July 13, 2016
TRUMP, DEMOGRAPHICS AND DISGUST TWO-PARTY SYSTEM DOOMED SAYS SENATOR SASSE

ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART

by RUSS STEWART

Ben Sasse is hardly a household name. He is the obscure Republican junior senator from Nebraska, the obscure state mostly known for growing corn, wheat and soybeans, raising livestock, packing meat and voting habitually Republican.

Yet Sasse, who just opposed the candidacy of Donald Trump, is the latest in a line of intriguing and contrarian politicians. Whereas Illinois is saddled with such crass opportunists as Rod Blagojevich, Mike Madigan and Rahm Emanuel, Nebraska has produced such worthies as Democrat William Jennings Bryan, the hapless advocate of bimetallism, silver coinage, isolationism and creationism, who lost bids for the presidency in 1896, 1900 and 1908, George Norris, who was a senator from 1919 to 1943 and who was an original "Republican In Name Only" who fervently supported the Democratic New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s, John Kerrey, the Democratic governor and senator who came close to beating Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential primaries, and Chuck Hagel, a retired Republican senator who let Barack Obama use him for political cover by accepting appointment as the U.S. defense secretary.

Neither a farmer nor a cattleman, Sasse is a former college president with two master's degrees and a doctorate in history from Yale University. Sasse achieved a bit of notoriety recently when he, along with fellow Republican senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Jeff Flake of Arizona, repudiated his party's 2016 presidential nominee, creating a firestorm in his home state. Sasse called Trump a "New York liberal" who is not and never will be a Republican and, more interestingly, predicted that the 2016 election portends the doom of America's two-party system, perhaps as soon as 2020.

The reason, Sasse said, is that political affiliation is at an all-time low and steadily decreasing. Neither party has clearly defined values. Neither engenders loyalty. Each exists because the other party's real or perceived agenda is repugnant to 40 to 45 percent of Americans. Neither has laid out a post-2016 agenda. Both support the status quo. The national debt is approaching $19 trillion, which is $12 trillion more than when George Bush left office in 2008, and costs $1 trillion a year in interest. The Republicans boast that they are the party of "fiscal conservatism" and "limited government," and they have controlled the U.S. House since 2010, yet they have been complicit with Obama and the Democrats in this orgy of spending and borrowing. The Democrats promised to end "Bush's wars," but now we have U.S. troops in seven countries and we are spending $800 billion annually on the military, and Obama's 2008 "change we need" slogan was empty rhetoric.

Both parties care only about winning the next election and staying in power.

Sasse noted that party affiliation has declined markedly, especially among higher educated voters and particularly among millennials, those born between 1990 and 2000, who flocked to Bernie Sanders' campaign. They whined that the political system is rigged to keep the "insiders" on the inside and to keep the "special interests" pacified and the donations flowing, and that, rhetoric and blame assigning aside, the two-party system is just an incestuous farce.

The population of the United States in 2010 was 324 million, of which roughly 75 percent are adult citizens. According to statistics compiled by the states, there were 193,409,760 registered voters in the country as of 2014, with another 10 million to 15 million eligibles who do not register and vote. The 2012 Obama-Mitt Romney contest drew a turnout of roughly 128 million, including third-party candidates. Obama won 65,907,124-60,931,731, with his vote down 3,591,291 from 2008, and turnout was around 65 percent. To spin that outcome creatively, it meant that roughly 127,500,000 people who were eligible to vote either didn't vote for Obama or didn't vote. That's about 35 percent of the registered voter pool and barely a quarter of the U.S. adult population. Turnout in 2014 was down to under 50 percent. Not voting is a choice.

Now that the presidential options are limited, many people are whining about the uninspiring "choice," but the voters made clear their preferences in the primaries. Only a third of the states put the names of the candidates on the ballot, but virtually every state elected national convention delegates in some fashion.

A total of 22 states, including Illinois, have a "party registration not required" rule or an "open" primary. Any voter can choose either party's ballot without public disclosure (unless a "checker" is watching). Twenty-nine states have "closed" primaries, in which a voter must publicly declare an affiliation. That decreases primary participation. For example, 54 percent of Massachusetts registered voters typically do not vote in primaries. The figures are 43 percent in Connecticut, 49 percent in Rhode Island, 47 percent in New Jersey, 32 percent in Oregon, 35 percent in Arizona, 29 percent in California and 37 percent in Iowa. If voters don't involve themselves in candidate selection, they can't complain about candidate choices.

