PENDER: Maybe we should draw straws for all offices

Mississippi elections are never dull, even when we pointy-headed politicos predict they will be.

Somebody breaks into a nursing home or gets locked in a courthouse; an unknown truck driver gets a surprise gubernatorial nomination or, as in the case of the House District 79 race, a tie has to be broken by drawing straws.

I got to witness Mississippi political history: Incumbent Rep. Bo Eaton of Taylorsville and Republican challenger Mark Tullos of Raleigh, under the watchful gaze of Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann and the grimace of Gov. Phil Bryant, drew straws to break their 4,589-vote tie.

It was a grand affair, even if Bryant — who had made perfectly clear he thought the whole deal was dumb as a sack of hammers — looked like he wanted to crawl out of his skin or beat on some of the media with a boom mic.

Eaton drew the long, green Official State Coffee Swizzle, and in accordance with the laws of the Great and Sovereign State of Mississippi, was declared winner of the D-79 House seat. Except everyone gathered already knew Tullos was appealing his loss to the House of Representatives. (Note to Mrs. Eaton and Tullos: Hang onto those coffee stirrers and engraved business card holders they came in — I bet those suckers will fetch some bucks one day on eBay).

Over years I’ve noticed the response most people have when they hear a tied election will be decided by a coin toss or drawing straws or some other game of chance is, “What the …?”

Some instantly assume this method of breaking an election tie is peculiar to Mississippi, left in the law books by some tobacco-chewing, clod-busting lawmakers back in the days of yore. They’re usually surprised to learn that most states — at least 35 — have some sort of provision on the books for breaking election ties by “drawing lots” or games of chance. A recent tied county commissioner’s race in Minnesota was decided by candidates pulling Scrabble tiles from a bag. Arizona has used a card game.

Their next response is usually, “That’s still stupid,” or “Why don’t they just have another election?” This is particularly true if the people in question are candidates who’ve just learned their race will be not to the swift nor strong, but to time and chance.

Primaries in Mississippi have runoff provisions. But most state general elections don’t. There are provisions for recounts or challenging a close election’s results. But a flat-out-tie, by state law, requires a coin toss, drawing of straws or some other game of chance. The method is not specified, just that it has to be “by lots,” not a game of skill. A spelling bee or arm wrestling wouldn’t be allowed. I’ve heard people jokingly suggest things such as hotdog eating contests, foot races and duels over the years. (Kentucky expressly forbids duels in its tie-breaking law).

Stephanie Bounds of Poplarville wants to change Mississippi’s law on games of chance to break a tied vote.

This is understandable: Last year, Bounds drew the short straw from an ersatz top hat made from a Clorox bottle, thus losing a tied city alderman’s race. She didn’t carp about losing the race and wished her opponent well, but she was very perturbed by the process.

Bounds was successful in getting bills filed in the 2015 legislative session to change the law and require special elections to break ties. But the measures died in committee from inattention.

Bounds hopes the “spectacle” of the House tie-breaker this year — and  Bryant agreeing it was all ate up with it — will provide some momentum for similar legislation to pass in 2016.

There are valid arguments against flipping coins or drawing straws or Scrabble tiles to break election ties.

The main one is: It’s kinda stupid.

And it takes the choice away from those who would be governed.

Even allowing members of the body to which the person is being elected to break a tie is unfair, Bounds said, because people in that district are not involved.

But there are arguments for game-of-chance tie breakers.

Hosemann has pointed out that holding another election costs taxpayers and “delays governance.” And special elections or runoffs are notorious for voter drop-off, with only a fraction coming back out for the final decision. But with him, I think it’s mainly the cost — Hosemann is a known cheapskate.

The arguments for choosing governance by lot go back to the roots of Democracy. In ancient Athens, “sortition,” or a lottery was often used to appoint politicians. Aristotle was a proponent of it. We still use it for court juries.

What could be more democratic, more of the people, by the people?

Yeah, boss, sorry I’m going to have to miss some work. I’ve got to serve legislator duty this session.

Maybe we should just do away with elections, or have a certain number of seats for the Legislature or other government bodies filled with folk drawn at random.

Could it really hurt?

Contact  Geoff Pender at (601) 961-7266 or gpender@jackson.gannett.com. Follow @GeoffPender on Twitter.