Why is Rep. Dan Short Helping the Democrats Game the System?

State law allows you to file for more than one ballot position. It is rarely done except by third parties, but VP Biden did it when he ran for Senate and VP. Some lawmakers want to change it, but not for federal offices, only state offices. Why? Is there some voter outcry? No, to protect Democrat incumbents from the Republican bench. In that way, it would eliminate safe seat house member and every 4 years senators from running statewide without giving up their seats. Senators would have to run in off elections for them. The impetus for this bill seems to be Senator Bonini who almost won State Treasurer but was specifically put in the 2014 cycle and given a 2 year seat this time so he would be up the year the Treasurer is up for reelection. Gamesmanship indeed, but that is nothing but smart politics. Changing the rules like HB 159 does, is not legitimate. You would think that Republicans would not go along. After all changing this rule would hurt the party in the long run as it reemerges and hurt third parties. The only benefit is for Democrats. Democrats are unlikely to take the heat for changing the rules without some Republican cover to insulate them. They did it with fusion tickets (which hurts Republicans in an increasingly blue state, but Rep. Short and others went along with that too). Delaware Grapevine gives us insight into the Democratic mindset on this bill. What is puzzling is.
Danny Short, the House’s Republican minority leader, was all innocence. “It made good sense on the merits. Colin Bonini probably would prefer that bill not be passed. It wasn’t anything about Colin Bonini. It wasn’t anything about Joe Biden. It really was a non-political discussion about what’s the best thing for Delaware,” Short said.
The problem is that if you read the bill, it wouldn’t apply to federal offices so Joe Biden type situation can still happen. It is about Bonini and maybe Short if he runs statewide. What is going on? How do voters benefit by having fewer choices and less opportunity to have quality choices? It is bad enough Democrats can determine what election a Senator can be in, but now they can make you retire or freeze you out if the Senate goes along. Wake up Republicans and stick together or be picked off one by one.

26 thoughts on “Why is Rep. Dan Short Helping the Democrats Game the System?”

  1. Rep. Short has become very adept at helping the Democrats out in every way he can. First he introduced unconstitutional legislation to remove “conservator of the peace” status from the Delaware Sheriffs. He has joined the team of “Pistol Pete” Schwartzkopf, while claiming he is a conservative republican.
    Don’t worry Danny, we’ve got your number, you constitutional rights robbing fraud.
    Take a look at others that are Democrats and socialists in disguise, it won’t take a long time to figure out just who they are, by a quick review of their voting records.
    Team Schwarkopf has been very successful, since he was able to recruit Reps and Senators from the other side.
    Goes to show; both major parties are corrupt and do not represent the people of Delaware or the nation..

  2. What would happen if one of the players on the Steelers team were helping the opposing team win football games? Would it be difficult or complicated to figure out what to do about that? Why do people have so much trouble applying that to the Republican Party?

  3. Holding office and running for another one is gaming the system. I like the legislation and you would also David if the shoe were on a Democrat foot. Good government isn’t based on D’s and R’s. It is both parties hypocrisy that has alienated the electorate. Just for the record, Bonini would be the State Treasurer absent COD on the ballot. How do you use the words Republican and bench in the same sentence?

  4. Colin Bonini would be Treasurer if Colin Bonini ran a better campaign in 2010.

    There was a 6% increase in Republican turn-out in 2010 because of Christine O’Donnell, as a percentage of voter registration (the only rational measure).

    Democrat turn-out was essentially the same in 2010, as a percentage of voter registration (the only rational measure).

    19% of Republican voters voted against their own Republican nominee for US Senate, but presumably should have voted for Colin Bonini for Treasurer at the same time.

    So Bonini should have captured the 19% of Republicans who either voted for Chris Coons (16%) or voted for the independent (3%).

    So if Bonini could not ride a tide of increased Republican turn-out in November 2010 to victory, then his campaign team needs to perform an after-action analysis to determine what they did wrong and what to do better next time.

  5. Anbupro on August 6, 2013 at 10:47 said: “Holding office and running for another one is gaming the system”

    Then why would Rep. Dan Short support a different rule for Federal versus State candidates?

  6. (And by the way, isn’t that what Mike Castle did? He was drawing a salary for being a US Congressman, while running for US Senate? So the taxpayer subsidized Mike Castle’s campaign — and he still couldn’t win.)

    HERE is why Republicans keep losing, and losing our country:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty5bXad0dZI

  7. Jon is right.

    I don’t agree about the Bonini campaign, it is harder to do in a down ballot race than he obviously thinks when the Senate campaign is absorbing all of the oxygen. I think the fatal mistake was not to send a copy of the court papers detailing the alleged abuse by his opponent to every woman likely to vote starting with the D’s and I’s. That was a judgment call.