In Illinois, the Clinton-Sanders March 15 Democratic primary drew a turnout of 1,950,716, almost unchanged from the 1,986,164 in 2008, when Obama beat Clinton. Clinton won 981,418-953,112 in March. Delegates were elected from congressional districts. The Republican primary drew 1,383,330, up from 819,260 in 2014 and much higher than 877,152 in 2008 and 630,063 in 2012. Trump finished first with 38.9 percent of the vote.

Minimal votes have a maximum impact. For example, Illinois had a 2010 population of 12,882,135, and in 2014 had 7,520,772 registered voters, or 58.4 percent of the population. Bruce Rauner won the 2014 Republican primary for governor with 328,934 votes (40.1 percent of the total cast), which amounted to 4.4 percent of the registered voter pool and 2.6 percent of the state population. Rauner got 1,823,627 votes (50.3 percent of the total) in the election, which amounted to 24.2 percent of the registered voters and 14.2 percent of the population. A vast number of Illinoisans either didn't vote for Rauner or didn't vote at all, and now they complain.

Let's not forget about Madigan, the Illinois House speaker and a state representative from the Southwest Side Chicago 22nd District since 1970. The district has a population of roughly 110,000, and it has 40,000 registered voters. Madigan won the March primary over three opponents, one funded by Rauner, with 17,155 votes (with 65.3 percent of the total or 42.9 percent of the registered voters. A mere .23 percent of Illinois 7,520,772 voters kept Madigan as the most powerful man in Springfield.

How do we fix this? There are several viable models, which could be applied to presidential, congressional, statewide or state legislative offices.

*The California Model. In an effort to increase turnout, enhance competition and get Democrats to the polls, the legislature enacted a jungle primary/election runoff system. All candidates run in the primary, with party affiliation, and the top two finishers, regardless of party, are on the election ballot. There is no party registration. That has had the unintended consequence of elongating the campaigns, making Democrats in one-party districts or statewide drain their donor base, and giving Republicans the opportunity to vote for the least liberal Democrat. The up side is that every contest is contested; the down side is that the minority party withers in one-party districts. That could definitely work in Illinois legislative elections.

*The Chicago Model, also used in Los Angeles and Houston. Aldermen in Chicago have always run in a nonpartisan primary/runoff setup, without party label, with a runoff if nobody gets more than 50 percent of the vote. The General Assembly added the offices of mayor, clerk and treasurer in 1996, effective in 1999. That works only in a virtually all-Democratic city, where everybody fights about power, not issues, and there are few Republicans.

*The Louisiana Model. The state's primary was abolished, and all candidates run, with party affiliation, in the general election. Those who exceed 50 percent of the vote are elected; if not, the top two, regardless of party, face a runoff 5 weeks later. That would be unworkable nationally. Can you imagine 50-plus candidates, all running for president, in one election? With one of the top two, who maybe got 10 to 20 percent of the vote, becoming the president? A non-starter.

*The Nevada Model: At least it's not a crapshoot. Nevada voters don't have to accept ballot options. They can actually vote a ballot line entitled "none of these candidates." It usually draws 2 to 4 percent of the vote. Nobody knows what would happen if it won. Maybe they would redo the election with different candidates? It would get a solid 15 to 25 percent of the vote in this presidential race.

*The Southern Model. Majority rules. In almost every U.S. Southern state primary, majority/runoff systems exist, with two-party elections. The primary was structured so that an "objectionable" -- meaning anti-establishment - candidate could not win with 30 to 40 percent of the vote; then everybody ganged up on that candidate of the vote in the runoff. Georgia even has an election majority/runoff provision. Nobody can win any statewide office without a majority. That could wreak havoc in a presidential race if the top two candidates had to re-compete in a runoff in the same state.

On a congressional or state level, runoffs could ensure a better quality or more salable candidates, but it would cost both election authorities and candidates more money and turnout would be anemic, favoring the candidate with the most money and best get out the vote effort.

Printing technology, opposition research, cheap flier production and mailing costs have rendered precinct captains and door knocking obsolete. Money is the ticket to election, not loyal party service. Within the next decade, smart (and rich) politicians will run for election as independents, bypassing primaries and party baggage.

Send e-mail to russ@russstewart. com or visit his Web site at www. russstewart.com.