Hawaii’s House Representative Patsy Mink passed away yesterday at the age of 74, from viral pneumonia. She was a remarkable woman. My hopes and prayers are that her spirit move on in peace and her loved ones be comforted.
That said, her name remains on the ballot for November. People are encouraged to vote “to honor her.” If she wins, the seat will be declared vacant and a special election held (to the tune of a couple of million dollars). Surely there are more appropriate ways to honor the woman than by what appears to me to be a travesty of the democratic process. Elections aren’t about honoring the dead in any case. They’re about putting public servants in office. Does this strike anybody besides me as a weird way to run an election?
Well it’s pretty standard, especially for a nation where elections occur on a specific day, no exceptions. We didn’t even move the elctions with a whole nation embroiled in Civil War.
I think “to honor her” is a bad way to put it, I blame politics for the people that say that. If you believe in her policies you vote for her since, presumably, you are opposed to her opponents policies. The theory being it’s better to leave the seat empty for a few months and then elect a representative whose policies you do agree with rather then to put in a representative you don’t agree with for 2 years. Tough choice for both sides. Almost impossible to campaign effectively.
It’s also weird that people can vote for people who were convicted of felonies and cannot vote themselves, even people in jail.
I suppose that’s a good thing. We asked Afghanistanis to support leaders in exile, who would have arrested had they returned too soon, and now want Iraqis to do likewise.
I heard elsewhere that some were complaining that she should have taken herself off the ballot because her condition was such that she was very unlikely to be able to serve her term should she be elected. Any truth to this?
ElwoodCuse, I’ve heard those complaints, yes. Apparently they were right about her condition. Whether they are right about what should have been done, I couldn’t say.
Osiris, I take your point. I wasn’t presuming the alternative was to vote for someone running against her, but for her party to advance another candidate in her place. Is it that there is no fair way to do that in the time available (or at all)? Because it would essentially involve holding another primary. It just seems to me that if you’re going to have to vote again to decide who gets the seat, why not present the candidates before November, so people know who they have to choose from? I realize it’s legal and standard and all; I just think it’s weird and slightly morbid.
All the ballots have been printed and finalized. The process seems to be a long and convoluted one but it is one that has been laid down by the laws governing elections. Presumably they don’t want to do anything since it could get them into further messy legal battles. For instance what if she had died the day before the election, by then it would be impossible. Where do you choose to draw the line. They probably don’t want to mess with the clear cut words that put the winners of the primary on the general ballot. Plus I think we in America frown on voting for parties. It seems a little undemocratic. You vote for a human being.
Did Hawaii elect a dead representative before? I thought I heard in the news that Hawaii had never failed to re-elect a congressman, dead or alive.
It probably wont make that much of a difference for the seat though. If the election is held in February like they’re saying then they might not even miss a vote. When does the 1st Congressional session begin next year? Right around then I believe.
In the 2000 elections, Missouri elected a dead former-governor to the Senate over John Ashcroft. Which, in retroscpect, should have told us everything we needed to know about Ashcroft.
I can see how the logistics dictate the necessity. But this was what bothered me, actually. It seems that you aren’t really voting for a person, since you know she isn’t going to serve, so you are either voting for the party or simply voting against another candidate. All three options seem unsatisfactory to me, but I don’t see how it can be helped.
Well, you’re not voting for a party since if Mink wins the Democrats wont choose a Representative to fill the seat. You can consider it that you’re still voting for Mink and the fact that she died before rather then right after the election is inconsequential to your representation in Congress.
That being said it looks like the state Democrats are going to be campaigning hard for her seat, including Inoye one of our most iconic politicians. They really want to take the House back. It will be interesting to watch how they go about it.
Well this is certainly interesting. We might, well not me but half the state might get to vote 3 times for the same senate seat in 4 months. The first two might even be on the same day!
Once to choose a replacement for Mink in case an emergency session is called.
Once to choose a new representative for the next session.
Once more should the deceased Patsy Mink win in the general election.
Diceman raised the point I wanted to bring up. In Missouri a couple of years ago we wound up with a dead man on the ballot (our governor was running for the Senate.) The brand new governor announced that if the dead guy won, his widow would be appointed to serve the term, so at least voters would know what would happen if they voted for the dead guy.
People didn’t like that.
In Hawaii, your governor has announced that if your dead woman is elected, the seat will be declared vacant and a special election will be held.
People don’t like that.
And in New Jersey, a scandal-plagued candidate for the Senate has now dropped out of the race too late to have his name replaced on the ballot. Except that the party has appealed the law to the state Supreme Court (which happens to have a majority of members from that very same party). Then the court says it’s okay to replace names at the last minute.
People don’t like that.
So who can tell me what solution people will actually like?
Actually I can’t say people here are unhappy with what may happen with the election. As far as I can tell people are understanding and accept the fact that there is a process to follow and this is how it works. And those who don’t understand generally accept it once it’s explained.
The only people who I could say are unhappy are those felt strongly that when Mink fell sick in late August she should have withdrawn from the race since she wasn’t able to campaign (Even though she could have done absolutely nothing and still have won.) And those unhappy that her family wasn’t out there talking on the news about Mink’s condition which seems a little unfair. She was sick but had the possibility for recovery for quite sometime and it was only right before she died that she took a foreful turn for the worse.
But I think your point is still valid kunilou. People like straightforward rules but life is simply too varied to make it so. Perhaps if people had a better understanding of the natural sciences they might not be so narrow minded.
