Tired of gridlock and grandstanding? This election reform can restore sanity. | Opinion

The hyper-partisan divide in the U.S. House of Representatives has resulted in distorted dynamics impacting Wisconsin in a big way. As reported in The Hill, only 10 percent of the House races in the 2022 midterm elections were competitive. Few incumbent Democrats and Republicans had concerns about losing to the other party. However, the partisan primary has an outsized importance in determining who gets elected to Congress. So how is this a problem? Here are a few examples.

Partisan primaries in non-competitive districts negatively influence the behavior of legislators. In the debates regarding raising the debt-limit ceiling and averting a government shut-down, members of both parties were keenly aware that their votes on these issues could well become key issues in the upcoming primary elections. Thus, the gridlock.

Reps like Matt Gaetz run on grandstanding, not governing

Since primaries are where the action is, there are all sorts of campaign spending maneuvers. In 2022, Democrats contributed heavily in Republican primaries on potentially weaker GOP contenders, thus improving Democrats’ chances in the general election. This happened in Wisconsin in state legislative races, and again in the 2023 Supreme Court race. While primary election meddling isn’t new, the Democratic Party took it to a new level.

And in recent years, members have capitalized on the partisan primary dynamics as a way to raise money. Consider the case of U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida. As reported in The Hill, he has raised considerable money by espousing extreme views, followed by solicitations on social media.

Gaetz is not alone as other notorious members of his caucus also seek rewards for divisive confrontation rather than problem-solving; grandstanding rather than governing. 

Partisan primary elections grew out of public concerns during the Progressive Era in the early 1900’s, and seen as a vast improvement over the old backroom deals. But over time, the process became distorted. Today, even the distortions are becoming distorted.

Open primary elections remove extremist strategy

Are there any solutions? Actually, yes. In Wisconsin, a good place to start is enacting Final Five Voting legislation (SB 528 / AB 563), introduced this fall.

Here’s how it works. There are two parts to the process. First, it uses an open primary that allows the top five vote recipients to advance to the general election. This dramatically reduces the likelihood that an incumbent will be primaried, simply for seeking bipartisan solutions. Candidates are not incentivized to waste resources attacking members of their own party. It also means that larger numbers of voters will have more choices in the general election.

Secondly, in the general election, the candidate who receives more than 50% of the vote is elected. However, if no candidate reaches that threshold on the first round, an instant runoff approach is put in place. In each round of this runoff, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and any voter who had that candidate as their first choice has their vote transferred to their second-choice candidate. The process is repeated until a winner is chosen by a true majority of voters. Since second-choice votes are important, this process benefits candidates who avoid mudslinging.

Alaska's experience shows merits of Final Five Voting

Let's look at a version of Final Five Voting (called Final Four Voting), adopted in Alaska in 2020. It’s very encouraging. In statewide races, voters elected a moderate Republican Senator (Lisa Murkowski), a moderate Democrat Congressional Representative (Mary Pelota) and a Donald Trump-endorsed Governor (Mike Dunleavy). True to their historic pattern, the state legislature remained predominately Republican. Meanwhile, in developing the state budget in 2022, 17 out of 20 state senators banded together to form a bipartisan majority budget coalition. The elections and the successful budget process lacked divisiveness and represented a break from the past.

Election runoffs are not new. Georgia and Louisiana already use a separate runoff election for the top two vote getters if no candidate achieves 50% of the vote. Of course, these runoff elections can be extremely expensive and divisive. With Final Five Voting, one candidate will reach the 50% threshold without a separate runoff election.

Twenty-three Wisconsin legislators are the initial co-authors or co-sponsors of the Final Five Voting legislation, consisting of an eleven/twelve split between Republicans and Democrats. Senate co-authors are Jesse James, R-Altoona, Jeff Smith, D-Brunswick, Rob Cowles, R-Green Bay, and Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit. Assembly co-authors are Ron Tusler, R-Harrison, Daniel Riemer, D-Milwaukee, and Tony Kurtz, R-Wonewoc. For more information, contact democracyfound.org.

The Final Five Voting legislation in Wisconsin isn’t perfect. As introduced, it will apply only to federal Senate and House elections, not state legislative positions. But it is a huge step in the right direction. Although the Progressive Era included three Constitutional Amendments targeting electoral reform, most of the activity was not national, rather state by state. We can learn a lesson from that. Final Five Voting is a step we can take now, while opening the door for other needed reforms. We shouldn’t miss this opportunity. Now is the time for Final Five Voting in Wisconsin.

Lee Rasch is executive director of LeaderEthics, a nonpartisan/nonprofit organization committed to promoting ethical leadership among elected officials. He can be reached at Lee@leaderethics.us.