via Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:
On February 9, the Virginia Senate passed SB 742. Here is the text of the bill. It says that when no one gets as much as 50% in a general election for a statewide office, there shall be a run-off between the top two contenders. Oddly, the bill does not specify the date of such a run-off. The bill excepts presidential elections. The bill also says that if someone got 50% when all write-in votes are ignored, then no run-off is needed.
The vote was 22-16. All Republican Senators voted for the bill, along with one Democratic Senator. The bill now goes to the House of Delegates.
In the 2013 Governor election, Robert Sarvis (Libertarian) received 6.5% of the vote while the Democratic candidate edged out a plurality win over the Republicans, 47.8% to 45.2%. In the 2014 US Senate election, Sarvis (again running as a Libertarian) received 2.4%, while again the Democrats won a narrow plurality victory with 49.2% of the vote.
Had this bill been in place for either of those elections, Sarvis would have been eliminated and a run-off would have been held between the Republican and Democratic candidates, as is the case in a handful of other states. Exit polls show that Sarvis pulled more otherwise-Democratic votes than otherwise-Republican votes in both elections, but many in the Virginia GOP still blame him and the Libertarians as having been a “spoiler.” The bill would not apply to district races, which would make Virginia unique in having run-off elections for US Senate, but not for US House races.
Scott, are you saying this law is bad? If so, how or why is it bad for us?
This bill is yet another example of the major political parties changing the rules as soon as a third party gains any traction whatsoever with the voters.
You ain’t seen nothing. Wait until Libertarians start electing State Legislators on a regular basis in Virginia. When that happens, the major parties will extend this law to apply to elections for State Legislature. Then, the Democrats will always endorse the Republican in the run-offs, and vice-versa.
You know the major parties are evil when they change election laws because of one candidate who hasn’t done anything that is illegal.
Actually, a post November runoff, *as long as an outright 50% plus win precludes a runoff*, is the best of both worlds for alt parties. The establishment parties will have to compete for those votes in the runoff, so they have incentives to be friendly to the alt party candidates, court their endorsements, adopt some of their ideas and campaign themes, etc. Meanwhile the voters feel more free to vote their conscience in the general election, thus increasing the bloc of votes and giving us more perceived/recognized support. This is very different than the perverse dynamic of an Only Two system.
Unlike with top two primaries, where no one can win outright even if they get 50%+ in the first round, states that have runoff elections (GA, LA, etc) after the November elections don’t have a general public perception that the runoff is the real election. The largest number of votes, most media coverage, most money spent, etc., is still generally in the November election where many races are on the ballot; then a few select races may go to a runoff later, but by no means is the November election seen as any less real as a result.
All other things being equal, I tend to agree it increases vote totals. Of course, it also minimizes the impact of a third-party vote on shaping the behavior of the big-two, by getting rid of the incentive for a big-two to try to compete directly with a third-party candidate for third-party-leaning voters. So I guess it’s a question of which is more important: more votes on the board on election day, or a bigger impact on the politics and the issue agenda of the winner. For Libertarians, there’s the problem of being accused of wasting taxpayer money on another election, and then the indignity of being excluded from the “real” election. So it’s not an electoral law change I would lobby for or support. Still, I thought it worth reporting in that it’s a pretty much direct reaction to Sarvis’s campaigns, and as a general matter run-offs only matter when there is a third-party or independent candidate (or, I suppose, multiple candidates of the same major party, though I don’t think that can happen in most states).
Although the pretext for the bill’s passage is erroneous it seems like a good thing to me. Runoffs help neutralize the “spoiler” misdirection.