Legislature/2008 Open Thread

2008 (0.00 / 0)

Auditor-Jim Elliott, Bill Kennedey
AG-John Parker, Larry Jent, Steve Bullock, Mike Wheat, Steve Doherty
SOS-Monica Lindeen, Bill Kennedey
OPI-Monica Lindeen, Bill Kennedey, Mary Sexton
COngress-Ed Tinsley

---

by: Red @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 16:51:16 PM UTC

cross town (0.00 / 0)

It will be interesting to watch AG surfacing with Jent/Wheat and Parker/Doherty coming from the same cities.

---

by: Headwaters @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 19:42:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AG (0.00 / 0)

Only two of the four are from the same town: Jent lives in Bozeman, Wheat and Parker are from Great Falls and Doherty lives in Missoula although he maintains an office in Great Falls.

---

by: jaxie @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 21:31:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Any Intel on Republicans? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 16:53:47 PM UTC

Reps Running (0.00 / 0)

AG-John Mercer
Auditor-Cory Stapleton
SOS-BJ
Opi-Elsie Artzen

---

by: Red @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:20:38 PM UTC

Hope and Fear: Montana's Legislative Future (4.00 / 1)

I have two ideas. One is big and structural and forward-looking, an aim to change the way elections function so that we better elected officials and less disgusting campaigns. The second aims to unwind a collosally unfair system of privilege in the name of fairness and equity.

First, let's look forward. I wish the legislature would amend the state constitution so that local governments can choose to conduct elections under an Instant Runoff Voting system rather than the plurality-encouraging first-past-the-post standard.

Instant Runoff Voting, if you are unfamiliar, allows voters to rank their preferences, choosing a second and third choice in addition to a first choice. If no candidate gets a majority, the second and third choices come into play until someone does get a majority.

I see two benefits: first, people can vote for a minority ideology without effectively supporting its opposite; second, candidates will have to campaign to be not just a first choice but also a second or third choice, which means that campaign tactics designed to divide rather than appeal to a broad spectrum of beliefs will backfire. Both of these features--the end of least-worst voting strategies and a strong disincentive to negative campaigning--seem sorely needed at the national level.

Instant Runoff Voting, however, would almost certainly lead to a decline in the power of the two major political parties, each of which appeals to many people only as an alternative to the other bastards. So IRV is dead unless it percolates up from municipalities and counties where the parties are not so entreched and the elections don't rely on so much divisiveness. Once people have a feel for how it works--if IRV works as advertised--there might be a chance for it being implemented in a Presidential primary or some other highly visible venue.

Right now, though, the Montana Constitution effectively prohibits IRV because Article IV, Section 5 of the Montana Constitution, which declares, “in all elections held by the people, the person or persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be declared elected," conflicts with its automatic recount mechanism. I would like for the legislature to propose an amendment that preserves the motive behind that clause--that the will of the people is reflected in election results--while allowing local governments to choose a better way of doing it. Any constitutional scholars out there have an idea about replacement verbage?

Second, I wish the legislature would reform the quota system governing on-premise sales of liquor, beer and wine. Right now, the number of liquor licenses in a municipality is based on a quota system that dates from the 1930s. It's a little complicated but it basically boils down to this: if you have a liquor license, it is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and is regarded by the state (and, crucially, banks) as a perpetual and transferable private property; and if you don't have a liquor license, don't expect to get one.

Basically, those with liquor licenses use the state to artifically limit the amount of competition they have to face, making it much more difficult to open a restaurant and near impossible to open a bar or nightclub. It is a shockingly unfair capture of government by a special interest. And it is kept in effect by powerful lobbies, the Montana Tavern Owners Association and the banks that use liquor licenses as collateral, that demands the genuflection of public officials under penalty of political death.

From where I sit, the quota system is as clear an example of government being run for the benefit of a privileged few at the expense of everyone else as there is in Montana. Opposition to change is based on expediency and not principle. But I don't expect it will change without a great deal of political courage. The governor has already bowed his knee to the status quo, a shameful betrayal of the economic populism that is supposed to be his hallmark. But if you wanted to improve the fortunes of the hospitality sector--a mainstay of the economy in a tourism-driven state--reforming the liquor laws would be an easy way to do it. Oh, that, and it's the right thing to do too. (If you disagree, and I'm sure someone does, I would be glad to explain more but I'd rather not expend too much energy debating an empty chair.)

So there are my legislative wishes: one hope to facilitate long-term structural improvement in democracy and one fear that a powerful lobby will keep an inequitable situation alive.

---

by: readbetween @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:35:44 PM UTC

Be careful with Instant Runoff Voting (4.00 / 1)

I am not sure the assumptions are right behind the theory of Instant Runoff Voting.  I am an Montanan living in San Francisco, a city that has IRV.  Since IRV was instituted here, not a single incumbent has lost.  In fact, I do not know of an incumbent who has lost an election in an IRV system in the entire country.  Also, San Francisco actually just elected a Republican to the City Board of Supervisors in a seven way race where IRV was used to determine the winner.  Those results can only be described as bizarre.  In San Francisco at least, IRV has not helped third party candidates get elected.  Instead, it gave Republicans there first win in this city is a long, long time.  And I don't think anyone can say that IRV has made campaigns less civilized here after IRV. The theory of IRV sounds great, but the real consequences of it are really a craps shoot.  I encourage you to look at the results IRV has produced in practice and to set the theory a side, because as far as I can tell, the promise of IRV has never played out the way its makers intended.

