Ticket Splitters: Enlightened, or Idiots?
On Monday, Philly mag writer Joel Mathis explained why he — a self-described liberal — would be voting for an (unnamed) Republican in Tuesday’s election.
Today, Philly journalist and Democratic committeeman Jon Geeting wrote a column for City Paper arguing that “ticket-splitters represent everything that is wrong with American politics.”
“While they may fancy themselves as independent and judicious people, their behavior reveals a profoundly immature understanding of how legislative politics works,” Geeting wrote.
Wonk fight!
Shots fired, @joelmmathis. "Ticket-splitters represent everything that is wrong w/ American politics" sez @jongeeting http://t.co/MwEVsoLEw9
— Patrick Kerkstra (@pkerkstra) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra I think @jongeeting‘s piece presumes one thing and implies another, both of which I find somewhat objectionable. — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting It presumes that a vote for legislator has only implications in the legislature and the legislative agenda.
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting In Philly, politics is a lot more porous than that. Legislators have quasi-municipal powers, constituent services. — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting They may not be *most* important elements of the job, but they’re not insignificant, and Jon’s formula ignores that.
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting What’s implied: That party agenda deserves loyalty no matter how badly an individual might be misusing their office. — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting That Chaka Fattah or any of the legislators caught up in Kathleen Kane’s abandoned sting get my vote regardless.
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting And I guess I reject that. Voters who see bad actors in the process should attempt to remove them. — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@pkerkstra @jongeeting With those exceptions: I otherwise agree with Jon entirely!
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@joelmmathis @pkerkstra my formula: 1. work for, donate to, and vote for best primary candidate 2. vote a straight D ticket in general elex — Jon Geeting (@jongeeting) November 6, 2014
.@joelmmathis @pkerkstra putting a person in Congress you disagree with on federal issues because of Chaka Fattah investigation is insane
— Jon Geeting (@jongeeting) November 6, 2014
.@joelmmathis @pkerkstra we should definitely try to remove bad actors – in primaries. Ethics matter, but not more than control of Congress — Jon Geeting (@jongeeting) November 6, 2014
.@jongeeting @pkerkstra I see your point, but some of it’s situational. Control of the House wasn’t at issue this week, for example.
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@jongeeting @pkerkstra Why not take the opportunity to clear the weeds a bit? — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@jongeeting @pkerkstra Because, uh, who is going to primary Bob Brady? Or Chaka Fattah?
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@jongeeting @pkerkstra Given that Dems are already in the wilderness, it seems a general election vote against bad dems might be … — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@jongeeting @pkerkstra …the most direct route to clearing the less-satisfactory members out.
— Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
.@joelmmathis @pkerkstra I would advise people to just leave it blank rather than vote affirmatively for somebody they disagree with. — Jon Geeting (@jongeeting) November 6, 2014
.@joelmmathis @pkerkstra somebody should definitely primary Fattah and Brady. I got $50 and a few afternoons of door knocking for them.
— Jon Geeting (@jongeeting) November 6, 2014
@jongeeting @joelmmathis Is that a wrap? — Patrick Kerkstra (@pkerkstra) November 6, 2014
@pkerkstra @joelmmathis I think so. The kernels of disagreement seem to be primaries vs generals, and the value of symbolic action.
— Jon Geeting (@jongeeting) November 6, 2014
.@jongeeting @pkerkstra It’s a good conversation to have. I don’t end up where Jon does, but I completely see why he holds his position. — Joel Mathis (@joelmmathis) November 6, 2014
Then player three entered the game. Democratic operative Joe Corrigan got in the last word.
.@joelmmathis @jongeeting @pkerkstra Not sure I understand what’s not to get here. The People decry gridlock and then vote for it. It’s nuts
— Joe Corrigan (@CorrigaJ) November 6, 2014