Put Your Money Where Your Capitol Is
BY KEVIN FRAZIER AND JORDAN KRONEN
If polls are to be believed, voters’ demand for more diverse, responsive politicians has soared in recent years: trust in government remains low; approval ratings for Pacific Northwest governors trail the national average; and, at least nationally, the vast majority of Americans feel as though the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The supply of candidates, though, has yet to catch up. It’s true that the number of women, minority, and “unconventional” candidates saw a jump in 2018 but there’s still plenty of room to make our state legislatures in Oregon and Washington more representative. Traditionally, we count on legislators to correct these sorts of market failures, however they need the public’s help to erase one barrier to increased supply: legislator pay.
A simple formula can predict whether a potential candidate will jump into the fray:
P x D + CD > C
P is the probability of winning. D is the difference the candidate thinks they’ll make. CD is the candidate’s sense of civic duty. Finally, C represents the opportunity cost of running for office. This formula, a slightly modified version of the one created by William Riker and Peter Ordeshook, gives the general public and policymakers a framework for bringing more diverse voices into the electoral process.
Presently, the opportunity cost of running for office is simply too high for many unconventional candidates to get involved. The opportunity cost quantifies the value of the next best alternative to a decision. In the case of weighing a campaign, the opportunity cost includes keeping your current job (and salary), relationship status, and general quality of life.
Running for office undermines each of these areas — if successful, you’ll earn less, have less time with your loved ones, and face the inconveniences of regularly commuting to Salem or Olympia. That’s why both Oregon and Washington ought to increase legislator pay. By more fairly compensating the sacrifices made by our elected officials we can lower the opportunity costs potential candidates face at the decision point of Run or Don’t Run.
Increased pay in isolation will not guarantee a more diverse candidate pool but, when combined with other efforts to make elections more competitive, even a slight pay bump could have big ramifications on our elections and legislatures. Take, for example, Governor Brown’s strong push for campaign finance reform. If successful in partially leveling the fundraising playing field, the P — probability of winning — will increase for unconventional candidates.
As more and more candidates realize they have a better shot of competing against historically nearly-invincible incumbents, more candidates will enter the election; this will further increase the cumulative probability of an unconventional candidate getting involved and, ultimately, winning.
Another trend — a jump in civic duty — portends an increased willingness of unconventional candidates to get involved. Voting registration rates in Oregon and Washington serve as a useful proxy for an enlarged sense of civic responsibility. Consider that voter participation in Washington nearly reached 72 percent in 2018 and was just two hundredths of a percentage short of besting the state’s record for midterm participation set in 1970.
This level of engagement appears to have spilled over into candidate recruitment efforts. Organizations across the country such as Run for Something are doing their best to make it easier for would-be candidates to officially put their hat in the ring. The work of these organizations would be made simpler by increasing legislator pay. It’s easier to convince someone to take a big risk and act on their sense of civic duty if there’s not a financial pitfall waiting for them on the other side.
Of course, some larger changes to our electoral framework would also make running more appealing. These changes are similarly critical to making our democracy more representative. As long as the winning rate for incumbents in state legislature races top 90 percent and the number of uncontested races continues to grow, voters and policymakers alike have room for improvement.
Unsurprisingly, incumbents face internal and external pressure to maintain the status quo and keep the supply of new candidates low. Voting for a raise doesn’t look good to most voters and easing entry into the election threatens their own ability to win re-election. However, if we are to fulfill this demand for greater representation in our state legislatures, voters must lead the pay debate and increase supply.
