In both Louisiana and Alaska, the leading candidates for the U.S. Senate failed to get 50% of the vote. There is going to be a runoff election in Louisiana, but there will apparently be no runoff in Alaska.
Why?
Different election codes.
Oh wait, I see one of the states is Louisiana so I’ll hazard “Napoleonic Code” as the true answer.
Most states simply require a plurality rather than a majority to declare someone the winner of an election.
Several common-law states also have run-of elections – it’s a vestige of the time when the federal senators & representatives from Southern states were exclusively with the Democratic Party.
Louisiana election laws have always been screwy- you may recall that, one year, incumbent Republican governer Buddy Roemer was opposed by corrupt Democrat Edwin Edwards and Klansman David Duke. Edwards and Duke finished first and second, and a runoff was held. That runoff spawned the great bumper sticker, “Vote For the Crook- It’s Important.”
Election laws vary from state to state. In some states, you can win a Senate or gubernatorial election with a plurality. In some, you need a majority, or a mimimum of 40% of the vote, and there may be a runoff if you don’t reach the required number of votes.
Louisiana and Georgia are the only two states where there is a possibility of a general election runoff after the November election date. Louisiana instituted this system in the 1970’s as part and parcel of their switch to a nonpartisan blanket primary. The November election is the nonpartisan primary, with a runoff later if no one gets a majority.
Georgia instituted general election runoffs in the 1980’s, but retained partisan primaries. In fact, Georgia is one of I believe eight states to maintain primary runoffs, so it’s possible for a Georgia candidate to be on the ballot four times in order to win one election.
California and Washington have “top two” nonpartisan blanket primaries, where the primary is held early and the top two candidates advance to the general election in November. The general election thus functions as a quasi-runoff, and you have to have a majority to win (because there are at most two candidates).
Every state’s laws (on every topic) are different, and Louisiana’s tend to be more different than most, due to its French heritage.
I would question that. Quebec has the same French heritage and, with a plethora of poliitical parties see people regularly elected with only 40% of the vote. The results might be very different if there were runoffs.
I think he means that Louisiana laws in general tend to be more different due to her French heritage, not this particular law.
To remove any doubt, let me state categorically that Louisiana runoffs have nothing to do with any ancient Acadian traditions. They were instituted, as I note above, in the 1970’s, due to calculations of partisan advantage by the then-ruling Democratic establishment. Specifically, it happened that Democratic primaries in that decade tended to be more often and more bitterly contested than Republican primaries. Democrats (especially Governor Edwin Edwards) disliked having to run in a D primary and runoff and then face a fresh, rested R face in the general. They changed the law so that everybody regardless of party would run in the same two elections.
A runoff seems a lot less-screwy to me than putting someone in office that a majority voted against.
I love to use this answer when blowing smoke in some arcane political rule making discussion. I remember Stanley Kowalski’s general take on intellectual matters – which in this case, I think was correct, as far as it went, in the movie, and realize that there are many, many things I don’t know anything about.
The Napoleonic Code does not address elections. It’s solely about civil matters such as contracts and property.
You have an impressive judicial air.
First I’ve heard of that. Could you perhaps show a link or few to state election laws?
Why would we need a run off? Wouldn’t that just promote a two party only system rather than inviting other parties to take part?
IMHO of course.
Alaska has a plurality system, which is cheaper than the majority system, as run-offs are eliminated.
Runoffs are also eliminated by the aforementioned blanket primaries, which of course can further allow the participation of third- and no-party candidates.
They could, but they don’t. What they further is the careers of high-name-recognition hacks - the spectre of your party having no candidate at all in the general election tends to cut back on primary challenges.
Why should a party be represented in the “general,” or final-round, election of the jurisdiction if their most popular candidate is less popular than a Green, Libertarian, or independent?
You obviously don’t understand the issue. In any such election with a sufficiently slim majority of one party, three candidates can split that majority enough for two less popular candidates from another party or parties to advance to the general election. It’s even easier to ruin the chances of a minority party.
For instance, in a district that runs 59% Democrat, three equally popular candidates can split the Democratic vote enough (19.67% each) to allow two less popular Republicans (20% and 21%) to proceed to the general election, despite the fact that the majority of voters dislike both of them. If one of the Democrats dies, drops out, or disgraces himself, the Republicans in this story suddenly have no chance at all.
This dynamic rolls back political action to the bad old days of back-room politics, as the party leadership will anoint a reliable candidate ahead of time, and fight tooth and nail to discourage challengers from splitting the vote. Many potential challengers won’t even try, for the same fear. Many voters will not vote for a desirable challenger because it’s so important to get as many votes as possible behind one candidate.
The closed primary was a way of dragging the nomination process out of the hands of power brokers and into the hands of the party rank and file. The instant-runoff blanket primary drags it back.
ETA: I forgot to mention - any idea that this sort of election is in any way similar to second-chance voting or proportional representation need to put down the pipe. There is no way in hell that independents or third party candidates have a better chance under this system.