#ncga: “Substantial Plurality” = 30 percent ????

I wasn’t a math major, but something about this concept dreamed up by the, um. “honorables” doesn’t sit right with me.  Check out section 3 of  Session Law 2017-214 pushed through both chambers (over Roy Cooper’s veto) under the shady duplicitous name of “Electoral Freedom Act:”

[…] If a nominee for a single office is to be selected, and there is more than one person seeking nomination, the substantial plurality shall be ascertained by
multiplying the total vote cast for all aspirants by forty percent (40%).thirty percent (30%). Any excess of the sum so ascertained shall be a substantial plurality, and the aspirant who obtains a substantial plurality shall be declared the nominee. If two candidates receive a substantial plurality, thecandidate receiving the highest vote shall be declared the nominee.

(2) If nominees for two or more offices (constituting a group) are to be selected,and there are more persons seeking nomination than there are offices, the substantial plurality shall be ascertained by dividing the total vote cast for all aspirants by the number of positions to be filled, and by multiplying the result by forty percent (40%).thirty percent (30%). Any excess of the sum so ascertained shall be a substantial plurality, and the aspirants who obtain a substantial plurality shall be declared the nominees. If more candidates obtain a substantial plurality than there are positions to be filled, thosehaving the highest vote (equal to the number of positions to be filled) shall be declared the nominees.” […] 

It just got harder to put these weasels into the unemployment line.  There are plenty of places you can not even bother to campaign and get 30 percent of the vote based on pure name ID or party affiliation.  

This atrocity got trumpeted as a great opportunity for third party and unaffiliated candidates.  I am sure it also got viewed as a great way to slap at Roy Cooper.   Do you realize how hard it’s going to be to hold an incumbent office holder to 29 percent (or less) of the vote? What about the actual implications for democracy?

NO House Republicans opposed this.  .  A lot of Democrats DID.   In the Senate, only GOP senators Barringer and Dunn said NO.

8 comments for “#ncga: “Substantial Plurality” = 30 percent ????

  1. john steed
    October 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    This should be called the Incumbent Protection Act of 2017, and is aimed at saving their butts after serial betrayal of the GOP base by such things as delaying our tax cut to fund Democrat priorities, repealing HB2 and selling out religious liberty, and screwing electric consumers with their special interest sellout to the green energy snake oil salesmen. They figure an incumbent should have enough name ID and money to stagger over a 30% finish line when they flood the ballot with ringers to divide the opposition like Tillis did in his primary. Tillis is likely one of the incumbents they were trying to protect.

    What has happened to those legislators who we considered conservative?

  2. October 18, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    Not quite accurate. John Blust and I both voted against the original bill and the conference report. I don’t know about John, but after that, I heard from a number of people, including Glen Bradley, saying to override the veto just for the sake of the ballot access issue, even after I explained to them how bad the rest of the conference report was. I struggled with what to do for several days, talked with other members about it, and even discussed it with one of my local judges. It was only because we have a chance to fix the bad parts in January that I was able to vote for the override just to get the ballot access piece done for Glen and a lot of other people who have worked so hard for that. I would not have done it otherwise.

    • patrick
      October 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm

      thanks for your explanation but you have no need to defend yourself you have proven yourself trustworthy unlike most of the others that you have to deal with that have the R next to their name as well in the legislature

      • October 19, 2017 at 4:22 pm

        Thank you for your kind words. They wouldn’t be trying so hard to get rid of me if I just went along with whatever they wanted.

  3. Marm
    October 19, 2017 at 9:38 am

    Another effort to negate the growing number of unaffiliated candidates making the power of incumbents almost impossible to overcome. With so many races already devoid of real competition, this is just another nail in our democratic system. The Raleigh swamp could use a little draining. Where is our NC version of Donald Trump?

    • GUWonder
      October 19, 2017 at 1:57 pm

      Marm, you need to get to work to build a structure to recruit and support Unaffiliated conservative candidates to run for the legislature. Berger and Moore have just rigged the GOP primaries to the point, that running as a conservative Unaffiliated has just become a lot more attractive than before this asinine bill was passed.

      Anyone connected with the leadership in the House and Senate should be your top targets. We need our own Steve Bannon here in NC to helpl drain the swamp.

  4. Charles Hickman III
    October 20, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    I favor increased ballot access. The 30 percent threshold seems to be a mighty high price to pay for it.

Comments are closed.