Op-Ed, The New York Times
Washington -- In 2000, in the wake of the disputed presidential election, a Republican tchotchke-maker printed parodies of the Democrats’ bumper sticker, replacing “Gore-Lieberman” with “Sore-Loserman.” And while Al Gore has generally been a good sport in the years since -- his standard line is “Hello, I used to be the next president of the United States” -- Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut may soon prove there was some truth in that label.
Mr. Lieberman, of course, has drawn the wrath of bloggers and liberal Democrats for his support of the war in Iraq and now faces a strong primary challenge from a businessman, Ned Lamont. With the state’s primary fast approaching and Mr. Lamont’s momentum growing, Mr. Lieberman filed paperwork last week that would allow him to run as an independent if he loses the Democratic nomination on Aug. 8.
With any luck, Mr. Lieberman’s threat will prove to be nothing more than political gamesmanship -- his not-so-subtle attempt to warn Democrats in both Connecticut and Washington that they should back him if they want to keep Republicans from snaring his seat. If he does run as an independent, however, Mr. Lieberman will damage far more than his party’s hopes for retaking the Senate. He’ll be striking yet another blow to Americans’ already shaky faith in the electoral process.
Our system is stacked overwhelmingly in incumbents’ favor. Mr. Lamont may have the blogosphere behind him, but Mr. Lieberman, as a sitting senator, has enjoyed 18 years of free mail to constituents, constant visibility in the Connecticut press, publicly financed travel and events throughout the state and, perhaps most important, millions of dollars from donors hoping for access and influence on Capitol Hill. The advantages granted the two major parties -- from preferential ballot access to the use of state-owned voting equipment on primary day -- are similarly geared toward the status quo.
There is nothing wrong with Mr. Lieberman taking full advantage of these perks -- indeed, he’d be foolish not to. But too many Americans already feel as though their votes don’t count. And as the recent results in Mexico show, a three-way, winner-take-all contest can be won with less than 40 percent of the vote. When nearly two-thirds of voters preferred a different candidate, that’s hardly a democratic outcome -- regardless of who wins.
So if Mr. Lieberman, with all the benefits of major-party incumbency, can’t persuade Democratic primary voters to nominate him over Mr. Lamont, he should have the decency to accept that verdict. Any other response reveals a sense of entitlement and arrogance that’s disdainful of both his party and the public.
Even if Mr. Lamont is running a single-issue campaign -- as Mr. Lieberman asserts, with some justification -- the issue of Iraq is an important one, and the candidates differ sharply. If Connecticut Democrats choose Mr. Lamont in the primary, then see a pro-war candidate elected with a 38 percent plurality, they could be forgiven for wondering, why bother to vote at all?
In most of America, in fact, Mr. Lieberman would not even have the option of pressing on as an independent. According to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, a newsletter that covers election law, 46 states have either explicit “sore loser laws” or simultaneous filing deadlines that make a post-primary shift impossible for any candidate other than a presidential one. Only Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont offer headstrong candidates such a loophole.
So Mr. Lieberman is legally entitled to ignore the electorate. All he has to do is gather 7,500 signatures as insurance, submit the petition on Aug. 9 if he loses to Mr. Lamont the day before, and presto -- come November, he’s on the ballot even without his party’s nomination.
Mr. Lieberman is a smart politician, and clearly knows how to hedge his bets. (Remember, while losing the race for vice president in 2000, he also won his bid for a third Senate term.) Yet he also has a well-deserved reputation for sticking to his principles, even when they prove politically inconvenient.
So the question is whether Mr. Lieberman sees the primary process as an ethical obligation and a meaningful democratic ritual to express the will of the voters or merely as a hollow routine in which he is supposed to be anointed. Six years ago, he clearly believed that “making every vote count” was a democratic principle worth defending -- one hopes he feels the same come Aug. 9.
