HB177 Epilogue
When faith comes in the front door – reason goes out of the window.
It is an artcle of faith among bloggers that HB177 was “bad for Democracy”. I have a simple question…how?
For all of the heated rhetoric and bluster – nobody has ever argued that HB177 can help us get rid of the worst offenders to Domcracy and the entrenched incumbents who embody the “Delaware Way”.
That’s becuase the defeat of HB177 HELPS those entrenched incumbents. Even today Mike Mathews has a post up that opens a fire hose of bile on anyone foolhardy enough to say suggest that the defeat of HB177 is not the greatest event since the signing of the Declaration of Independance 231 years ago.
What Mike fails to acknowledge is that third party and “fusion” candidates have a long track record of helping entrenched incumbents and the worst and most loathsome creatures s get elected.
The most high profile example, of course is George Bush who got a boost from Ralph Nadar. (If you still think that there is no difference between Al Gore and George Bush you need your head examined.)
There are some recent local examples as well. John Feroce failed to get anyhting going against teh barely ambulatory Jim Vaughn in part becuase a third party fusion candidate helped muddy the waters in Vaughns favor.
Similarly, the reprehensible Mike Castle could have been put to a serious challenege if a two third party fusion candidates did not spend the entire election hounding and beating upon the challenger. He knew it so he spent time in Dover lobbying for the defeat of HB177. What does that tell you?
I know that I am in the minority when it comes to HB177 and I’m okay with that. What I’m not okay with is the fact that people who claim to be opposed to the “Delaware Way” have worked so hard to elevate thier faith in hyperbole over reason.
NOTE: Sorry about all the typos. I’m remote blogging on a crappy keyboard.
Your epigram reminds me of Groucho’s comment from Monkey Business: “Love flies out the door when money comes innuendo.”
Third party and fusion candidates are not the enemy and should not be treated as such — which is what I read HB177 to do. At least it singles out fusion candidates for special sanction.
HB177 looked to me like protectionist effort for the major parties, an bill that was useful to politicians ONLY. And to me, it is axiomatic that laws that only help politicians are bad for the democratic process.
The best way for politicians to hold off fusion candidates (or even third parties) is to better shore up and better serve the coalitions that support them. After all, a fusion candidate simply has a different supporting coalition from the opposition, right?
I don’t have a great deal of regard for third parties myself, but both the Democrats and Republicans have been third parties at some point in American history. Third parties and fusion candidates should be able to compete on the same field, using the same rules as the major parties.
Your premise is that fusion candidates sometimes give an incumbent an advantage. So what?
The point of this Bill was to limit the ability of candidates to get on the ballot come election day. Defeat of this restriction, in and of itself, is its worth. Saying that allowing greater freedom may sometimes produce bad results is similar to saying absolute freedom of speech sometimes is a bad thing also. It may be, but I sure as hell don’t want people “in charge” making these decisions for me. The whole idea of freedom is that I can make these decisions myself.
Dis –
At least that you provide an argument and not the usual fatulent nonsense disguised as patriotism.
It was a bad bill, but I can’t stand the gloating.
In the short term fusion candidacies will be an effective weapon against DIP Democrats. That is a good thing. That is also why the bill was opposed by a coalition of progressive Dems aligned with every Republican.
Republicans, especially Sussex Republicans, will no doubt be happy to have progressive Dems challenge conservative Dems in primaries and run as indies in the general, following the model of the PA Republigreens.
But the day will no doubt come when Republicans drop the “access to the ballot” schtick and start attacking their own fusion candidates.
If the short term plays out like you think I will rejoice – but I don;t see it based on history.
The people drawn to thrid party/fusion don’t seem to be able to fight DIPs with any consistency.
Just look at the fact that KHN ednorsed the horrible loathsome Mike Castle DURING the election.
More freedom rather than less.
This issue is the core of the Right-to-Life vs. Pro-Life argument as I see it. For 200 years, women had the shit kicked out of them by male legislators. For 200 years women had limited or no rights regarding ineritance, marriage, divorce, voting, education, etc. Some rights have been gained by women, only to be threatened again by male legislators governing control over procreation.
Women see this as a threat to very newly acquired rights. Leaving aside the good vs. bad of abortion, many women simply do not want rights taken away, AGAIN, by a predominantly male legislature. Women who would never have an abortion are still “pro-choice” simply for the reason that they don’t want those people who are in charge making decisions for them. And when men make decisions for women, without ever experiencing the glass ceiling or an unwanted pregancy, the problem of abusive legislative power is compounded.
