Massachusetts is not a Democracy

If you only had one choice on the ballot for every election, would you think you live in a democracy? Unfortunately this describes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when it comes to local elections.

After I moved in the summer of 2006, I went to vote in the September primaries and found with the exception of the governor’s race, it appeared that every incumbent in my district, all of whom happened to be Democrats, were running unopposed. When I checked the statewide results the next day, it appeared that not only had many Democrats not faced any opposition, but also more races were being contested by Green Rainbow party candidates than Republican candidates. This trend repeated itself in the 2006 general election, the 2008 primaries and the 2008 general election. In fact, six of Massachusetts’ 10 U.S. Congressmen, all of whom are Democrats, did not face a challenger and the rest had token opposition. Numerous empirical studies have shown that Massachusetts is one of the least contested states in the country when it comes to local races. The 2008 state House and Senate results are notable for the dearth of any contested seats – in fact most challengers to Democratic seats were other Democrats.

The curious thing about this is while Massachusetts is a blue state in presidential elections, most registered voters are Independents and Republicans have a long history of inhabiting the Governor’s office. Deval Patrick ended a 16-year Republican run (1990-2006), and notable former governors like Francis Sargent and John Volpe were Republicans. Also if you look at the history of ballot questions, Massachusetts voters have voted to roll back income taxes, abolished rent control, approved term limits, rejected universal health care and rejected a bid for supermarkets to sell alcohol. Clearly Massachusetts voters are not all blind liberal partisans when it comes to social and economic issues.

If voters have just one candidate to choose from in repeated elections, it does more than give a tenure-like quality to Massachusetts legislative members. It also undermines the very idea of a democracy, where voters are expected to select the best of two or more candidates for office. The degree to which voters are not offered choices on the ballot raises significant questions about the health of a democracy and additional questions about the vitality and efficacy of the Republican Party providing voters with an alternative to the Democratic-dominated legislature. Currently Democrats control 141 out of 160 seats in the Massachusetts House, and 35 of 40 seats in the State Senate. That is not just a majority – it’s virtually a monopoly.

How could this have happened? Standard variables like the power of incumbency, gerrymandering and redistricting and the lack of the legislature to enact the term limits that voters wanted are part of the reason. But much of the blame must go to the state Republican Party, which never capitalized on its success in the 1990 election to build up a grassroots farm system of next-generation candidates. I doubt that even many Massachusetts Republicans could discuss what the party’s platform entails or how they can help end the tide of GOP failure at the Legislative level.

Another issue is the stigma the national Republican Party has made not just in Massachusetts, but across the Northeast. When you look at notable Republican governors and Senators across the Northeast – Maine’s Olympia Snowe, Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, Massachusetts governors from Bill Weld to the first Mitt Romney (hold that comment for a minute), Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, Connecticut’s Jodi Rell, New York’s George Pataki, New Jersey’s Christie Whitman and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter – a pattern begins to emerge. That is the classic fiscally conservative, socially liberal (almost Libertarian) northeast Yankee Republican. Because the national GOP has moved so far to the right on social issues, this species has been almost rendered extinct. The last two elections have not been easy for any Republican, but the shift in GOP attitudes coupled with their recent electoral failures have definitely trickled down to the state level. Romney won the governorship in the classic Northeast Republican mode, but he had to flip-flop his social positions to even be considered by the national GOP, making him appear disingenuous and costing him the nomination. Currently there are no Republican members of the House of Representatives in the entire Northeast.

Recently noted Republican Charlie Baker announced he would challenge Deval Patrick in the Massachusetts governor's race in 2010. I’m sure local Republicans are thrilled with the news, but they should devote the bulk of their time and energy to recruitment and winning more elections on Beacon Hill. Even the most diehard liberal Democrat in the Bay State would agree that having one choice on the ballot undermines the very concept of a democracy.

Supreme Diversity

A minority goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a Supreme Court nominee. The nominee has an amazing personal history – born into poverty, a parent who died while they were young, the other parent persevering and a family who wouldn’t let them give up and who believed in the American Dream. The nominee became the first in their family to attend college and eventually graduated from an Ivy League law school. Clerkships and a legal career follow and soon the nominee becomes a judge, heading up the ladder to a Court of Appeals and is finally tapped by the president.

But wait. Accusations begin to fly about the nominee being a “token” because of race. Interest groups on all sides begin trading accusations and making projections. They worry because the nominee’s race, sex and background may affect their decisions in cases. Cries of racism and sexism become common. Soon partisans are lined up on both sides, and the vote tends to go largely down party lines as expected.

Is this the scenario for Sonia Sotomayor? Well, yes, but I was actually describing the life and nomination of Clarence Thomas. Thomas’ personal background is strikingly similar to Sotomayor’s. This shows you why the cries about diversity on the Court is largely a crock. If you dislike Thomas or Sotomayor, you really don’t give a hoot about their backgrounds or how they will diversify the Court. And once again, I find it illuminating how those who claim one nominee inspires them can be disgusted by another nominee, even if their backgrounds are the same. Cultural diversity is one thing, but diversity of opinion? Forget it. This goes for partisans on both sides.

And for those of you who think Sotomayor will definitely change the ideology of the Court for better or worse, I recommend reading my last post on this subject.