The Sound of 'Splainin'
I've been through a few presidential cycles in my cycles around the sun. Not as much as many, but more than a few. I know there are differences and similarities in each. But this time, this time feels ... different.
( Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
( Cut for my rocking chair on porch moment. )
They were also the second and third choice of a lot of people! Meaning they weren't "losers" as the article exclaims
Weren't necessarily, anyways.
Ranked-choice voting doesn't guarantee that the winner will be better in terms of favorable/unfavorable views of the voters; it's a legitimate criticism that ranked-choice can result in the election of less-popular candidates than largest-plurality:
For example, consider the following setup:
- 45% favor candidate A, think candidate B is bad and candidate C is worse
- 30% favor candidate B, think candidate A is bad and candidate C is worse
- 25% favor candidate C, think candidate B is bad and candidate A is worse
In ranked-choice, 55% of the votes favor B after C is eliminated. B wins, but only 30% of the voters think B is a good candidate. In largest-plurality, A would win, and 45% of the voters would think the winner was a good candidate.Ranked-choice does guarantee that a majority is at least as happy with the candidate as they would have been with largest-plurality (in the scenario above, 55% are happier with B than A). But you can construct scenarios where the overall satisfaction with the electoral outcome is much lower, e.g. where largest-plurality would elect a candidate that just shy of a majority thinks is good, while ranked-choice will elect a candidate that no one thinks is good.
In a (hypothetical) politically-polarized world where everyone thinks their favored candidate is great and every other candidate is the evilest thing since sliced Satan, you might get those sorts of outcomes quite often.
(You can construct scenarios that are as degenerate for largest-plurality, whether you assume people always vote for their first choice or not. But they're different scenarios.)
Of course, the article doesn't get into that. It's not like there's going to be extensive favorable/unfavorable polling done in city council elections. The story at least has some evidence that the candidates elected feel like that election method got them into office at a popularity disadvantage (the quotes from the board-members themselves). The article plays that up for drama, probably more than is justified.
That election style buys the most ads.
Wait a second. By "that election style" you mean largest-plurality, right? Why do you think that largest-plurality "buys the most ads" relative to ranked-preference? It seems to me that ranked-preference would result in more political ad spending. Suddenly, candidates might have a reason to care about their name-recognition among people who would never have them as a first choice.
Sure, there may be some indirect relation from largest-plurality voting, to simple horse-race stories, to attracting viewers, to raking in those ad dollars.
But at this point, I think there's some mixing up of media trying to attract political ads and media trying to attract ad dollars in general, as well as some mixing up of discussion of media positions on electoral reform versus campaign finance reform.
I think people who are concerned about the role of money in politics overestimate the direct effect of political advertising. Instead of worrying that the rich could use political ads as a good approximation of brain control, I'm more worried that media has the incentive to give lots of attention to whatever candidate is most divisive and crazy because even in the absence of political ad spending, that draws eyeballs to ads for cars or toothpaste or whatever. Instead of worrying that the media short-changed Bernie Sanders because Bernie Sanders is in favor of campaign finance reform, I'm more worried that the media short-changed Bernie Sanders just because Bernie Sanders was popular among an audience that doesn't watch so much TV news.
Reply
By "that election style" you mean largest-plurality, right?
I do.
Why do you think that largest-plurality "buys the most ads" relative to ranked-preference?
Excellent question. Every time there is an election (well, it used to happen every time), someone brings up some form of ranked choice. One of the advantages of ranked choice is that more than two candidates can run at the same time.
Which has a profound influence on the tone of the campaign.
When two are running, the most points are scored going negative, pointing out the real/perceived weakness of the opponent. One can spend equal time promoting one's strengths and the weaknesses of the other.
Ah, but when there are more viable candidates in the running, there simply isn't time to just call names, lest one forgets/is unable to tout one's own qualifications. The overtly negative candidate seems too negative when he/she has to aim barbs at multiple targets. More than two therefore creates a less negative campaign in general.
