More political fun - Toricelli

[JeffL]

Ok, here's some more political grist for discussion:

It seems that the latest polls showed Toricelli falling behind and fading fast. In a bit of a panic, his party's leaders have apparently talked him into quitting the race so they can put someone else in whom they feel might have a better chance of winning. Nothing is official yet, but there are already leaks of who the party may put in his slot.

So here's the question on the table - first, let's see if we can put the Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Wiccan party stuff on the side and discuss this from a non-partisan POV. If a candidate has won the primary, been elected by the people as the party candidate, should that party be able to yank him out if it looks like he's going to lose and appoint someone they like better as the candidate?

[Met_K]

If a candidate has won the primary, been elected by the people as the party candidate, should that party be able to yank him out if it looks like he's going to lose and appoint someone they like better as the candidate?

No. That kind of behavior indicates that it's more about the party's integrity than about serving the people.

[dannimal]

Yes, if the replacement wasn't an option in the primary.

The primary is for the party members to chose their representative for the party in the upcoming election. Often, the person who wins the primary is the one the party's general population things both A) represents their beliefes/goals best and B) stands the best chance of winning the general election.

If the party is forced to run a list of goombahs for the primary, and later thinks they might have the best chance to win the election with someone else, I think it's probably okay to switch. The idea being the most <insert party here> members have some base set of values.

Granted, this can easily be abused. If a republican primary winner is fairly moderate and is pulled in favor of a very right wing candidate, for example.

Is this a terrible thing? Nah. Odds are that the replacement will get stomped as bad or worse, for a bundle of reasons. If the replacement were that likely to win, they'd have been in the primary to begin with.

[JeffL]

Actually, in this case, some of the substitute candidates have a good chance of winning. New Jersey is a very Democratic state, and the opponent is pretty much an unknown. The party wasn't real happy with Toricelli to begin with, with his ethics issues, but figured he'd probably win anyway.

I just think it seems like an abuse of the system to yank an elected candidate out because it looks like he's going to lose.

[Jason McCullough]

It's not like they're holding a gun to his head to get him to quit; what are the democrats supposed to do when their candidate bails?

What will probably happen, according to the legal stuff I've seen online, is that the governor will appoint a replacement and they'll be some sort of special election held.

[JeffL]

What I've read, from a number of newpapers and web sites, is that the Dems did pretty much sit down with him and bend his arm. Toricelli insiders said that he absolutely didn't want to give in and quit, but the party leadership pressured him big time.

The current scenario appears to be the party hand-picking a replacement candidate that they think will win; they'd love Bradley, but first word out of his camp is that he wouldn't accept. There's another ex-senator whose name I can't recall, who they think would have a good shot. There's a problem in that the state law says you can't drop out and have the party pick a replacement if you're within 48 days of the election, with the only exceptions in the past being due to an untimely death, but the Dems are pretty confident that since the Attorney General is a Dem, they'll be granted an exception.

Look, I'd being saying the same thing if this was a Libertarian or Republican. This is, IMO, just shameful manipulation of the system. If either party had a 10 seat lead, I'm sure we'd never see this. It will be interesting to see how this is spun in the media. Just heard a few seconds ago on the radio that they REALLY had to twist Toricelli's arm, which isn't surprising when you look at how he handled this whole bribery/graft issue.

Ugh.

[Jason McCullough]

'Look, I'd being saying the same thing if this was a Libertarian or Republican. This is, IMO, just shameful manipulation of the system. If either party had a 10 seat lead, I'm sure we'd never see this. It will be interesting to see how this is spun in the media. Just heard a few seconds ago on the radio that they REALLY had to twist Toricelli's arm, which isn't surprising when you look at how he handled this whole bribery/graft issue.'

You may not believe this, but I wouldn't care if the GOP forced, or the candidate volunteered, to resign from running. Big friggin' deal; I fail to see how it's cheating or manipulation.

On what should happen now: from an ethical standpoint, should the voters only be able to choose the GOP candidate? From a legal standpoint, there's absolutely nothing objectionable about it.

[JeffL]

You really don't see a problem with the candidate elected in the primary being strongarmed into stepping down because he's down in the polls, so they can try to insert someone they like better? You think there's absolutely objectionable with a party yanking an elected candidate and putting someone in they like better because he might lose?