  8. Anbupro, It is never gaming the system to give people a choice. You say if a Democrat… well it did happen and I never called for the law to be changed. That is a case you make to the voters, it becomes an issue in the campaign. You do not take away choice otherwise the majority has the power to influence the minority’s candidate. At its core, that is undemocratic and gaming the system.

  9. David writes: “when the Senate campaign is absorbing all of the oxygen.”

    Oh, for sure. That is true.

    For either the US Senate candidate in 2010 and/or all the other races, too, you can’t get your campaign message across when the airways and public discussion is being swamped by other distractions.

    However, that is an attack and tactic by the Democrats. What was crowding out the public attention was coming from the Democrats, not from the US Senate campaign.

    And when Republicans pile on, that is pouring gasoline on the fire.

    Democrats play down those controversies.

    Republicans pile on and add to the discussion, throwing gasoline on the fire. Republicans think they are proving they are above it all. But all they are doing is LEGITIMIZING the smears and nonsense, and adding more volume to the entire discussion.

    One may say, well, Christine offered too much material for distraction. Perhaps.

    But on the other hand, one is a naïve fool to imagine that Democrats would pass up the opportunity to create such distractions no matter who the candidate is.

    Look at Mitt Romney: The Democrats manufactured a “war on women” — specifically about Romney, out of nothing. Romney had “binders” of women job applicants, to PROMOTE women and make sure women job candidates got considered and promoted and hired whenever possible.

    Yet Romney’s efforts to push women ahead professionally was turned into a scandal over the word “binders.”

    So if you anyone thinks that Democrats can’t create distractions that have nothing to do with reality or facts, you haven’t been paying attention.

  10. If you want to get behind a persecuted Constitutional Law Enforcement Officer, then hie thee to Gilberton, PA.

  11. “I think the fatal mistake was not to send a copy of the court papers detailing the alleged abuse by his opponent to every woman likely to vote starting with the D’s and I’s. That was a judgment call.”

    Had he done so, he would have lost by a lot more than he did. Delawareans more often reject the negative campaigner than the target of the negativity.

    Interesting, though, that a Christian would advocate publicizing the complaint without pointing out that he was not found guilty. Isn’t that blurring the “false witness” line?

  12. Nobody on August 6, 2013 at 13:56 said: “Had he done so, he would have lost by a lot more than he did. Delawareans more often reject the negative campaigner than the target of the negativity.”

    You are such a hypocrite. Lies told about Christine O’Donnell don’t bother you, do they? You encourage them, repeat them, spread them.

    The lifestyle of the Republican moderate and the liberal is naked hypocrisy.

  13. David I assume I am still welcome to comment on you threads my friend.
    You say running parallel races give the people choices. I say it gives them fewer choices and confuses them in the voting booth. what is to stop someone for putting their name in every statewide race and any local rep and senate race, in other words filling the ballot with one name?
    But more importantly, how do the people benefit if one of these candidates happens to win both races? How does it benefit the tax payers to have to hold another special election to fill the seat the winner doesn’t want as much?
    I would agree that if this were to pass it should at least include federal offices as well because if a person were to win a state senate seat and a federal seat they would leave the state seat open to appointments or special elections.

  14. Frank, yes you are.

    The answer to your question is for local races, you have to be local. For statewide races, it is called filing fees and primaries. Suppose, to make a statement, I get 700 people to form the David Anderson party and I run for every office statewide to gain publicity for a cause. Well, it does not take away any choices from the other parties, only adds one to the ballot.

    If you try that with a major party and have the money to toss down 10’s of thousands in filing fees, expect lots of primaries, you will not be the nominee for most of those offices, if any. People like those who can make a decision. Two they can accept, more becomes a stunt and voters will treat it as such. The system is self correcting that is why I do not believe we need a new law.

  15. What tells me this is gaming the system by changing the rules is that this bill is not universal. That is wrong.

  16. “You are such a hypocrite. Lies told about Christine O’Donnell don’t bother you, do they? You encourage them, repeat them, spread them.”

    Actually, she’s evidence of my point. Castle’s people spread negative stories about her, true or not, and Castle lost.

    She lost the general election on her merits.

  17. I’m curious about why Rep. Short is singled out when this bill passed the House 41-0, with no absent reps and no reps not voting. I can see why David Anderson would be against this legislation, it will prevent someone like him from running for City Council and a legislative seat at the same time. This bill does the opposite of “protecting incumbents” it forces an incumbent to resign their seat before running for another office.

