Oh Noes! “Biff” Lee is Challenged!
This morning’s News Journal article reads like it is an unthinkable travesty that Representative Biff Lee (40th) is being challenged in this year’s election by a Democrat. Indeed, the article paints his decade long streak of running unopposed as a great accomplishment.
Perhaps in Stalinist Russia, it is a good thing. Here, in America, where we are supposed to have democracy and choice, the decade long streak of Lee running unchallenged on his performance in the Assembly was an abomination. The Democratic Party should have been ashamed of failing to contest that seat for that long, even if it is with a sacrificial lamb that everyone and their mother knows will long.
As an advocate of the 62 District Strategy, paragraphs like this enrage me:
Even Lee’s long-serving colleagues to the north and east, former Reps. Tina Fallon and Charlie West, frequently drew challengers. And powerful Senate president pro tem Sen. Thurman Adams of Bridgeville faces even token opposition in his re-election bids.
Collins said the lack of opponents for Lee in the past and for state Sen. Bob Venables, D-Laurel, this time around, is probably directly linked to their staying power and time in office. Venables, a conservative Democrat, has been in the Senate since 1988.
“It makes me wonder … if it’s just like, ‘They’re unbeatable, so why waste my time,’ ” Collins said. “You’re putting funds together, you’re putting time into this — and if you’re able to pull 40 percent, you’re feeling pretty good. That’s a little discouraging.”
If you don’t run anyone against an incumbent, well then of course they are unbeatable!!! And if they are unchallenged, then of course they will amass staying power and longevity. Yes, in some districts, the demographics are such that we won’t win except in rare circumstances, but that doesn’t mean we give those 40 percent of the people living in the district no vote or no voice! And since elections do cost money, that is why the Delaware Democratic Party should be spending on races such as Lee’s so as to give an underdog challenger like Barbara Hudson a fighting chance, instead of wasting the money on John Carney.
“Perhaps in Stalinist Russia, it is a good thing. Here, in America, where we are supposed to have democracy and choice, the decade long streak of Lee running unchallenged on his performance in the Assembly was an abomination.”
I see nothing wrong with him having run unopposed for so long. If the Dems thought they could have beaten him previously they would have opposed him. They didn’t.
So you have no problem with citizens in that district having no choice, even though a full 30 to 40 % of them do not vote for Lee.
That is Stalinist, for all the times you have tossed that label at my or our feet, I am shocked you would embrace it now.
What’s your “solution?” Force the Democratic Party to waste money and run a candidate they feel has no chance to win just so people have a “choice?” That’s Stalinist as well.
If they thought people in the district would vote for a Democratic Candidate the Dems would be running someone. They don’t, so they choose not to run someone.
The government should not force them to run someone, nor should it force them not to. To do either is “Stalinist.” I’m surprised you don’t see that.
It is not about force. It is that the Democrats should make sure that no seat is uncontested. There are several cases where a long-standing incumbent is unseated because of some scandal or health reasons. If for nothing else, Dems should be at the ready.
And the same probably goes for Republicans, but I’m not going to advocate for it…
If we can set aside the game of Who’s the Stalinist and look at this rationally, I come up with this: When half the people up for election (or, in most cases, re-election) run unopposed, it’s a sign that there are too many seats in the General Assembly.
Mike, you’re taking a pragmatic view on this, but the statistics routinely show that 95 to 98 percent of incumbents will win their re-election campaigns for Congress. Yet the parties seldom fail to put up a challenger, usually at much greater expense than what it would cost to mount token opposition in a state rep race.
In short, I don’t think it’s about the money. I think it’s an inability to find worthwhile candidates for that many election districts.
This state would function just fine with fewer people in the General Assembly.
LG – I agree but if he’s running uncontested that’s because the Dems chose not to run someone. I agree that they should run someone, but Isn’t that their choice?
“This state would function just fine with fewer people in the General Assembly.”
Al – I couldn’t agree more.
I hesitate to say so, however I find myself agreeing with Mike W on this.
DelDem writes “So you have no problem with citizens in that district having no choice, even though a full 30 to 40 % of them do not vote for Lee.”
The 30 to 40% of citizens who do not support Biff Lee do have a choice. THEY CAN RUN.