What should happen now? Frankly, the candidate that was selected in the primary should have to be the one on the polls unless there's a reason he cannot run.

I can't believe you can't see how this is manipulation of the system. Surely you're not THAT partisan.

[Met_K]

I can't believe you can't see how this is manipulation of the system. Surely you're not THAT partisan.

No, he's just an idiot.

[wumpus]

As if I needed another reason to hate the word "fun".

[Jason McCullough]

You really don't see a problem with the candidate elected in the primary being strongarmed into stepping down because he's down in the polls, so they can try to insert someone they like better? You think there's absolutely objectionable with a party yanking an elected candidate and putting someone in they like better because he might lose?

What should happen now? Frankly, the candidate that was selected in the primary should have to be the one on the polls unless there's a reason he cannot run.

I can't believe you can't see how this is manipulation of the system. Surely you're not THAT partisan.

I'll do the edgy-online-equivalent of talking slowly:

It. is. not. illegal.

'Frankly, the candidate that was selected in the primary should have to be the one on the polls unless there's a reason he cannot run.'

.....like, you know, he doesn't want to run. If a candidate decides not to run after the primary, in general, what should happen? The election defaulting to the other candidate by removing all democrats from the ballot seems kind of stupid; so does forcing him to remain on the ballot, even though he doesn't want the job. Either deferring to a special election or letting the party put someone else on the ballot seem to be the least dumb alternatives, by default.

Here's what will probably happen if the attorney general doesn't let them put another candidate on the ballot, though:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=63554&Depth=2&depth=2&expandheadings=on&headingswithhits=on&hitsperheading=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&record={8813}&softpage=Doc_Frame_PG42

19:3-26. Vacancies in United States senate; election to fill; temporary appointment by governor
If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.

The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.

[JeffL]

Jason's not an idiot. We can disagree on politics, but he usually makes a good argument. Which is why I find it hard to believe he can think there's nothing wrong with a "We're losing so we get to swap the elected candidate for someone else right before the election" rule.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, I think I see my point of disagreement:

The party isn't yanking him. Torricelli is yanking himself.

It'd be one thing if Torricelli still wanted to run, but the Democrats tried to have him yanked off the ballot over his objections.

That's not what happened; they convinced Torricelli to withdraw, and he made his own decision to do so. People should be able to change their minds, right? Probably the best general fix on after-primary changes is to defer to a special election in six months or something, but I'm no expert at this.

[JeffL]

We simul-posted...

I didn't say it was illegal. Sorry.

I. Didn't. Say. It. Was. Illegal.

I said I though it was wrong. I know that the concept that something can be legal and yet still not be ethically correct is something that's not in vogue today. It is manipulating the system - it will be even more if they get an Attorney General to waive the law for them because he's a good party guy.

[JeffL]

LOL!

Another simul-post.

Everything I'm reading - including a Democratic email newsletter that I get sent for some reason (I was a registered Democrat not all that long ago) even says that the party leadership "convinced" Toricelli to drop out. His own campaign folks are being quoted as saying that "he's a stubborn S.O.B.; it took a lot of convincing to get him to pull out."

OK - I'm done, so if we simulpost again, you get the last word. <G>

[Met_K]

Jason's not an idiot.

When it comes to politics, yes, he is.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, he still made the decision, not the party. If the AG says he can't be replaced, fine; I'm sure the democrats will use the above law to rejigger the election.

I just don't see what's wrong with it, ethically, compared to the alternative of leaving the ballot blank.

The Jersey democrats should have figured this crap out back before the primary, but the Torch is so damn combative it took the political equivalent of a smoking gun to get him to pull out.

Oh, and the concept of "right and wrong" in tactical politics is kind of a misnomer to start with.

[Jason McCullough]

A final bit: the Democrats in Jersey have the GOP completely over a barrel with this.

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/000311.html#000311


It's official. Toricelli is out. This is starting to look increasingly like a brilliant tactical move by the NJ dems. Here's how it works:

1) Toricelli announces he will serve out his term, but kill his reelection effort.

2) The Democratic Party names a succesor, then requests a ballot change. Even though the law required such a change by September 16, the Democratic State Attorney General grants a waiver.

