Candidate Self-Destruction and Vote Splitting

Tomorrow DC voters will go to the polls to elect an At Large Council Member. Even at this late date, the race appears wide open with four possible winners. Yesterday, a bit of controversy was provoked by an article in the Washington Post disclosing that the campaign of Democrat Elissa Silverman had approached fellow Democrat Matthew Frumin asking him to drop out of the campaign in order to unite the progressive vote. Frumin declined, rightly believing that he has a chance to win.

This campaign has been marked by the seemingly inability of candidates to avoid self-destructing. Indeed, one possible winner, Michael A. Brown, withdrew from the campaign. However, since his name will still appear the ballot, he could still affect the outcome.

Democrat Anita Bonds was plagued from the beginning by questions concerning her poor management of the DC Democratic State Committee which included getting appointed by that committee -- which she chairs -- to the interim At Large position. In addition to that conflict of interest, she is employed by one of the largest city contractors. But, most controversial is her suggestion that she thought it was a good thing for voters to choose candidates of their own race. As the only black Democrat in the race, Bonds would benefit from racially-aligned voting. However, one would hope that DC would move beyond this type of racial politics.

Republican Pat Mara is running as a candidate of ethics and transparency. Yet, he stumbles with the fundamental issue of how he earns a living. In two separate interviews he claimed that he earns a significant portion of his income by selling political memorabilia such as $10 Ronald Reagan matchbooks and $13 Romney/Ryan buttons on eBay. When official Congressional documents said that he was a lobbyist for Exxon, he said the documents were wrong. Yet, he would not reveal his consulting clients. Mara is currently under investigation by the Office of Campaign Finance as a result of a contract he signed with a right-wing think tank to raise money for it from his campaign contributors. While Silverman and Frumin have made their tax returns publicly-available, Mara refuses to disclose his. Ironically, while we are well-aware of Bonds' conflicts of interest, the lack of transparency from the self-described candidate of ethics and transparency prevents voters from learning about his possible conflicts of interest. In terms of transparency, Mara is undeniably less transparent than Bonds.

Silverman stresses her knowledge of budget minutia and understanding of policy. Perhaps this explains why where politics is concerned, she seems to have repeatedly stumbled. She created controversy by challenging the petitions of candidates John Settles and Paul Zukerberg. Many criticized this move as hypocritical because of Silverman's involvement with Initiative 70 -- an attempt to limit direct corporate contributions to candidates which failed to get on the ballot as a result of signature challenges. When the challenge to Zukerberg failed, he became a vocal critic of hers at campaign forums and questioned her ethics as a result of undisclosed financial and in-kind support for the petition challenge. When she criticized Mara for accepting a contribution of $1,000 from an anti-DC PAC that has supported Republican candidates such as "legitimate rape" Todd Akin, she again faced charges of hypocrisy as result of a contribution she received from Sinclair Skinner. Skinner has been accused of skimming money from city contracts while Adrian Fenty was mayor.

In the lastest controversy, Silverman and her campaign treasurer Ken Archer approached Frumin with a request that he drop out of the race. In return, Silverman offered to support Frumin in a future Ward 3 race -- presumably against Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh -- or another race. Silverman justified her request on poll results showing Bonds ahead with Mara and Silverman tied at second. However, the "numbers candidate" should have been aware of the poll's flaws which included showing 70% of the voters would definitely vote -- an unbelievable percentage -- and that 43% were undecided. Realistically, this poll could not be taken seriously.

Frumin, alone of the leading candidates, has avoided self-destruction. From the beginning, he has run a positive campaign. Not only does he refuse to "run against" the other candidates, but he also runs on a positive message that suggests that DC has a lot going for it and a lot in which we can be proud. His message is that the benefits of the District's growth should be more evenly spread, or as he puts it "Let's grow together." I endorsed Frumin earlier this month and I strongly reiterate my endorsement now. As Silverman herself said in an email to Frumin which she released to the Post, she and Frumin "agree on public policy approaches." But, unlike Silverman, Frumin has been able to avoid shooting himself in the foot.

One theme of the campaign has been "splitting the vote." Bonds doesn't want black voters to split their vote. She wants them all to vote for her. A major theme of the Mara campaign has been "don't split the vote" with the suggestion that only he could beat Bonds. Now, we know that Silverman wanted Frumin to withdraw in order to not split the progressive vote. The fallacy of the "don't split the vote" strategy is that it is lazy. It does not require the candidates to actually earn votes. Bonds wants black votes because there is literally no other basis on which she can win the election. She can't win on ethics, vision, or experience. Mara is a perennial candidate who seems to feel that it is simply his turn and voters should reward him for repeatedly trying. The Washington Post, which has endorsed Mara in all his previous elections, seems desperate this time with almost weekly editorial endorsements.

However, it is Silverman who makes the most hollow argument for not splitting the vote. Silverman picked up candidate petitions on December 20, 2012. Frumin had preceded her by two weeks. Silverman knew then that she and Frumin would be splitting votes. Similarly, Frumin turned in his completed petitions on January 22 while Silverman didn't get around to it until the next day. Again, she knew that she and Frumin would be splitting votes. When the candidates filed their first campaign finance reports, Frumin had raised more than double the funds raised by Silverman. There could be no clearer signal that Frumin would be a serious candidate. If Silverman was concerned about spitting the progressive vote and favored one candidate withdrawing in order to unite the vote behind the other, these were obvious opportunities for her to withdraw and support Frumin. But, obviously the goal of uniting the progressive vote is not an end in itself, but only a means to a Silverman victory. As such, her opposition to vote splitting falls flat.

It is quite likely that tomorrow night the election results will cause the supporters of one candidate to attack the supporters of another candidate and blame them for "splitting the vote". That criticism will be unfair and not based in reality. Bonds, Mara, and Silverman have all contributed to their own negatives. Each has turned to appeals to avoid vote-splitting because they have been unable to find other methods of attracting voters to their side. Each of the candidates would be better off explaining why voters should vote for them, rather than why voters should not vote for another candidate.

Tomorrow I will vote for Matthew Frumin. Regardless of whether I were to vote for Mara, Silverman, or Frumin, an argument could be made that I am splitting the vote. Such arguments are simply a convenience for candidates who have failed otherwise to earn my vote.