St. Petersburg Times; St. Petersburg, Fla.; Jun 18, 2001; HOWARD TROXLER;

Abstract: The rules will be different in 2002 - and only in 2002. There will be no runoff election to decide each party's nominee.

Even without [Janet Reno], it wouldn't be easy for the Democrats. The party's most active supporters, labor and state employees and teacher unions and minorities, would naturally be inclined to nominate a more liberal candidate, who would end up cannon fodder for [Jeb Bush].

Legislators said they got rid of the runoff because it works against minority candidates, it costs money and it makes it hard to count overseas absentee votes in time. But the Legislature got rid of the runoff only for a single "experimental" election year, which just happens to be the year of Bush's re-election campaign.

Full Text: Copyright Times Publishing Co. Jun 18, 2001

GOP's ploy makes sure Democrats have only one shot in 2002

There is a crucial fact about Gov. Jeb Bush's re-election race next year that hasn't gotten much attention.

The rules will be different in 2002 - and only in 2002. There will be no runoff election to decide each party's nominee.

For the Republicans, no big deal. Bush will be the candidate.

But for the Democrats, not having a runoff could be a handicap. The party will be stuck with any candidate who edges out a crowded field in September - no matter how small the victory.

Normally, a candidate has to get more than 50 percent of the vote in the September primary to win outright. Otherwise, the top two vote- getters have to meet in a runoff primary in October.

But just for next year, the candidate with the most votes in September will be Bush's opponent. Period.

Who says so? The Florida Legislature - run by Republicans. Lawmakers this year stuck a sentence into the law that says "there shall be no second primary election between the effective date of this act and January 1, 2004."

Cute.

The fact is, the runoff election often is the way for a party's voters to get behind the most electable nominee.

In a crowded first primary, that candidate with the biggest name recognition, or the most fiercely loyal supporters, is the one who gets the most votes.

But when you give the voters a second chance, they are just as likely to choose the second-place finisher as their true nominee.

Look at this parade of Democratic stars from the last half- century:

The great LeRoy Collins would not have been elected governor in 1954 without a second primary.

The reformer Reubin Askew would not have been elected governor in 1970.

Bob Graham would not have been elected governor in 1978.

Lawton Chiles would not have been elected U.S. senator in 1970.

Collins. Askew. Graham. Chiles. Each of them lost the first election to a party favorite. Each won the runoff.

Now, what does this mean for the Democratic Party in 2002?

It means Janet Reno. Decide for yourself whether that's good or bad.

If Reno runs, she will have the biggest name recognition. She will attract national attention and national money. She will have a built- in following. She will be the favorite inside the party.

In normal years, the second-place Democrat would then have a chance to build consensus. Bill McBride of Tampa, the prominent lawyer on leave from the Holland & Knight law firm, would be a perfect model for that kind of candidate. So might many of the others.

But they wouldn't get the chance.

Even without Reno, it wouldn't be easy for the Democrats. The party's most active supporters, labor and state employees and teacher unions and minorities, would naturally be inclined to nominate a more liberal candidate, who would end up cannon fodder for Bush.

Legislators said they got rid of the runoff because it works against minority candidates, it costs money and it makes it hard to count overseas absentee votes in time. But the Legislature got rid of the runoff only for a single "experimental" election year, which just happens to be the year of Bush's re-election campaign.

"Clearly, they thought it would be damaging to us," Bob Poe, the state Democratic chairman, told me. "But a lot of things in politics tend to backfire."

Poe says he sees Democrats lining up behind candidates earlier, so that the strongest candidates will emerge early. There will be no holding back to see what happens, no strategy of just trying to get into the runoff.

"One of the things the Republican Party might have done for us is something we've been unable to do for ourselves," Poe acknowledged. "And that is to be more disciplined."

- You can reach Howard Troxler at (727) 893-8505 or at troxler@sptimes.com.