Elections are not games; they serve the people, not politicians.

Photo by Felix Mittlemeier on Unsplash

The first rule of government in a representative democracy is that those representing the people be democratically elected. That’s what the words mean. So, it was highly disappointing that the Interim Committee on Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions recently killed two election bills proposed by Representative Chip Neiman (R-Hulett).

Current Wyoming laws prevent political parties from holding head-to-head primaries to find out which candidate has majority support of that party. When three candidates split the vote with no one getting a majority, Neiman’s bills would put the top two head-to-head and let the voters determine which one has the support of the majority. 

Why the state of Wyoming has any authority to prevent parties from doing this in the first place, is a question for another day. But, until that day, Wyoming legislators can improve the situation by allowing parties to hold runoff elections and amending the state Constitution to allow adequate time for the process.

“Runoff elections-constitutional amendment” LSO 22-0092.3 was a simple bill to insert the needed time into the Wyoming Constitution. A “yes” vote would have put it before the state’s legislature in January. If both senate and house passed it with a two-thirds majority, it would be put on the ballot for Wyoming citizens to decide in November of 2022.

Rep. Chip Neiman

Seven members of the committee voted against even bringing the constitutional amendment before the full legislature. The committee then went on to kill its companion bill, “Runoff elections” LSO-0093.4, which would have responded to the will of the voters by creating a runoff process in Wyoming law.

So, why did a slim majority of the committee deny Wyoming voters from letting their majority be heard? Interested readers can watch the discussion and learn for themselves. The first thing they will learn is that these proposals are entirely doable. 

A lawyer from the Legislative Services Office, the state election director, and the president of the Clerks’ Association testified that the bills were both legal and workable. While the Clerks had opposed an earlier version of the bill, they worked with Representative Neiman to address its concerns and no longer resist it.

A lobbyist and a legislator or two raised objections that a runoff election for statewide office would cost about a million dollars. But if that is too much money to find out the will of the people, why have elections at all? Imagine the cost savings if we skipped elections altogether! But the very point of an election is to determine which candidate has the consent of the governed. Anything less than that is a sham—no matter what the cost. 

Already, the general election is designed to give citizens a head-to-head vote. That’s because everybody knows it would be unfair to allow a dozen candidates on the ballot and give the office to someone who could only get ten percent of the vote. So, why should any party be kept from doing what we already agree is the best practice for general elections?

Why, indeed? This is where the comments got interesting. Representative Sweeney (R-Casper) was most candid. He opined: “the majority party is pushing this… to stack the deck against folks they don’t like, myself being one.” His argument hinged on the assumption that a runoff election would lower his chances of reelection. 

Rep. Pat Sweeney

Whether Sweeney would lose a runoff or not, I don’t know. But I do know that, if he lost, it would be the voice of the people. And if he won, it would be the voice of the people. A civic-minded public servant would be horrified to win an election that did not accurately reflect the voice of the people.

Elections are for the people and not for the politicians. Elections are not a game of thrones to be won by hook or by crook. They should be designed to clarify and amplify the voice of the people. America needs principled public servants who understand this. They should care about a fair vote, not for a favorable vote. Elections are fair when they determine which representative has the support of a clear majority. 

In a perfect world, where the will of the people was perfectly known, we would not need elections at all. Rather, politicians would gladly resign as soon as they knew they had lost the support of the majority. They would nobly defer to anyone who better represented the constituency. But since we don’t live in such a perfect world, civic-minded legislators should work diligently to make elections as responsive to the will of the people as possible. 

For this reason, let us hope that Representative Neiman brings his bill back before the full legislature. Despite the slim majority of the Corporations Committee, the majority of the people should be heard. True representative democracy requires nothing less.

Also published in the Wyoming Tribune Eagle on December 10, 2021.