3) The state GOP can't win on Forrester's strength alone. His entire election strategy was based on "I'm not Toricelli". So, the state GOP files suit to prevent the ballot change.

4) If the GOP loses, then the election proceeds with the Democrats' chances greatly improved.

5) If the GOP wins, then Toricelli resigns his Senate seat, now within the 30-day window, and by law, there's no election. Toricelli's replacement (a Democrat!) serves two years before a special election in 2004.

At this point, the state GOP may have to suck it up and allow the ballot change, lest they maneouver the Dems into cancelling the elections outright.

[chet]

Are the people governed by the candidate or the elected official (if he wasn't an incumbent)?

The people still get to pick the senator, they still get to vote. They can write in whoever they want. They decide to dislike this move and vote for the other party. They still have their choice, so how is this so bad?

Chet

[Met_K]

Are the people governed by the candidate or the elected official (if he wasn't an incumbent)?

The people still get to pick the senator, they still get to vote. They can write in whoever they want. They decide to dislike this move and vote for the other party. They still have their choice, so how is this so bad?

I'll disprove your entire theory in one sentence: Look who's in the oval office.

[chet]

What theory are you disproving?

Are you claiming that the candiates run the office?

Chet

[Met_K]

What theory are you disproving?

Are you claiming that the candiates run the office?

You said that the people can still elect whoever they want to. Yes, you are right, if I dislike Joe Blow Democrat, I can choose to erect, er, pardon, elect Dick Johnson Republican instead.

However, the problem comes in the fact that my choices are limited. I can indeed vote for whoever I want. The Republican candidate, the Democratic candidate, the green card guy, or anyone. But when the big two parties choose the candidates I'm "allowed"* to vote for, then it's kind of a drag. It really limits my choices.

Not to mention that the way the President gets elected is truly pathetic. Our votes don't matter? Okay, thanks guys!

* (Like has been said, I can vote for whoever I want. We all can. However, when there are so many stupid people out there who abuse the system, who ignore the people and simply vote blindly by party, and all the likes, it really makes voting a complete and utter waste.

The entire party system, and the entire election system in general, is flawed. The media certainly doesn't help, either.)

[chet]

The people who voted in the primaries, voted as democrats, so they obviously thought there was some value to the party system, or they would not have joined the democrat party. Primaries are closed in New Jersey, so to vote for a party, you have to be a member of that party. Which I would assume means you might like that party, and since this is not the only thing decided in the election, you probably are not a member just to vote for the one guy in the one office, you might even favor the democrat party enough to want to help the party?

Chet

[Met_K]

The people who voted in the primaries, voted as democrats, so they obviously thought there was some value to the party system, or they would not have joined the democrat party. Primaries are closed in New Jersey, so to vote for a party, you have to be a member of that party. Which I would assume means you might like that party, and since this is not the only thing decided in the election, you probably are not a member just to vote for the one guy in the one office, you might even favor the democrat party enough to want to help the party?

That's what I just said I dislike. One side is not always right, just as the other side is not always right. The party system is flawed. That's basically my entire point in this.

[Sharpe]

This whole Toricelli drop out thing is no biggie IMO b/c I don't really consider the primaries particularly binding - its just picking a candidate after all, not the actual official. I guess I am kind of blaise. I am pretty well convinced that the two party stystem with all its trappings (like big-deal primaries) is a big part of why our political system seems to be so unresponsive and lacking in common sense.

In California, you can register as Decline to State, then in theory during the primary you can ask for any party's ballot and vote in that party's primary. That's how I've voted in the last couple primaries although once the voting clerk was so clueless she gave me an "Independent" ballot when I said I was Decline to State (In CA the Independents are a totally separate minor party who people confuse with true non-party independents all the time). I much prefer that to being straight jacketed into one party. Although of course the narrow choices are still sucky :).

Dan (aka Sharpe)

[chet]

Ask the french how much they love their multi-party mess. Last election they actually went out and had to protest their own election results.

Chet

[JeffL]

LOL! The New Jersey Supreme Court, two of whom have contributed to Toricelli, just came down with their ruling. No surprise: "well, yeah, the law says you can't pull a candidate off the ballot within 51 days of the election and replace him with someone else - but you can anyway."