So again; I would rather have more rights than less rights. The fact that more rights raise issues I will have to deal with personally is far preferable to allowing others to ‘simplify’ my life by taking rights away from me.
So whether HB177 can be said to do some good, it still takes choice away from ME. I like choice. I want to keep it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what seems to have tipped the balance away from this Bill being a foregone conclusion, towards its ultimate defeat on the House floor Saturday night, is Daniello’s and Gulligan’s giddiness leading up to its passage.
As I read between the lines, the opposition, both from the bloggers and Republican party, started because of a gut feeling, that something wanted so much by the “entrenched” party, could not bode well for Democracy.
They were right. My advice to both Daniello and Gulligan, is:
DON’T PLAY POKER.
Kavips!
ding ding ding
SCORE!
Actually, wouldn’t Joe Leiberman be the ultimate fusion example? Sure he was the incumbent, but he lost the primary and served as a spoiler as a 3rd party candidate. That is the only reason that I hated fusion candidates. But I agree that there is a gut feeling that this was a bad bill.
Was Joe Lieberman a fusion candidate?
What gets lost in the confusion is that a fusion candidate must get the cross endorsements and register it/them ahead of a primary.
There is no running off to avenge a primary loss. There is no last ditch effort to take another shot. This is a very deliberate process.
Fusion enables a challenge to entrenched “sure things”. Between the fusion potential and an independent anti-gerrymander district map creation process, we can begin to get clear of the powerholds that prevent the will of the people from prevailing.
Lieberman won because his candidacy was funded by Republicans.
Republicans covertly endorsed him over their party choice and that is who voted him into office.
Disbelief, oedipa mass, and Nancy – All really excellent comments!! You each highlight the depth and thoughtfulness that was plentiful amongst HB 177’s opponents, and totally absent in its advocates.
Jason – people can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. You have done so through all this, in my assessment.
My first encounter with your Democratic Party Chair happened immediately after the HB 177 vote. I accidentally walked up to a group he was ranting to and I happened to be smiling.
He glanced over and growled : “Yeah I bet you’re smiling”.
I responded : “Yes I am. Democracy won a victory today.”
He then said, physically reeling around as if he meant it as a threat : “You better the get the hell away from me.”
Not exactly inspiring. Mr. Daniello is a complete stranger to me, so I was pretty shocked to see that the thuggery of which Dana and Mike wrote was absolutely not hyperbole.
I was truly taken aback. For all the past enmities or criticisms between my own party’s leadership and me, I have NEVER been publicly berated or threatened, nor have I ever seen anyone else in my party.
Terry Strine, for all my public criticism leveled at him, has always been nothing but gracious and polite to me. He has never refused to discuss a concern with me and has always been responsive in kind.
I honestly feel sorry your party has such a brutish, impolitic state chairman. I saw Rick Bayard (a real gentleman) walk by in Legislative Hall that night and thought : man, what a contrast!!
Daniello aside, you deserve credit for being honest and direct about why you object to fusion candidacies. It is more than I can say for your party’s leadership. For a bunch of people whining that fusion candidates are “sore losers” they sure lost sorely, no?
Great comments all around.
Tyler – Thanks for the first hand reporting. Why Daniello and Gilligan staked so much on this is a mystery to me.
Nancy – If fusion is practiced as you describe (as practiced by Rudy Guliani getting the liberalparty nomination in addition to the Republicana party nomination for mayor of NYC) then I see the fusion people’s point.
Having seen KHN style fusion in action I’m not so hopefull – but Dis and Kavips make good points.
Its said that the worst thing that can happen to a small-business partnership is great success. In almost all cases of great success, the partners fight to the death about who is owed the most, or will fight about which aspect of the business was most responsible for the success.
I’m starting to see, through the comments above, this same pattern in the State Dems. After several elections that have made the State party a great success, there are those (Daniello and various morans) who are fighting for their own turf instead of for service to constituents, candidates and incumbents.
I think this is a good thing. Those who need to step aside (again, Daniello and various morans) are painting bulls-eyes on themselves. It will make it easier for us to install a leadership that will SUPPORT those candidates who appear to have public service as their main goal (i.e., Markell, Denn, Eaby, Bushweller, etc.)
Mr. Daniello, thanks very much for your service. We’ll get a gold watch somewhere for you. We feel its time for you to pursue other interests. Thanks so much. ‘Bye now!
Tyler – Thanks for the first hand reporting. Why Daniello and Gilligan staked so much on this is a mystery to me.
*
Jason
read this – it describes what clear heads are supposing is why DEM leadership freaked:
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2007/07/cross-endorsements-of-fusion.html