say or do just about anything and still become a major party presidential nominee. Boozman has agreed to one debate, sponsored by AETN Oct. 12.

Boozman will continue doing what all front-running incumbents do: Avoid his opponent no matter how much the opponent gets under his skin, stay out of trouble, and use his huge fundraising advantage to run television ads, which Boozman has begun doing with a recent $300,000 ad buy. The ad shows him in a positive light and doesn’t mention Eldridge, who isn’t on TV yet.

Meanwhile, Eldridge will continue doing what all underdog opponents do: try to throw a kink in those plans. After months of calling out Boozman – even driving a truck around the state with two podiums – Eldridge finally held a debate without him in Fayetteville with the Libertarian candidate, Frank Gilbert. On the stage was an empty podium signifying Boozman’s absence.

The run-up to the debate was kind of messy. As reported by KUAR’s Jacob Kauffman, the debate was to be organized by the University of Arkansas Associated Student Government. Apparently the Boozman campaign was never issued an invitation, which of course it would have declined. Still, when the snafu became apparent, the debate’s moderator, Doug Thompson with the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, pulled out.

I should disclose that I was then approached by Gilbert to see if I would be willing to moderate and said I would do it, but then I removed myself from consideration when I learned about the empty podium prop. The night of the debate, television anchor Dillon Thomas also backed out.

Basically, everybody got what they wanted, though in a roundabout way. Boozman avoided the debate. Eldridge got a visual of an empty podium that he can use to remind voters that Boozman won’t debate him – which is more useful to him than an actual debate, which few would watch. Gilbert had a chance to discuss the issues, which is why he’s running as a Libertarian and not as a major party candidate.

The problem for Eldridge is that this election was over when he decided to put a “D” at the end of his name and Boozman already had an “R” at the end of his, and “Sen.” at the front.

Here are the percentages statewide Republican candidates have won in recent elections: 57 percent by Sen. Tom Cotton in 2014; 55 percent by Gov. Asa Hutchinson in 2014; 61 percent by Mitt Romney in 2012; and 58 percent by Boozman in 2010.

Here are the percentages won by Democrats in those races: 39, 41, 37, 37, by Sen. Mark Pryor in 2014, by Mike Ross in his race for governor in 2014, by President Obama in 2012, and by Sen. Blanche Lincoln in 2010.

See a pattern there? The Republican ceiling is somewhere in the high 50s to low 60s. The Democrats’ ceiling is somewhere in the high 30s to low 40s. It’s possible that the six people running for president as independents and third party candidates might mess up that equation in that race a little, but not much. Otherwise, Hillary Clinton, Arkansas’ former first lady, would be campaigning here.

Debates will not make Arkansas competitive. What will make Arkansas competitive is demographic change – when the voting population becomes more diverse, as has happened in other states, and when today’s young people become active voters. The rising millennial generation seems to be more liberal about some things, although some voters become more conservative as they grow older.

Eldridge can’t wait for all of that. He’s running this year, so you can’t blame him for trying to make this race competitive, even though he probably can’t.

So why run as a Democrat? For the same reason Gilbert ran as a Libertarian – because it’s the party that most closely fits his views. You can’t blame a guy for that, either.

Steve Brawner is an independent journalist in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.

Casino vote makes strange bedfellows

Business and economics, Elections, Politics, State government

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

There’s a lot more to this debate over the proposed casino amendment than just whether or not Arkansas should have more slot machines than it already does – which is quite a lot between Oaklawn and Southland.

Issue 5 would create a constitutional amendment authorizing the building of one casino each in Washington County, Miller County and Boone County. The casinos would be required to pay the state 18% of their net and would pay 1.5% to the city where they are located and .5% to their local counties. An Arkansas Gaming Commission would regulate.

The amendment’s backers, Arkansas Wins in 2016, say Arkansas should have casinos here because they’re already just across the border elsewhere – in Mississippi, in western Oklahoma; in Caruthersville, Missouri; and in Shreveport, Louisiana. Adding three casinos in Arkansas would keep Arkansas gamblers at home and attract some out-of-staters. A lot of people think going to casinos is fun. If they’re going to gamble, eat at buffets and go to shows, they might as well do it in Arkansas, employing Arkansans, boosting tourism and paying state taxes.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and that’s definitely true with this issue. Opposed to the effort are faith-based groups such as the Family Council along with the state’s existing gambling providers, Oaklawn and Southland, which race horses and greyhounds on a part-time basis and operate casino-like entities full-time. The Family Council doesn’t want the gambling; Oaklawn and Southland don’t want the competition.

They’ll be working in parallel but not really together. The Family Council will spread through its grassroots network of churches its message that gambling leads to social ills – addiction, divorce, etc. – without the promised economic benefits. Meanwhile, Oaklawn along with Southland’s parent corporation in August donated a total of $109,500 to the Committee to Protect Arkansas’ Values/Stop Casinos Now. In fact, they’re the only donors listed in the required campaign filing with the Arkansas Ethics Commission. That money is funding a lawsuit in the Arkansas Supreme Court to disqualify the amendment.

