I grew up in Massachusetts and I live in California. Two pretty blue states on the political map. The Scott Brown election focused attention on a Republican winning a big race in a blue state. Many reasons have been given for this upset, but I wonder if something subtle was at work in this election. While both states are considered solidly blue with dominate Democratic legislatures for most of half-a-century, approximately two-thirds of that time each state has had Republican governors.
Do the voters in these two coastal states consciously want to restrict the power of a dominate party? Do the citizens vote their own check and balance system in place?
I once asked this question of Claremont McKenna College political science professor John Pitney. He said he was not aware of any studies to test the theory. Is it coincidence or is something at work here?
Scott Brown campaigned to be the 41st Senator to check the power of the Democratic majority in the Senate. His vote can allow Republicans to filibuster in the Senate thus preventing Democratic legislation from moving forward. By so doing he not only checks the Democrats in the Senate but in the White House and the House of Representatives as well. Scott Brown potentially becomes a one-man check and balance all by himself.
I understand a number of factors can be weighed on why the Massachusetts race turned as it did including the easiest to grasp: Democratic candidate Martha Coakley’s seeming aloofness about Massachusetts life by fingering Red Sox legend Curt Schilling as a Yankee fan. I get the symbolism of Coakley’s gaffe. As a life long Red Sox fan who used to pay 75-cents for right field seats at Fenway Park to watch the Sox play when the team was terrible, I understand how Coakley’s faux pas played.
But, the idea and history of voters seeking to limit political power seems real to me and can be applied to California as well as the Bay State.
Massachusetts’ citizens have shifted away from both major political parties. Over fifty-percent of the registered voters are independents. While California independent voters number twenty-percent of registered voters their legion is growing while the major parties have dropped voters.
Independents who decide many statewide elections probably don’t want one party to dominate. That is why they chose to be independent. The same check and balance voting that occurred in the Massachusetts special election likely could be repeated in the Golden State’s top of the ticket races this year.