Normally, a political party wants its nominee to enter the general election race with a sense of momentum and a mandate from the people. But with seven Democrats vying in the June 26th primary to determine the party’s congressional nominee, it seems likely one of them will win with barely 1/3 of the vote, or even less.
When this point was made to a prominent Columbia County Democratic Committee officer, he seemed surprised. But it’s just a matter of simple mathematics. With seven options, there just aren’t enough votes to go around for one to win with more than 33.3%, let alone a majority — unless most of them perform abysmally and one of them truly distinguishes him- or herself from the field.
With only a few weeks to go, no clear frontrunner has emerged. So one can reasonably expect the winner to have trouble cracking even 30% unless several people drop out in the next two weeks.
Start with a baseline of seven generic candidates who are equally popular (or, more likely equally unknown). That gives each of them a roughly 14% share of the vote out of the gate:
After nearly a year of campaigning, that level playing field has tipped and dipped and deformed into a lumpy, uneven terrain. No one seems to have a good sense of who the frontrunners are, though each candidate has tried to project an image of leading the field.
Let’s go through some scenarios where some candidates excel, some slightly overperform, some are average, some underperform, and some stumble badly. Here is an example of a smooth progression of support among the candidates:
Above, though five candidates get only 15% or less of the vote, that still leaves the top three candidates fighting over just 45% of the electorate. The “winner” prevails with just 25% of the vote.
Now, consider what it would look like if one of the candidates somehow manages to reach a 50% majority of Democratic voters, facing just one other moderately strong challenger:
This scenario requires five of the candidates to get only 2-6% of the votes. It doesn’t seem like any of the candidates are quite that pathetic, or that anyone is that far ahead.
Now, let’s get to the starting premise: What would it take for a candidate to just crack 1/3 of the vote?
This requires the improbable scenario of fully five of the candidates garnering 10% or less of the vote each, and only one other candidate cracking 20%. Is the field really that weak?
Reading this election is difficult. The general perception is that the Rhodes, Flynn and Delgado are doing somewhat better than the rest, but none of those three has gained separation — meaning they all are wallowing somewhere in the 20%s. Collier, who entered the race late as the sole woman among the contenders, doesn’t seem to have caught fire, and might finish at 5% or less. Ryan and Beals have some intense supporters, but also have generated strong negatives, while Clegg has his local credentials going for him. But the presence of four other contenders means these, too, are having trouble breaking out.
But all that is just guesswork, and ultimately the names don’t matter for this exercise. If you have three candidates averaging between 20-30% each, that means the rest have to average 10% or less, and at least one of them has to gain virtually no support at all.
Could this situation have been avoided? Generally, spirited primaries seem like a good idea for the health of a party, though establishment Dems often rail against them. The competition ideally means that more people pay attention to, get involved with, and care about the race than if both major parties just anoint a predictable standard-bearer. Committee insiders nominating whomever they choose, in private, is terrible for the party in the long run. Any idea that primaries are inherently “divisive” is bunk, intended to shoo off pesky outsiders.
Still, seven candidates on the ballot seems like far too many. It dilutes the vote too much, limits fundraising, and may risk inspiring needless acrimony or resentment among candidates’ supporters.
Sure, most every Democrat including the candidates themselves are saying that they will support whoever the voters choose to run against Faso. (Not me—I wouldn’t vote for Ryan, who has a sordid and well-documented record of participating in schemes to spy on and harass union leaders, journalists and activists). That’s an easy promise for people to make now, before the primary.
The reality is that some of those fired up for a candidate who winds up losing on June 26th will themselves lose interest, and neglect to vote in November. That just happens; after all, barely half of Americans even participate in Presidential elections, let alone contests for Congress.
A better outcome might have been for the leadership of the various County Dem committees in the district to have diplomatically but persuasively convinced a few of the weaker candidates to drop out. This would be a positive use of such leadership roles, to the extent that there’s little point remaining in a seven-person race if you’re running 5th, 6th, or 7th. It just saps energy from the rest. A 3- or 4-person primary would lead to more clarity about the differences among the candidates, while still generating interest and competition, while having a better chance of one person actually pulling away from the field, and winning a primary mandate.
The unfortunate reality is that there isn’t much “there” there with our County committees. Their operations and leadership is mostly invisible or mysterious to voters, with Dem officers having little or no real pull among the populace. And so, we are more likely to see someone “win” on June 26th, maybe, 28% of the vote, if that.