Maine Dems need a run-off

As would be expected in a six-candidate primary election where the winner need garner only a plurality of votes, the majority of Democratic voters were disappointed to read in the papers on June 12 that Mike Michaud had won their party’s nomination for Congress in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District.

That week numerous Democrats who were openly disenchanted with Michaud’s victory affirmed their believe in the mantra, “It’s time to be good Democrats and support our nominee.” While the rules of politics may suggest it is best for Democrats to support their nominee, Democrats would do better to recognize that Michaud’s victory does not serve the best interest of the party.

The reason becomes clearer if one arranges the Democratic candidates into three groups based on their significant substantive differences. The progressive Democrats – Susan Longley, Sean Faircloth, David Costello and Lori Handrahan – together acquired 56 percent of the votes. The pro-union, socially conservative Democrat, Michael Michaud, took in 31 percent of the vote. The pro-business, socially conservative Democrat, John Nutting, received 13 percent of the vote.

The progressive majority (56 percent of voters) lost in this election, while a minority group of voters, the pro-union, social conservatives will have their candidate, Mr. Michaud, on the November ballot.

Unfortunately for Mr. Michaud and Democrats, a candidate who earns only a plurality of votes is less viable than a candidate who wins by a majority. If Democrats want a strong party, then they must ensure the party’s success by electing viable candidates.

Viability is based on a candidate’s chances of succeeding against the opposition party in the general election. In the primary election in question, Mr. Michaud may have received more votes than Ms. Longley or Mr. Faircloth, but that does not make him a more viable candidate. Politically, Mr. Michaud represents only 31 percent of Democratic voters, while Ms. Longley or Mr. Faircloth represents 56 percent of participating voters.

Many Longley, Faircloth, Handrahan and Costello supporters will probably be “good Democrats” and vote for Mr. Michaud in November. But because of his poor voting record on many progressive issues – like women’s rights, gay rights and environmental protection – countless progressives will abstain from voting out of protest and still others may vote republican simply because the Republican nominee is pro choice. This fact represents a very real fracturing of Mr. Michaud’s Democratic base and lessens his chance of victory in the general election.

In recent years, Mainers have split equally among the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and independents or unenrolled voters. Subsequently, in November the Republican nominee will be able to safely rely on the support of the Republicans – one third of voters. But Mr. Michaud will not have this luxury with his third of the pie. While the Republican nominee focuses his efforts on winning the support of unenrolled voters and the support of Democrats for whom the issue of choice is a deciding factor, Mr. Michaud will have to scramble just to ensure the broad support of democratic voters. Mr. Michaud’s best first move as nominee would be to read the results of the primary and realize that he has to adjust his own positions to those reflected by the vote. Otherwise, he will find himself marching at the front of a very short line.

Democrats would do well to recognize that the crux of the issue at hand lies in a flawed system and not with the voters or candidates. Candidates who can get on the ballot ought to be able to run and voters ought to be able to vote for whichever candidate they choose to support.

It then ought to be the responsibility of the system to ensure that the most viable candidate represents the party in November. This would require the implementation of laws mandating that candidates win by a majority rather than a plurality, which would force run-off elections between the top candidates.

If this law had been applied to the primary election on June 11, then Mr. Michaud and Ms. Longley would have engaged in a run-off election at some later date. Ms. Longley would most likely have won this run-off because her political ideals represent a larger percent of the voters than Mr. Michaud’s. Not only would more Democrats have been okay with this outcome, but Democrats also would have nominated a more viable candidate for November.

The current electoral system ensures that if several candidates enter a primary where a popular point of view is fractured, then a single candidate representing a less popular position will win. This situation can only harm the Democratic Party and ultimately make it weaker. If a goal of the Democratic Party is to gain control of the House of Representatives, then it might be best for Democrats to support Mr. Michaud in November. However, if their ultimate goal is to gain and keep control of the House, then it is more essential that Democrats recognize that Mr. Michaud’s victory has harmed the viability of the party. Democrats should then work towards an electoral system that favors the most viable candidates who represent a majority voice.

Nathan Gehlert of Waterville graduated from Colby in the spring of 2001 with degrees in government and German studies and was the finance director for Sean Faircloth’s congressional campaign this spring. His e-mail is ngehlert@yahoo.com.