So, yes, with negative campaigning, the political system (called in McChensey & Nichols' Dollarocracy the "money-and-media election complex") gets to intertwine the negative swipes each candidate makes with their news system which will play up the negativity in the name of ratings bait. They got paid to run the very ads that will help them fill time in their required news broadcasts.
Which, again, proves more difficult to do with more than two.
I think people who are concerned about the role of money in politics overestimate the direct effect of political advertising.
In my opinion, the opposite is true. People concerned about shoring up the status quo downplay the role of money at every turn. If, however, one counts more than just the direct telly/radio ads, one finds that money's corrupting influence is all but unstoppable for most elections.
Jane Mayer's Dark Money is a must-read in this department. The next few podcast episodes will be following the "money-and-media election complex" after I set up the situation vis-a-vis the current state of reporting.
Reply
Maybe. If high-stakes national campaigns were done through ranked-choice elections, I'm not convinced politicians wouldn't find effective ways to do negative campaigning anyways. I mean, look at Trump, he didn't wait until the field had narrowed to "go negative" in his primary campaign.
If, however, one counts more than just the direct telly/radio ads
That's why I said direct effect, we're in agreement here. But while both Clinton and Sanders are talking about overturning Citizens United, no one's talking about overturning Buckley.
Reply
Ah, that's strategic. When people are focused on two candidates even before the field narrows, expect those candidates to go neg on each other. The same thing happened when Clinton and Sanders were the top two; Clinton went after Sanders even though there was another debater, standing right there, still "technically" in the race. His poll numbers were low enough for her to ignore him.
I should distinguish here that "going negative" refers not to negative comments in general, but specifically to negative attacks on the other candidate. Trump had gone negative about everything he didn't like, not just the other GOPpers in the race. Those people he all but ignored, except when he was polling high and they attacked him. Then, he responded.
As to finding ways to go negative, this has already been done on a Biblical scale, though mostly not by the candidates. Again, lots of stuff in Mayer's book on this, stuff I plan to share.
...no one's talking about overturning Buckley.
Or Bellotti. Both of those decisions provided the cited precedent in Citizens United, though Stevens' dissent pointed out that the majority was fairly selective in what portions of each were cited. He pointed out that they cited the dissenting opinions in Bellotti, for example, and ignored those portions of Buckley that did not support their conclusions.
(Sorry. Been geeking out on CU lately for planned episodes. Suffice to say that bonus episode on Powell plays a key part; Powell was the power behind both previous decisions. It turns out his nomination to the Court just three months after he wrote his memo was far from a coincidence.)
Reply
I don't think it's accurate that Trump ignored chances to attack his primary opponents. Rather, he picked off his opponents one at a time with negative attacks he tested in front of his rally audiences: First Jeb Bush ("weak", "low energy"), then "little" Marco Rubio, then "Lyin'" Ted Cruz. Check out this video (which I got from our mutual friend, kmo). While I don't quite agree with the title and (despite the channel name) it's more about Trump's marketing savvy than his charisma (a better video about that is this one), it does a very good job of explaining Trump's very successful approach to negative campaigning in a crowded field.
Of course, you're right that he's not just negative about his opposition, and he's found an audience where denigrating the opposition isn't viewed negatively.
Reply
I will note that the weaknesses he zeroed in on with the other GOPpers were known; for a tiny magazine I recently reviewed The Wilderness, McKay Coppins' take on the GOP candidate field. I wonder if Trump took those traits-the weakness, smallness, and lying-ness-from that book. (I doubt it, since he all but fired missiles at Coppins based on an early article about Trump.)
Still, it was all pretty low-hanging fruit, especially the stuff about slacker Bush and Markito. Heck, Coppins couldn't find anyone to attest to Cruz's religious background. They instead said he watched televangelists and copied their moves. No one could say he even attended church.
That's a bit off-topic, I know. I guess my point would be in some defense that he has stated other than negative policy goals (mostly about the debt and taxation). These get far less coverage, of course. And that fits with the theory that a multi-party election forces at least some positive statements about goals.
But who knows with Trump. Did you know he had to hire actors to fill the stadium when he made his candidacy official, and get passers-by inside with the bribe of free T-shirts?
Anything goes with this guy.
Reply
Leave a comment