Asymmetrical Information

From the desk of Jane Galt:

So the word on everyone's

So the word on everyone's lips today is "Torricelli" and I wish I knew how to spell it, and/or wasn't too lazy to look it up. No matter; that's the kind of devil-may-care, damn-the-torpedos, details-what-details? commentary that draws people to my blog. Or so I devoutly hope.

Anyway, I've had a change of heart: now I'm on the fence.

I have some natural sympathy for the Republicans. I'm a firm believer in the sanctity of electoral law, in the sense that I think it is disastrous to start changing the rules after the players have taken the field. Not because the rules themselves may be very good, but because once you know who is likely to benefit from a given change, it is nearly impossible for mortal humans to separate their personal electoral desires from the issue of whether or not the change should be made. Take Florida. Now, I don't want you to email me with your opinion on how the [Democrats/Republicans] were just trying to [break the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face rules/excercise abusive power just because they happened to hold certain offices] in order to get [Gore/Bush] elected. As I found when I wrote on it, the subject of the 2000 election has taken on something of a religious nature. The partisans refuse to admit that there is anything at all suspicious in the way their position on Florida's electoral law neatly served to bolster their candidate, much less consider that those on the other side might feel exactly the same way about their position, rather than plotting madly to overturn the [clear rules/legislative intent] and thereby unfairly seize power. Just work with me for the nonce, and agree that whether or not your position on the 2000 Florida election happens to be the legally correct one, it is very, very hard to separate your opinion on the law from your opinion on the candidates. You can see this, because all those stupid fools you are friends with who voted for the other guy seem to genuinely believe that the court should have voted in their party's favor. It is therefore, on principle, a bad idea to let people alter or reinterpret the statutes when they know how those alterations are likely to affect the outcome of the race.

But I have more sympathy to this argument when it happens after an election has taken place. It's not immediately obvious what is really hurt by substituting candidates with a month to go to the election.

On the other hand, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to the Democrats, because their argument is, in its entirety: give us power.

Let's dispense right now with the idea that there is a "right" to competitive elections. If that's the case, the Republicans in my state have a hell of a court case ahead of them, because for many, many offices Democrats run unopposed. This is an argument of convenience, not of principle, and I don't want to hear anyone bring it up to me because it's idiotic on its face. A majority of national offices are not competitive, and its possible that a majority of local ones aren't either, if New York is anything to go by. So nail the coffin shut on that one.

The other argument I hear from Democrats is, basically, that it's not fair. You jest. Your party protected him. Your party let him run again. Your party voted for him in the primary. And now you want to call a do-over because everyone else is disgusted by what your party did?

The Democrats proffering this argument are pretending that this is some sort of act of God, as though they woke up Tuesday morning and found, to their utter shock and horror, that unbeknownst to them the man that the Democratic-controlled Senate had just admonished for taking bribes had somehow become their party's nominee for the New Jersey Senate seat. We are all supposed to imagine their relief at finding that Torricelli was willing to rectify this inexplicable mishap by stepping down immediately, so that the correct candidate could be inserted on the ballot -- and their bewilderment and sorrow when they found that venal Republicans were trying to block their efforts to make sure that New Jersey voters had a real choice. In fact, while they won't say it, many people have noted that it is probable that the Republicans staged this entire scandal simply to gain electoral advantage.

Call me when the shuttle lands. The Democratic leadership, who were entirely willing to put up with Torricelli's bribe-taking until he made the mistake of becoming unelectable, descended on the Torch like an angry mob. The locals wanted him out because it will depress their turnout, and boost the GOP's, while the nationals just woke up to the fact that he's probably going to cost them the senate. The only new facts here are his abysmal poll numbers. These are the sort of facts that the election law is designed to prevent people from acting upon. If they'd wanted to substitute someone, they should have put the full court press on earlier. They rolled the dice and lost.

Both parties are whining like little children because they thought they had the Senate in their hands and now the court is threatening to take their pretty toy away. For this I have no patience at all. Neither party has a right to the Senate. And I am thoroughly, thoroughly apalled by the people on both sides I've heard say that it's more important to get control of the Senate than to have clean elections. If you would trade liberty for power, you will get, and deserve, neither, unless it is secured by better men than you.

I see several large principles. The first is that people should have more choice, if possible. It's not a right, but we should try to secure it where we can.

The second is that we shouldn't have people in the Senate who take bribes. That's why I wouldn't mind if the Republicans let this pass -- let's do what it takes to get the Torch out, 'kay?

The third is that rules shouldn't change midstream. If we allow this, we encourage parties to push the envelope on electoral law, trying to get their people in a position to change the result post facto. This is a bad thing, and I think we should draw exceptions narrowly. It is instructive, I think, at this point, to consider why the legislature sets things up as they are. Why are primaries so far in advance? Why the 51 day limit? I don't have access to the floor debate on the sections of the law in question, but I think it's reasonable to assume that they did it in order to give people time to learn about the candidates. Will they have enough time to consider Lautenburg? Maybe. Maybe not. There's also the issue of giving one campaign an unfair advantage. Most of Torricelli's campaign, especially the adjunct "issue ads", will transfer straight to Lautenburg. Forrester, on the other hand, has to start again from scratch. It gives the Democrats an unfair advantage, I'd argue.

And now that I've said all that, I'll tell you that I think it's moot. Mercer County has already started to get absentee ballots back. I think it's highly unlikely that a New Jersey Court is going to invalidate those ballots. And if they do, I think there's a fair-to-middling chance that it will go to the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned.

I'm actually very interested in the Democratic legal strategy. Why now? Poll numbers aside. The buzz around here is that the dossier on Torricelli is starting to leak, and if it gets out, he's doomed. But what are they hoping for? Unless he resigns by Friday, the governor can't appoint a replacement -- so why are they waiting? Do they want to test the idea that the governor can cancel the election? Or (my guess) do they want to throw up their hands, keep him on the ballot, and have the governor promise to appoint Lautenburg in his place as soon as he resigns? Everyone seems to agree that that's legal. And if it works. . .

Well, I look forward to seeing how the Dems justify their opposition when the Republicans try it.

Posted by Jane Galt at October 2, 2002 04:36 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links