Jon Geeting is up with a piece talking about representative democracy in regards to Gracedale. Jon writes:
A representative form of government is one where the general electorate elects representatives, and then those representatives make the decisions they want to make.
It is not when representatives just take a poll on an issue and do whatever the poll results say. And it is definitely not when representatives just do whatever the small groups who care the most are asking for. That’s a recipe for government by special interest.
“The People” that representatives should have in mind are the 298,101 people of Northampton County, or if you prefer, the 196,308 registered voters registered with the County – much larger groups than the 23,000 petition signers or the 19,695 people who actually voted for the Gracedale referendum.
There’s nothing wrong with special interest groups or coalition politics, but people would be on sounder footing simply arguing that their preferred position is the best solution, rather than claiming to represent a numerical majority when they clearly don’t.
Jon is absolutely right about the math, if you accept that version of the people. If you take the 19,695, it's about 10% of voters, and around 6-7% of people. Is that "the people" though? Let's be truthful here, not all people are in "the people," since they're ineligible to vote for varying reasons (such as age). Presuming that Northampton County is like every other Eastern PA County too, I can tell you that there are not 196,308 voters in our county. At the most, there are 138,304 that have been active (2008's turnout, which was larger than 2004's), and maybe a possible voter pool at this time of 145,000, give or take a few. Now, by that standard, this still is not a majority, true. However, it's worth noting that the more people vote in Northampton County, the more Democrat-friendly it gets.
There's something to be noted here about the Gracedale election. 31,731 people voted in that race. 18,007 of them were Dems, 12,482 were from the GOP. In 2012, a Presidential year, only 26,119, and the GOP's turnout was only 13,111 (Dems dipped to 13,008). The 2010 electorate, a Republican landslide year, only had 33,927, and Democrats represented 19,211, to the GOP's 14,614. The 2009 electorate, again a good GOP year, had just 28,927, with 17,389 being Democrats, and 11,538 being Republicans. In 2008, the high-water mark, 65,171 voted, and 52,115 were Dems. Republicans were at 12,787. All of these are primaries. It's also worth noting that 36,212 people voted in 2011's general (when Dems won everything in the county), 84,038 voted in 2010's general (when the GOP had their way), 38,205 voted in 2009 (when the GOP had their way), and 138,304 voted in 2008.
Essentially, there's a couple of things to note here. One is the consistency of off-year electorates. Non-2008 primaries (to be read, non-historic) draw out between 26,000-34,000, no matter what's on the ballot. One can fairly assume that nothing will change there in 2013. Fall elections are similar too. The difference was almost exactly 2,000 people between 2009 and 2011. Go back to 2007 and there were about 32,000 voters in the top contested race (Barron-Schimmel for Controller). A little over 33,000 voted in the at-large council race. About 33,000 voted for Paula Roscioli for Judge in 2005 too. Around 40,000 voted for Executive that year, the year that John Stoffa was elected. You can fairly say that 26,000-34,000 will vote in the primary, and between 33,000-40,000 are probably going to vote in the fall. In other words, if I were voter targeting for County Executive in 2013, I would probably have the same voters in my voter universe for the primary and the fall (though if you're in a primary, you probably don't want the other party's voters on your list, since they can't back you). In essence the same people always vote.
Second thing to note here is the consistency of the GOP voter. If you're in a primary, there will be between 11,500 and 14,000 Republican voters no matter what. It won't change. In the fall, they don't change much either. Democrats on the other hand do. We actually had 5,000 more vote in 2011 than in 2012, undoubtedly effecting the results of the contested primaries in county. In fact, if I were a Northampton County Dem, I would be concerned- this year's 13,008 was the lowest turnout in quite some time. Next year's primary candidates probably shouldn't use this 13,008 as a barometer, and should instead use the 17,000-20,000 range as their target turnout. The main point is, they are much more sure-bets in the GOP.
The third thing of note is that this county was deep blue with the highest turnout numbers we ever had in 2008, but not blue at all in 2010's low turnout. The more people show, the better Dems do. The county elections don't necessarily follow suit though. Sure, Stoffa's 2005 win was the largest electorate, but the second largest was 2009's Republican sweep. 2011 was very comparable to 2009 though, and it went the exact opposite way. If a lot more people showed up, Dems would win these elections. With that said, there's no clear difference on who is favored if 37,000 show up instead of 35,000.
So what's the point on Gracedale- well, it's that the 2011 Gracedale referendum was not an outlier election. No, it was on point actually with who "the people" actually are. "The people" are the voters, and to a large extent, I think the voters, and their interests (which can include non-eligible voters in their care, such as children), are what they are supposed to care about. There is no reason to expand your ideas of representation beyond that- those people, by not ever voting, essentially consent to the governance of the active voters. So yes, policy is set by 26,000-40,000 voters at the County Level, and there's another 45,000 or so who will show up in every Federal Election year. Beyond that, we can gather there are about 50,000 more who will be there in Presidential years. Beyond that, I'm not even sure the other registered voters are still alive. Had the full 40,000 "county voters" showed up in 2011's primary to vote on Gracedale, the 75% number the victors had may have went up or down, but we don't know which. With that said, the result would not have changed.
This should serve as a shout out to all of the potential County Executive Candidates for 2013 (and the list is long) in Northampton County. If you support selling Gracedale, you are greatly enhancing the odds that you will lose, in a landslide. Now this means little to the Democrats- Mayors Panto and Callahan, and County Councilman McClure, all of whom are rumored to be interested in running, and all of whom say publicly they support Gracedale. John Cusick, long considered the GOP front-runner, and President of Council currently, may not be so lucky. He's on the record against Gracedale at one point, as is virtually everyone they may consider running, with the exception of Peg Ferraro. It may be good politics in the primary for any potential Republican to want to play to the Tea Party folks and come out for selling Gracedale, but it's a death-sentence for the fall.
This does not mean that public opinion is completely set in stone here, though I'd caution it's not likely to change. Just as polls nationally are stagnant in favor of Medicare and Social Security, it's likely that they are stagnant in favor of Gracedale here. The only way that could change is for this county's electorate to move way to the right (highly unlikely, demographically), or for some portion of that 19,695 to change their minds. Where Bernie and Stoffa made their mistake was to come in with a pre-packaged "sell it now" mentality. Had they worked a little harder on the policy (bring in the private management, make every efficiency, find extra savings in talks with the union) first, they may have had a better argument to the voters. I doubt it, but they at least would have looked better politically when they were asking to sell a public good off.
I don't think most people will ever come around to selling though unless they get a Jane Ervin-esque tax-hike (even then, it's hazy). Most people, especially seniors, are really fearful of the nursing home industry. They like having a public option that they know they can afford. Most people understand that nursing homes that are for-profit have to make a profit, no matter what. They're afraid of what that means to their care. I don't see this issue moving much, and I do think it's fair to say a majority wants the home.