Hey, it's the law, but so what? It's in the way of what we want to do. Hell, you might have lost!

[Jason McCullough]

Well, it's not like the alternatives are any better. "Sorry that your candidate changed his mind, looks like you forfeit the election?"

[JeffL]

Toricelli would have never quit at the eleventh hour had they not thought they could get away with this. Interesting article by a New Jersey paper columnist (don't have the link here, I'm at work, his name is Bernios or Bernicus or something like that) on this whole mess. He said the law was passed precisely to prevent things like this from happening (i.e., someone sees they're losing, so they quit so their party can take a shot with another candidate in a "what do we have to lose?" move), with the expectations that it would be waved for extenuating circumstances (e.g., a candidate dying a la Hawaii or a candidate becoming severely ill.) He also laments that the Dems were absolutely sure the NJ Supreme court would be friendly to them (like I said, at least a couple contributed to Toricelli's campaign) and thus came up with this desparation move.

Well, it worked. Hell, what do you expect these days - Toricelli is a shameless sleaze who took bribes and kickbacks and was told by the Senate "that's OK, you can still be a Senator, we'll slap your hand." Yeah, everyone's REAL serious about wanting to clean up campaign financing. At least the voters of NJ were saying they didn't think it was OK.

[Jason McCullough]

True, I'd prefer a senate without Torricelli in it. Looks like we're getting it.....

The NJ Supreme Court has 6 of 7 members appointed by GOP governors.

[Lando]

Big surprise. Now, it will undoubtedly get thrown to the Federal District Court and probably the Supremes.

So all the liberal whiners better get their "stolen election" and "coup d'etat" rhetoric wound up. (This.Is.A.Joke) :D

[JeffL]

Nah, there's no Federal issue here. I think it's done.

Yeah, GOP governor appointed most of the Jury. But the majority are Democrats, as I noted, some contributed to Toricelli's campaign (I'll bet those guys are unbiased,) and most New Jersey pundits noted before the case went to the NJ Supreme Court that they are a very Dem-friendly court. They also have a record of coming out with a unanimous (sp) decision when they overrule a law, no matter what the internal vote, so I would imagine that this will also be announced as a unanimous decision.

Well, at least Torricelli will be out. It will be interesting to see how the voters go now. The smart thing would have been for the Dems to strong-arm Toricelli before the primaries - that would have even been the "right" think to do if any Congressional leaders in Washington had a smudge of concern for ethics - but everyone predicted he would win, and that was all that mattered.

[Lando]

Actually, Federal courts can and do interpret state law -- as they did in Bush v. Gore. (Actually, I think they interpreted the Fla law and dealt with some const. equal protection issues as well) Otherwise cases would go no further than the state supreme court, which of course many cases re: state law do.

I'm sure there are some federal issues that can be raised, but I imagine it will be confined to interpretation of the state statute.

[Jason McCullough]

Unless the GOP can convince the state that the ballot replacement thing is more important than the issues difference between Lautenberg (?) and Forrestor, Forrestor is toast. It's a very, very democratic state.

[Jason McCullough]

Even more exciting commentary!

I think I've found the fundamental point of disagreement on the Torricelli mess: the conflict between parties and individuals in our political system.

As an example of one approach, imagine that political parties don't exist (a nonpartisan judicial election, maybe). There's still deadlines for reasons of printing, time and whatever. Now, as a Torricelli parallel scenario, there's 5 people running for a seat, and one drops out after the deadline. Should some other random guy get to take his slot on the ballot. I think virtually everyone can agree "of course not." Why on earth should he; he didn't previously indicate any desire to run for the seat, and it's past the deadline. It doesn't matter if he has the same political views as the dropout.

Now, as an alternative, imagine that individual candidates don't exist; only political parties are allowed to run for office, and they just pick a figurehead to represent them.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

In this case, the closest analogy to the Torricelli situation is if a political party drops out after the deadline, and another party wants to take its place on the ballot. What's the big deal if the political party changes its figurehead? You're voting for the party!

I'm obviously creating ideal scenarios on both ends, but I think the point is valid. I'm not sure where the U.S. political system is located between the two, in legal theory, but I do know that in practice it's a lot closer to competing parties on the ballot than competing individuals; the best example of this is the incredibly strong biases in the presidential selection process towards parties (strong governmental involvement in primaries, debates, getting on the ballot, blah blah blah).

