GUEST COLUMNIST: When the majority doesn't rule

A lot of people claim to be fed up with the United States' two-party political system and the environment that surrounds the election process. A lot of these people live in New Mexico, where two weeks ago the city of Albuquerque went to the polls in a special congressional election and came away the collective loser. If the cost of campaigns can be agreed upon as a common gripe among voters, then the people in Albuquerque had plenty to gripe about. The Democratic candidate, Phil Maloof, spent $2 million out of his billion-dollar family fortune, more than $30 per vote, while the Republican candidate, Heather Wilson, spent nearly an equal amount trucked in from party supporters and political action committees from around the country. At least Wilson came away with a seat in Congress for her money. Of course, that seat lasts only six months until she faces the same opponents in a general election in November. Statistics from recent election cycles show an alarming trend with regard to campaign finances. Candidates for Congress who raise $600,000 lose. Candidates who raise more than $800,000 win. This holds true in the vast majority of cases. Out of disgust with the enormous costs and the bitter and incessant tone of the campaign, 16 percent of voters in Albuquerque cast their ballot for Bob Anderson, the Green Party candidate. Anderson's total campaign expenditures barely crossed the $5,000 level. Maloof and Wilson commonly spent that kind of money in an hour of ads on the evening news. But what did the voters receive in return for their mass protest of the "system"? A candidate who many abhorred, and seemingly few felt passionate about. If the city had been forced to chose between the two candidates who had a realistic shot to win, Maloof would have won in a close but decisive victory. The Green Party voters were of both parties, but heavily more Democratic than Republican. Does the action of these protest voters make a bit of difference in the fall elections? No. Both Republicans and Democrats will continue to raise money at a feverish pace in a fierce battle for control of the House of Representatives. And both parties will continue to slam the opposition, because despite what the voters in Albuquerque said in polls, most data show that negative campaigning is an effective tool. What New Mexico is left with is a second consecutive year in which an unpopular Republican won a congressional seat because a decisive number of voters became disenchanted with the process and voted for a third party candidate. How can voters who lack the financial resources to revolt against the system that exists now show their disgust in an effective way? That's exactly the problem. And there's no simple solution. As easy as it is to discuss the folly of voters who knowingly voted for a spoiler candidate, it is difficult to see how they had an alternative. There was a sign hanging in Spanish on the front door of one of Phil Maloof's field offices in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood. It read, Su voto es su voz -- "Your vote is your voice." The people of New Mexico spoke. No one is listening. They have all moved on, leaving the people of Albuquerque silenced and alone in the desert again, led by a woman whom a majority of the city does not want representing them.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.