The Stalinist accusations are baseless. I don’t recall any reports of the murder of a citizen who registered to run against Biff Lee. Is hyperbole of this nature really necessary?
The state’s Democratic Party has gotten to this sorry state for several reasons, including by the citizens ‘looking to the party’ to save themselves from a ‘no challenger’ race. If you want change in our district, don’t start by looking to the party, start by looking in the mirror.
Do I think that the Democratic Party leadership has failed to provide candidates for that race? Probably. But the list of Democratic Party leadership’s failings are far longer than this shortcoming in the 40th RD.
I have yet to hear Daniello and his cronies espouse the 62 District Strategy. Their strategy appears to be ‘handpick the candidate and crucify any Democratic challenger to the candidate they handpicked’.
I agree with DelDem that Biff Lee’s run of unopposed races as not an accomplishment of his, but instead I feel that it reveals a failure of the Democratic citizens of the 40th, and to a lesser extent, one of many failures of the state Democratic Party leadership.
We have fewer legislators–it’s called the Senate. The House is designed to have enough representatives to be much more in touch with their constituents. John Kowalko ousted incumbent Stephanie Ullbrich by knocking on every door in the district, more than once.
This isn’t as practical for Senate Districts. As such, the state senators are not often as in touch with their constituents as are state reps, require more money for each campaign, and therefore often rely on contributions from deep-pocketed special interests.
If you want to reduce the high incumbent reelection percentage, reducing the number of offices will guarantee failure, especially in ‘the people’s house’.
Should incumbents be deemed sacrosanct?
This question transcends party lines.
There are some jurisdictions where one party is very dominant in terms of voter registration and only the primary counts. Yet there can be upsets.
Barriers to participation should be lowered rather than raised and the current ‘Delaware Way’ of basing filing fees on the salary associated with the office may emphasize the venal nature of public office rather than the desire to broaden participation in the political process.
Arthur, What would you suggest as a superior way to set filing fees? Basing them on the office’s salary seems equitable to me, but I would like to know reasonable alternatives.
I don’t think that the fee for running for US Senate should be the same as running for Clerk of the Peace. Do you?
PB: Perhaps I was unclear, but I don’t think shrinking to, say, 29 rep districts and 15 Senate seats would do irreparable damage to legislators’ ability to get in touch with their constituents.
The number of incumbents re-elected holds true for both state offices and national ones; personal contact doesn’t play much of a role. I don’t care whether incumbents are re-elected nearly so much as whether they are challenged by a credible opponent.
More to the point, anyone who follows the General Assembly knows that half the people in the House are about as effective and necessary as teats on a bull hog. They vote how they’re told to in caucus, and do none of the actual work. We’d be better off without them.
AM: I hear you and agree with the underlying thoughts. I worry that the problem with ‘fixing this’ is that it (like FOIA legislation, and non-partisan redistricting, and perhaps term limits) makes sense for everyone except the legislators, who would need to enact it. As such, it appears to be DOA out of the gates.
How can you really avoid the bobble-head legislators, those who drink the majority/minority leader’s KoolAid?
Setting aside what might be the correct number of legislators needed to run efficiently, what about the concept that challenging long-time, unchallenged incumbents forces the incumbent party to waste money and resources defending the seat? This has proven invaluable at the national level since the Dems have adopted the 50-state stategy. It should be a key to success for the 62-district strategy as well.
PB: I’m fully aware my idea is a non-starter, which is why I don’t spend much time flogging it.
I hear Rep Gilligan agrees whole-heartedly with deldem!
Dude…Stalinist? I can guarantee you (out of my opinion) that if Gilligan were to get a R-opponent, it would have the same “ohmygosh” sentiment.
I just found this post, probably too late. I’m the Collins quoted there. I wrote a post lamenting the unopposed candidates in my area and was asked by the News Journal to comment further on the matter. Before anything was published, Barb Hudson began her campaign. Regardless of the party, why aren’t all offices at every election run with 2 or more candidates? I think it does remove the choice for residents, regardless whether the incumbent is lined up with my views or not. In the same post I laid out a plan for term limits which might encourage the parties to groom leaders instead of limiting the leadership pool. The post on my site is here:
http://tinyurl.com/5j9w2n
Thanks, Elbert.