Anyway, this is why a lot of Democrats, myself included, think Torricelli quitting, and another Democrat replacing him on the ballot, isn't that big of a deal.

[JeffL]

Jason, here's the flaw as I see it in your analysis: it is about individuals. Otherwise, there would be no need to convince Toricelli to quit and insert another candidate. If people were merely voting for parties it wouldn't matter if it were Toricelli or not. But the fact is that folks voted for Toricelli in the primary, elected him as the candidate, and he would have never been strongarmed into withdrawing had the latest polls not shown that he was losing.

The acid test is whether you would be as cavalier about this if it was turned around, party wise: what would you be posting if a Republican who was pretty sure to win a Senate seat suddenly showed a dip in the polls, the law said you couldn't replace him at this point, the state in question had a Supreme Court with members who had contributed to this Republican's campaign, and that court said the Republicans could replace him with someone more popular simply because he was losing, in spite of the law? I know that I would be just as pissed; would you still think it was cool? (By the way, believe it or not, I do vote cross-ticket and actively supported Michigan's move to get rid of the straight ticket voting mechanism.)

[Jason McCullough]

I say we're somewhere between voting for individuals vs. voting for parties; the strong government involvement in primaries, for one thing.

No, I wouldn't give a damn if the GOP replaces their candidate; I can't come up with a explanation of why it's bad, apriori.

From a legal standpoint, there's a long history (pre-2000 election) of judges intrepreting election law to maximize "voter choice." It isn't that big of a deal.

[JeffL]

Yeah, I know the Republicans got away it a few years ago in Minnessota in a Goverenor's race - very similar circumstances. Didn't like it then either. :(

[Jason McCullough]

As long as we're both consistent. :lol:

[Anonymous]

As a NJ resident, I find Torricelli's recent action the culmination of a career of sleaze. Would Torricelli have quit if he won his attempt to get an injunction blocking the release of the prosecutor's memo detailing his corruption? Nope. He knew he was scum, finally ran out of dodges to hide his past, and quit.

Forrester has spent millions on attack ads against the Torch. All money wasted. There have been two debates between the Torch and Forrester, and no other debates were scheduled. Do voters who watched the debates get their time value of money back?

The candidate replacement law has been on the books for 50 years. It's not like both parties were unaware of it. Changing the rules in the middle of a game shouldn't be allowed. You may not like the fact that Gore won the popular vote, and wasn't elected due to the Electoral college system, but both candidates knew and operated under the system that was in place. The NJ Supreme Court flatly disregarded the election law statute, and one party was the beneficiary. That ain't right.

Full disclosure: I'm a registered Republican, and wouldn't have voted for the Torch even if he was in the election.

[Jason McCullough]

Past cases where Republicans have been able to "change the rules of the game" and courts approved:

Cheney switching his residency from TX to WY at the last minute.
Mitt Romney doing the same for MA to qualify to run for governor.
Katherine Harris "retroactively resigning" her position to qualify for the ballot in FL.

[Brad Grenz]

What? That both sides are guilty somehow makes it OK?

[Anonymous]

If it feels good, do it.

[Jason McCullough]

No, but if you're going to suggest that courts should inflexibly apply election law, then the above are all invalid. Most amusingly, either Bush or Cheney has to give up their office.

[JeffL]

How so for Bush? The Florida Supreme Court basically overuled the Florida election laws. But let's NOT turn this into another Bush/Gore election thread - please!

[JeffL]

Here's the deal with the NJ court ruling - they cited no precedents, no point of law, no nothing really (you can read the ruling online) - it was just a "OK, doesn't matter if there's a law on the books and there was no reason to change candidates other than you were losing - do whatever you want." That's what bugs me.

[DavidCPA]

How so for Bush? The Florida Supreme Court basically overuled the Florida election laws. But let's NOT turn this into another Bush/Gore election thread - please!

I believe Jason is referring to the part of the Constitution that says the President and Vice President cannot be from the same state. If memory serves me right, Cheney switched his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming after he self-selected himself as Bush's running mate.

-DavidCPA

[JeffL]

Ah - that part swooshed right over my head.