---

by: lisasg @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 21:59:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IRV in practice (0.00 / 0)

That's sound advice: compare theory with practice. I'm not sure which Board of Supervisors district you are referring to though--it looks likes District 4 and 6 relied on ranked-choice voting to determine a winner. Can you help me out with this one as I don't closely follow SF city politics? I'm particularly interested in whether IRV actually gave the Republican the seat or whether there were some confounding variables...

As for incumbency and third-party victories, I don't think IRV is going to lead to an immediate revolution in political affairs. Incumbents have many advantages that have nothing to do with the voting system. And for third parties to win IRV races, they would need actual majorities; if they had those already then they could win without IRV. What IRV does allow is for candidates to make a case on their own merits, irrespective of whether they have been nominated a top tier candidate by media, party kingmakers, etc.

On the civility count, I think you mean to say that no one would say IRV has made the campaigns more civil. It didn't take me long, however, to turn up at least one contention that they've done just that--albeit from a past election cycle and by people who appear to be advocates. Still, I haven't heard anyone say it's made elections less civil.

I haven't seen a lot of empirical results that suggest IRV is somehow working differently than it would in theory but it's tough to say really because setting up controlled experiments in politics is not possible. But I'd be glad to learn more if you can point me to some research or analysis on how it's working in SF. Anyway, I don't see the harm in getting the Montana Legislature starting on permitting local governments to start having the debate themselves.

Thanks for the feedback.

---

by: readbetween @ Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 19:53:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a good use of time\political capital (0.00 / 0)

The Republican, Ed Jew, was elected in district 4 -- the Sunset district. I don't know of any studies that look at IRV's effects in practice.  That's why I don't think it is worth pushing it at this time.  What I have witnessed in last three elections that have used IRV here is 1) no advantage to third parties, 2) every incumbent being re-elected, and 3) one strange election where a Republican was elected to the SF Board of Sups. As for somehow allowing all canidates to make their case, that still comes down to money . . . who has the funds to get the message out and who doesn't.  I have not seen a connection to IRV.  All that being said, there is no evidence to report from San Francisco that IRV is a good use of your time or political capital.

---

by: lisasg @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 00:50:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Confouding (0.00 / 0)

Isn't it more likely that Ed Jew got elected because he was Asian rather than because he was a Republican, especially since the two candidates behind him in the polling were also Asian? That seems to be what analysts and exit polls are saying, anyway.

Also, it does look like a third party won in Burlington's election this year.

And, if you really want rid of incumbents, term limits are the only sure way to avoid the political equivelant of the endowment effect.

I hear the caution from you and others. IRV might not be a panacea--or even the right alternative. I wouldn't be as quick to dismiss it as you are though. Particularly since there does seem to be more than anecdotal analysis of its effect piling up.

Structural change will be necessary to change the way things are done. Here, that means tweaking the constitutional language governing elections. It would be a relatively small thing that could have a very large effect over the long-term.

---

by: readbetween @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 20:36:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Be careful with Instant Runoff Voting (0.00 / 0)

I am not sure the assumptions are right behind the theory of Instant Runoff Voting.  I am an Montanan living in San Francisco, a city that has IRV.  Since IRV was instituted here, not a single incumbent has lost.  In fact, I do not know of an incumbent who has lost an election in an IRV system in the entire country.  Also, San Francisco actually just elected a Republican to the City Board of Supervisors in a seven way race where IRV was used to determine the winner.  Those results can only be described as bizarre.  In San Francisco at least, IRV has not helped third party candidates get elected.  Instead, it gave Republicans their first win in this city is a long, long time.  And I don't think anyone can say that IRV has made campaigns any more or less civilized here after IRV. The theory of IRV sounds great, but the real consequences of it are really a craps shoot.  I encourage you to look at the results IRV has produced in practice and to set the theory a side, because as far as I can tell, the promise of IRV has never played out the way its makers intended.

---

by: lisasg @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 22:01:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

2008 Elections (0.00 / 0)

SOS: Gordon Higgins
I can't think of anyone I would rather have adminster elections and get a higher profile in state government.

---

by: readbetween @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 17:38:53 PM UTC

AGs race (0.00 / 0)

I'm no fan of Mercer's but I think he would be a formidable candidate if he runs for AG, who do folks see as being the most viable Democratic Candidate?

---

by: jaxie @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 18:51:56 PM UTC

AGs race (0.00 / 0)

I'm no fan of Mercer's but I think he would be a formidable candidate if he runs for AG, who do folks see as being the most viable Democratic Candidate?

---

by: jaxie @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 18:51:56 PM UTC

We like wind, grain and french fries. (0.00 / 0)

We've heard that Ron Erickson is going to be proposing a bill to hold the governor responsible on this whole issue of CO2 sequestration for his coal-to-diesel miracle. There is a story in today's Missoulian about some enviro groups that are supporting Schweitzer's plan, it seemed like an effort to make MEIC sound like they're nobody (Check out Schweitzer's "phone booth" comment).  Here at PURGE we don't like the sound of the word "coal" either, although some compromise on this issue would be acceptable to me personally. 

---

by: Kilgore @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 19:43:05 PM UTC

Legislative Leadership (0.00 / 0)

Any predictions on who will be leadership of the legislature??

---

by: DforDemocrats @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 03:01:45 AM UTC

Not sure (0.00 / 0)

You have any guesses?

---

by: Matt Singer @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 17:48:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've got some preferences... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: DforDemocrats @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 18:43:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]