Four years ago, a group with a similar name and the same chairman, former Arkansas Sheriffs Association Executive Director Chuck Lange, raised more than $1 million from Southland, so that $109,500 is probably just seed money.

The Committee’s messaging so far has focused less on gambling’s ills and more on what the proposed amendment does and doesn’t do. The amendment defines gambling as whatever is legal in Arkansas’ surrounding states and in Nevada, meaning Arkansas policymakers would be handcuffed in defining terms and setting limits. It would allow sports betting and alcohol sales.

Like previous casino amendments that have either been tossed from the ballot or voted down by Arkansans, this one is backed by those who would make money off it. It would embed in the Arkansas Constitution a permanent monopoly granted to two Missouri businessmen, Bob Womack of Branson and Jim Thompson of Blue Eye, and their successors and assignees.

That means no one else could operate a casino anywhere in Arkansas except those two along with Oaklawn and Southland. Those two existing casinos are limited by law, for now, to “electronic games of skill,” such as blackjack tables with electronic “cards” rather than those dealt by humans.

So expect to hear opponents use the words “out of state” a lot, even though Arkansas’ two current gambling establishments also are owned by out-of-state entities – Oaklawn by the Cella family of St. Louis, and Southland by Buffalo-based Delaware North.

All of this very easily could become moot. The issue is now in the hands of the Arkansas Supreme Court, which is considering whether the ballot title is misleading and whether the signatures were collected improperly.

In fact, all four voter-led ballot initiatives – this, two that would legalize medical marijuana, and one that would limit judgments in medical lawsuits – are being sued for one reason or another.

Will at least one of them be disqualified? History shows that’s a pretty safe bet.

‘Tis the season for lawsuits

Elections, Health care, Politics, State government

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Every calendar year has four seasons, and so does every campaign year. There’s the filing season, when potential candidates decide to run; the primary season, when the parties choose their nominees; the general election season, which ends in November; and, tucked in its own little spot about now, is a fourth season: the lawsuit season.

Yes, ’tis the season when opponents of various voter-initiated acts and amendments try to remove them from the ballot, or at least keep their votes from being counted, by filing suit in the Arkansas Supreme Court.

This year, four initiatives have qualified for the ballot by gathering enough signatures from registered voters: a constitutional amendment that would legalize marijuana for medical use; an initiated act that would do the same, with some differences; an amendment that would limit attorney fees and jury awards for pain and suffering in medical lawsuits; and an amendment that would authorize casinos in Boone, Washington, and Miller Counties.

All four have drawn legal challenges. Generally speaking, the groups are making the same arguments that are always made about these issues: that the ballot titles are misleading, and that technical violations occurred in the signature collecting process.

These lawsuits are just part of accepted campaign strategy, so both sides know they have to budget for legal fees. The lawsuits almost always happen when issues are this controversial and when someone stands to lose something. For example, the Arkansas Bar Association has filed suit to stop the amendment that would limit attorney fees and jury awards – which, when higher, produce higher fees. The casino amendment faces a lawsuit from a group supported in part by Oaklawn Park and Southland Gaming and Racing, which don’t want the competition.

That last paragraph sounded cynical, didn’t it? Human beings have complicated motivations. For example, the Arkansas Bar Association’s unanimous opposition to the medical lawsuit amendment probably is due partly from a desire to protect an income stream, at least with some members. At the same time, attorneys have a unique appreciation for the importance of why big verdicts sometimes are needed. Moreover, the amendment is being pushed primarily by nursing homes who want to reduce losses from big jury verdicts, some of which might be based on emotion and good lawyering. Can’t blame them for that.

So now the questions go straight to the Arkansas Supreme Court, where the wheels of justice will turn more swiftly than is normal. We’re reaching mid-September. Election Day is Nov. 8. Absentee ballots must be mailed to voters no later than Oct. 14. Early voting begins Oct. 24. That means the Supreme Court must consider arguments and render decisions as soon as possible. Even if it moves quickly, it’s not unusual for the ballot to be littered with proposals that the court has ruled invalid.

At this point, I’m definitely against one of the proposals, leaning against two and wavering on one. Still, my preference is to vote, even if something passes I don’t like.

In a state whose motto is, “The people rule,” it’s probably best if the measures stay on the ballot, if they can. All four were approved – actually, partly rewritten – by the attorney general’s office to comply with state law. All four’s signatures were validated by a small army of full-time and temporary workers with the secretary of state’s office. Should four Supreme Court justices override those efforts?

Also, all four represent the kind of issue for which voters are well-suited to express their will. These aren’t questions of bureaucratic minutiae. They’re big-picture questions about values and about what this state ought to look like. Whether there should be casinos in Arkansas when surrounding states already have them has been debated around many a kitchen table. So has whether marijuana’s clear harm to many means it shouldn’t be available to those it clearly helps. Would limiting a type of jury award help doctors and nursing homes lower costs for all of us, or would they become more negligent? The voters can decide.

If the legal minds on the Supreme Court believe that real problems exist with a ballot title or signature gathering process, then yes, disqualify a proposal. It’s their job to look at the details.

But if it’s in the gray area, let’s hope the Court errs on the side of not disqualifying. In a state whose motto is “The people rule,” the presumption should be to let the people rule.