    But none of that really matters. If the Ds want this bill it will pass. This is what happens when you throw common sense out of the window, run piss poor, unelectable candidates at the top of the ticket, and throw your own party into the minority by spending more time attacking republicans for minor infractions against “conservatism” than you spend attacking flaming liberal democrats for flushing the Constitution down the toilet.

  18. Interesting theory, but wrong on almost all counts. 1. this does not require a person resign or leave an office to run for another in fact the only office that so requires in the state is Dover City Council to run for a non-city office. 2. If your term is not up that cycle you can still run. 3. The majority controls redistricting so they can control what year the minority parties seats come up and manipulate them, the only check in the system is this out. 4. I pick on Rep. Short because he is the leader therefore is the one supposed to look out for the interests of the party when it comes to the rules (which is also in the public interest of competitive elections) and also happenned to be the only one to make wildly inaccurate statements in public about the bill he supported.5. City elections are in the spring not the fall for most municipalities in the state except for Wilmington. 6. I do spend a lot of time attacking liberal policies, but it is for naught if Republicans dismantle themselves by undercutting strong candidates or declaring to potential donors and voters that this is a one party state run by Democrats. I am the one fighting to hold the party together. 7. The intent is not to factionalize or attack Republicans. Notice the “attack” is not on Rep. Danny Short. He is not an evil traitor or some such dribble. It is taking issue with a specific action not the person.

  19. David, I think what anonymous was saying is that an incumbent would lose their current seat if they chose to run for another seat and lost since they couldn’t run for both at the same time. If the two were in the same cycle.
    What is wrong about our candidates showing some real commitment to the offices they are seeking?

  20. That is not what anonymous said. Anonymous said, “This bill does the opposite of “protecting incumbents” it forces an incumbent to resign their seat before running for another office.” Which is totally incorrect. If that were just a mistatement the rest of the comment would have read differently. There were 7 problems with the comment factually. If Anonymous wants to change to fit the facts of the bill and start again, that is permissible.

    What is wrong with choosing and gambling a significant portion of your family’s income on an uphill battle? Nothing. What is wrong following the Biblical advise of Ecclesiastes 11:6 or I could even say 11:1-6? Sow your seed in the worning and at evening…for you do not know which will succeed….

    I call it wisdom. Some people will see it as a lack of commitment. History shows that to be awash among voters. I think it is a risk politically, but it is a choice for the voters and candidates seeking their votes to make.

    It is a non-problem, yet in spite of the many issues facing our state, it is one they want to fix. Why? The Grapevine tells us. It is gamesmanship.

  21. As I read the legislation, when Bonini’s term is up in 2014, he can either run for his state senate seat again or run for Treasurer, but not both. I take no issue with anonymous’ comment other than the word “resign.” Bonini won’t have to “resign” his senate seat, but he has to walk away from it to run for Treasurer. The biggest inaccuracy in this entire thread is this:
    I am the one fighting to hold the party together.
    No, you are not. Your blog was ground zero in 2010 for the republican war against moderates. When you were deployed you left the blog in the hands of a man who is now an IPoD member, and has done nothing but trash Republicans, he even has implied that you are involved in a cover up of lynchings in Dover.

  22. QA
    “he even has implied that you are involved in a cover up of lynchings in Dover.

    You are a damned liar sir, I’ve never implied any such thing about my friend David Anderson!!!!!

  23. QA, when conservatives finally refused to be treated as doormats by moderates and insisted upon equality, that is not a “war” on moderates.

    The moderates and insiders in Delaware and throughout the country have had an obnoxious sense of entitlement for so long that they when they don’t get to push people around and walk all over people, lie to the voters, and always get their way, they are so SHOCKED, confused, and befuddled that they think this is an insult.

    There is something strange about people when they are abusing other people, and the victim puts his or her foot down, that is a “war” on the abuser and victimizer.

  24. QA, you also miss the other 6 points. The silly accusation that I want this bill for personal reasons when it has zero affect on me. Is also a funny one. Do you take no issue with that as well? He/she knew absolutely nothing about the bill and didn’t even read the post beyond a quick scan before commenting.

    Now, as for being ground zero for the Conservative uprising, YOU BET. That is what we are here for. Making a choice in an orderly fashion is reasonable. That is what a primary is for. Now you know very well that I openly and repeatedly pledged to support whomever won the primaries fully and actively, long before we had a winner. That is unifying the party. It was some of those on the otherside of the primary aisle that said they would and didn’t. I think that happens. They were in shock. Today, we need not to make those same mistakes and move forward together and not refight the past.

  25. Jon, look at the Ohio kidnapper, he thought that it was a happy home even though he had to chain and lock them in to keep them from leaving.

Comments are closed.