Gov. Daniels is talking about not holding a special election to fill the seat of pious adulterer, Mark Souder who has resigned with about 1/3 of his term left to serve. Gov. Daniels suggests that we’d spend about a million dollars and get only about 20 days worth of service.
I would just caution that this cost-savings approach to choosing one’s political system leads to some pretty bad places. The cheapest solution would be one with no election costs and a lifetime of service by the officeholder. But, of course, our ancestors opted out of just such a system long ago. In fact, in Iraq – I’ve been told, we have been spending a ton of our own money to bring replace their old system with a version of our less cost effective one.
Daniels often seems like one of those guys who knows the price of everything (the aforementioned Iraq adventure notoriously excepted) but is a little sketchy on the value. In Souder’s case, however, I might allow that no representation is better than what the 3rd District has been getting.
It seems he is making his case for him to remain in office given our current budget crisis. mitch’s role as budget director needs to be examined in detail since he contributed greatly to the current economic crisis, budget overruns and unemployment. Is he really that bad at coming up with realistic budget/revenue forcasts that he misses so many by so much? Or was that the plan? Let them have their items funded only to be slashed-repeatedly-because revenues do not match the balanced budget?
I believe that is the plan — estimate high and cut budgets when income falls predictibly short.
Then, bring in the axmen for the workers. When there are too few to fulfil their obligations, the department is outsourced to some no-bid contracter.
It’d be nice to see political parties pay for their own primaries. Why should that come out of the hide of taxpayers?
I see no good reason why we taxpayers should be called upon to pay for the primaries of the two major parties. Thanks to eric for asking the question.
Manfred & MCB, well technically this would be a special election, not a primary, but you have a point.
‘Course the Dems seem on board with this, too.
But, agreed, wholeheartedly. Voting’s supposed to be a sacred trust. So’s representative government. If they aren’t, then nothing is.
I think the real shame here is that an elected official feels he can raise the issue without risking tar and feathers. A million-dollar election is a buck-fifty per capita for the Third district, and 16¢ a head for all Hoosiers, who have a vested interest in seeing their fellows represented. Even if they did put Souder there in the first place.
I don’t know how much blame Mitch deserves for our present situation. Truth be told, Inidana is in a much more secure financial position than most other states. Plus, it isn’t like Mitch is the one crunching the numbers. Last, the legislature has not been entirely cooperative with Mitch’s priorities. This is a big reason why MD is trying so hard for Republicans to win back the House.
I find it humorous that people in this thread are blaming Mitch for our current situation, and others saying that he should spend the extra Million Dollars that Mitch doesn’t want to spend. (Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?) Personally, I don’t see $1 million dollars worth of value in such an election, and would rather see that Million put to other uses. I would also differentiate betweeen this and your example Doug. While 22 days is not worth $1 million to me, there is a large difference between 22 days for $1 million and lifetime appointments.
My first reaction is that this is a tactical move. Gov. Daniels doesn’t want Marlin Stutzman (or any Tea Party insurgent) to get that office. He wants the GOP establishment to keep control of what is a comfortably Republican district. The Tea Party has a good chance of winning a GOP primary, but having a fringe candidate is about the only way the GOP loses that district.
It’s similar to the move the Dem establishment made to keep control of the candidacy for Bayh’s US Senate seat, except in that case the Dems are playing to stay in the game, not for an easy win.
I’m sure Gov. Daniels likes saving money, but I thinks that’s mainly spin.
Oh one more thing — Eric, I tend to agree, primaries aren’t a good use of public funds. It seems the party establishments agree too. Strange alliance, eh?
As a member of the third district, I can readily say that we haven’t had real representation for a long, long time. A couple more months won’t make a difference.
Dave,
The third’s lack of real representation si nothing compared to the 5th.
Dave,
The third’s lack of real representation is nothing compared to the 5th.
Well, now Souder says he knew the day after the primary he would resign before the November election, but it had nothing to do with the affair. So, why did he run in the primary? HE should pay for the special election since he allowed things to unfold this way.
Oh, do let me add, that I do absolutely think that the voters deserve a special election to replace Souder, not allow TPTB to choose his replacement for the ballot in Nov.
Doug,
I think the slippery-slope argument you bring up is valid, but in this case I think the governor is really speaking for the electorate. I would imagine that even Souder would poll more favorably than paying for a special election in this district.
All the counties here are in major cost-cutting mode and while the election wouldn’t cost the $1 million that Daniels cites it would still be quite costly and thus unpopular. I think Dem candidate Tom Hayhurst is playing with fire by pushing for a quick special election…
I notice that Matt Tully of the Star has picked up my idea (above) that the person who runs and wins, but knew in his/her heart that he/she would resign before the general, should bear the cost of the special election.
“Concerns have been raised about the cost of holding a special election to replace former U.S. Rep. Mark Souder. The discussion is important, as local governments are short of cash, and special elections carry a hefty price tag. Thus, I propose a new law: Anyone who voluntarily leaves an elected office early — for a job, because of scandal or for another self-created reason — must pay the cost of the special election to fill the open position.”
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100528/NEWS08/5280343/1101/NEWS08/Candidates-need-to-speak-up