The Risks of CI-126

This Article is Paid Political Content

Nearly thirty years ago, the Montana Power Company asked Montana legislators to engage in a public policy experiment called deregulation. The promoters of deregulation made a lot of promises. They said it would lower electricity costs, result in more competition, and make Montana a more business friendly place. In reality, none of these happened. Electric deregulation has been nothing more than a public policy disaster.

Today, Montanans are being asked to engage in another public policy experiment – the top four primary. Like the promoters of electric deregulation, the backers of CI-126 are also making a lot of promises. They claim it will lead to more moderation and more representative outcomes.

You should be skeptical of these claims.

Under CI-126, four candidates, regardless of party, advance to the general election. While supporters of CI-126 claim this will lead to more moderation, the opposite is probably true. CI-126 creates a mechanism which allows fringe minority candidates to advance to the general election and take enough votes to spoil the outcome of a race for a mainstream Republican or Democrat candidate.

To give you an example, consider this year's U.S. Senate race. Although most Montanans think Jon Tester is on the liberal side, there are people who do not think Jon Tester is liberal enough. Under CI-126, a far-left Democrat candidate could advance to the general election and potentially siphon off enough votes to guarantee a Republican election. In his last three elections, Jon Tester has never gotten more than 51% of the vote. A second Democratic candidate, who picks up as little as 3% of the vote, would virtually guarantee a Republican win.

While there are certainly Republicans who could lose as a result of a spoiler effect, the party who has the most to lose is actually the Democratic Party. As the minority party, there is simply not enough base Democratic vote to sustain a loss of even 3% to 5% statewide. Moreover, there are more Democratic leaning legislative seats with tight margins between the Republican and Democratic vote.

The spoiler effect is a well-known effect of plurality voting systems. To compensate for the spoiler effect, most political scientists advocate for a ranked choice voting system. However, a ranked choice voting system is not a cure for the disease caused by fringe spoilers. In a ranked choice voting system, voters frequently do not mark a second or third choice. Consequently, fringe candidates still have the ability to spoil the outcome of an election.

Under CI-126, fringe candidates might not just spoil elections, they might actually get elected. Under our current system, the winning candidate in a general election needs to get something close to a majority to win. However, under CI-126, it is possible for a candidate to win with as little as 26% of the vote. Given the polarization in our electorate, it would be quite possible to elect an extreme right wing or extreme left wing candidate to office. If you think our system is bad today, CI-126 could make it even worse.

CI-126 is not a cure for polarization in our electorate. CI-126 is an ill-advised public policy experiment. Our Constitution should not be treated like a science project. Vote no on CI-126.