I have heard plenty of politicians insult the other party’s voters. What I find more interesting is when they manage to insult their own.
Consider the Trump administration’s lawsuit over Alaska’s Senate election. Republican Senator Dan Sullivan is on the ballot. Another man with a similar name is also on the ballot. The administration argues that voters could confuse them, potentially costing the incumbent the election.
The ballot identifies the incumbent as a Republican and labels him “incumbent.” The other Sullivan appears with different middle initials and no party designation. Alaska’s Supreme Court has already allowed him to run. Nevertheless, the Justice Department wants a court to potentially hold up certification if the Republican senator loses under circumstances in which the other Sullivan’s votes could have affected the outcome. AP’s explanation of the dispute details the ballot and the legal challenge.
Which leaves me wondering whether anyone in the administration has considered what this argument says about Republican voters.
Apparently, they cannot reliably find their own senator on a ballot that tells them which candidate is their own senator.
That is quite a campaign message.
“We believe in you. We trust your judgment. You are the backbone of America. Now, please let an adult help you with the names.”
Of course, voter confusion is possible. People misread things. Ballot design matters. Similar names can cause mistakes. A sensible election system should make the choices clear, and legitimate complaints deserve examination.
But the fascinating part here is the proposed trigger.
If Sullivan wins, presumably the electorate has successfully navigated the intellectual obstacle course of reading his name.
If Sullivan loses, perhaps the voters were confused.
Victory demonstrates the wisdom of the people. Defeat raises questions about whether the people understood the assignment.
That is a remarkably convenient theory of democracy.
I would find the concern more persuasive if it came with an equally enthusiastic acknowledgment that someone might accidentally vote for the incumbent. Confusion, after all, does not come equipped with a partisan compass. If two names are confusing, the possibility of error runs both ways.
Yet the political concern is that Republican voters might fail to deliver the Republican victory expected of them.
There is something revealing in that expectation. It treats votes for another candidate as though they might really belong to the incumbent. Perhaps some voters made a mistake. Perhaps some deliberately chose the other Sullivan. A shared surname does not tell us which explanation applies.
And a secret ballot is an inconvenient place to go looking for an unexpressed intention.
What bothers me most is the growing assumption that an unfavorable election result needs an explanation beyond the possibility that voters chose someone else.
Maybe the campaign failed. Maybe the candidate disappointed people. Maybe the opponent appealed to more voters. Those are ordinary possibilities in an election. A candidate can do everything legally, appear clearly on the ballot, and still lose.
But accepting that requires treating the voters as independent people rather than votes that somehow went missing from your column.
The snark practically writes itself: Trump apparently thinks Republicans are too stupid to read a ballot.
The less amusing interpretation is that their intelligence is beside the point. What matters is whether their votes produce the desired result.
If they do, the people have spoken.
If they don’t, apparently we need to investigate what they meant.
Leave a Reply