It's midnight here, the Unpopular Opinioning Hour, so here I am to defend the use of coin tosses in democracy.
This is on my mind because the fiasco of the Iowa caucus is putting coin tosses front and center, which -- as often happens when they come up in an election context -- provokes an understandable backlash. WTF, what happened to letting people decide?
Now, the format of the caucus invites a lot of stalemates and deadlocks and ties, especially in a polarized race with like eight candidates and a lot of small satellite caucuses with small numbers of participants.
Flipping a coin is one solution; abolishing caucuses is better.
Flipping a coin is one solution; abolishing caucuses is better.
But I invite you to consider a local government race for an office in a small town or a small district of a larger one, with two candidates on the ballot and the votes are counted up and there's a tie.
What do you do?
"Recount!"
You recount and it doesn't take long because there aren't a lot of ballots, but you take your time to be careful and you get the same number again, twice.
"Recount!"
You recount and it doesn't take long because there aren't a lot of ballots, but you take your time to be careful and you get the same number again, twice.
What now?
"Run off!"
But a run off is used to produce a majority for one candidate when the vote is split too many ways. In this case, it would be the same two candidates running again. That's not a run-off, it's a do-over.
"Run off!"
But a run off is used to produce a majority for one candidate when the vote is split too many ways. In this case, it would be the same two candidates running again. That's not a run-off, it's a do-over.
And in the do-over, unless someone's mind is changed... and no one else's mind is changed in the opposite direction... you'll get the same result, plus or minus the people who can't make it this time or couldn't make it the first time.
Which is, you know.
Essentially random?
Which is, you know.
Essentially random?
"What about the will of the people?" I mean, they were equally for each of the candidates, as a whole.
Holding the whole election over again until you get a clear result is expensive and inconvenient and not actually more democratic than the coin toss, under that situation.
Holding the whole election over again until you get a clear result is expensive and inconvenient and not actually more democratic than the coin toss, under that situation.
There are a lot of small towns, small districts, and whatnot that have few enough people that ties are statistically going to happen and it's just not economical or realistic to do it over.
A random result always catches folks off guards, but it's not like people make it up.
A random result always catches folks off guards, but it's not like people make it up.
There are laws on the books that detail what happens in the event of a tie, and it frequently refers to if not a coin toss than "drawing lots" or even leaving the method of resolution up to the people involved, so long as they both agree it's fair.
High card draw is popular.
High card draw is popular.
Basically every election year, there's going to be somewhere in the country that gets a tie for the first time in its history and everybody is astounded at the novelty of it and so it makes the local news and gets picked up as weird news, even though it happens all the time.
And I understand why on an intuitive level it sounds so anti-democratic and awful, the very idea of settling an election by cutting a deck of cards or tossing a coin or best 2 out of 3 at Rock-Paper-Scissors or drawing straws or whatever. I get it. It sounds fake and bad.
And I have certainly read cases where both candidates agreed to it and then after the matter was resolved suddenly one of them was deeply concerned about the fairness of it all.
But I'm telling you, on a practical level, random tie breakers are fine and good and good and fine, and they approximately simulate the results of redoing the election until it's not a tie with none of the cost in time and money.
Like, if the town votes and it's a tie and they do the election over and the results significantly shift, that would actually be more suspicious to me than a coin toss.
None of this is defending the caucus. It's actually the opposite. I'm worried that the caucus is besmirching the good name of coin tosses and drawing lots.
Local elections can't actually function everywhere they need to without a simple, quick, effective, and fair tie breaker. Lot of places just couldn't afford to do it any other way.
I mean, if I were a tied candidate who got to choose the method, I would definitely suggest we roll for initiative.
Or perhaps, more appropriately, that we make a Constitution check.
Or perhaps, more appropriately, that we make a Constitution check.
That's just my two cents.
Or my twenty five cents.
If you don't want to roll dice or draw cards or flip a coin, though, you'll probably just be left grasping at straws.
Or my twenty five cents.
If you don't want to roll dice or draw cards or flip a coin, though, you'll probably just be left grasping at straws.
