| Number 179 | November 8, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, As people ponder the results of this week's election perhaps I figured it would be a good time to offer a few suggestions on the process of elections themselves. So, this week I offer a revised version of a piece I ran two years ago at election time. Elections are like medical exams; while you may not like the results, it's important to know what is going on so you can take appropriate action. Ignorance is not bliss, either with our personal health or our political health. As I have been saying to many of my discouraged friends in the wake of this week's election, what we do between now and the next election is a lot more important than what we do on election day, since it will shape the choices we are presented when that election arrives. Still, there are a lot of simple things that we could do to make the elections themselves better, so I suggest some this week. After that I'll get back to the "regular agenda" of giving information that we need to make change happen. Thanks, once again, to all of you who have sent in your GENEROUS donations to Nygaard Notes, and to all of you who sent along morale-boosting notes, check or no check. The last year has been really tough for me, and your support—financial and moral—really has kept me going through these personally trying times. More than you know. Thank you. I will be taking the next week off, as I am so far behind that it's not even funny (as my mother used to say.) Look for #180 on November 22. Keep working for justice, Nygaard |
|
|
Amid all the talk of the "high" turnout in this week's U.S. elections, many people may fail to note that almost two thirds of eligible voters (61 percent) in the United States declined to vote this week, which is about the norm for non-presidential election years. In Minnesota, it was nearly the opposite, with 61 percent going to the polls. My state led the nation in this regard, which experts attribute to "a highly motivated electorate." One could hear sounds of celebration at the "high" turnout in this election, but nary a word was heard comparing voter turnout in this country with other industrial democracies, where voters typically turn out at rates far higher than here. For example:
... and so forth. Overall, it's rare in the United States for more than one-half of eligible voters to take the time to register their opinion at the polls. This is pretty smart. Since the system we have brings out the worst in people, a negative response to it on the part of the majority reinforces my belief that the average American is far more intelligent than most politicians give him or her credit for. The average American adult understands quite well that the most powerful political forces affecting his or her life exist outside of the electoral system. The most basic political decisions—such as what work we do, where we do it, what gets put in front of our faces, how much of our earnings we need to devote to food, shelter, health, and so on—are commonly understood to be under the control of "the market." Consider that fewer than one in ten people in the United States are self-employed. Consider further that, excluding mutual and pension funds, only a minority of Americans directly own stocks or bonds of any sort. Finally, ponder the fact that, of all the stocks that are held by individuals, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population is estimated to own roughly 50%. Given these facts, "the market" is accurately understood by many to be separate from, and out of the control of, the average person. We certainly can't vote for the people who make many of the most basic decisions, the CEOs of our large companies. The people for whom we can vote (that is, politicians) are thus left with, at best, a limited role. There are a number of things they can do: They can give gifts ("incentives") to corporations to encourage them to put jobs "here" rather than "there." They can impose some limits on the behavior of corporate entities. They can force corporations to pay a certain minimum wage. All of these are important things, but the deck is stacked: If the corporations don't like what they get, they can leave—the town, the state, the country. And they often do, aided by a political system that elevates "property rights" to the status of a national religion. Why, then, is it surprising to anyone that a large number of voters feel powerless? Or that we are angry about this situation? And that we express our anger at the ballot box or, as most do, by not even going to the ballot box? Powerlessness breeds anger. And popular cynicism flows from the corporate cynicism that permeates our political environment. As Lily Tomlin once put it, "No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up!" So, what's the point in working to try and improve our electoral system? Can it make any difference? I think it can, for two reasons. The first is that, while voting will not bring about revolutionary change, it is nonetheless true that the government retains some capacity to address the injustices that are a part of our economic system. Things like minimum wage laws, environmental regulations, the availability of emergency medical care, food stamps, and Social Security come directly from the government, and they make a difference in the lives of real people. A popular slogan embraced by some on the so-called "left" says "Don't vote, it only encourages them." If this resonates with you, you have probably never been stuck in a minimum-wage job, relied on food stamps to feed your kids, or drawn Social Security. (It might be good to take a look at your class background and how it shapes your views.) The second reason is this: In a winner-take-all system, politicians who want to win need to produce ideas that are immediately attractive to the majority. These, then, are the ideas that are reported on and talked about, and the boundaries of acceptable thought thus remain exceedingly narrow. In a more open political system, parties with ideas that currently have the support of only a minority of people would be able to present those ideas for the majority to consider. They wouldn't necessarily win, but the fact that these ideas would make it onto the table could only serve to broaden the public discourse and challenge the current "conventional wisdom." In short, if we want to give good ideas a chance to grow into politically viable ideas, we need to open up the system. The Seven Steps Here, then, are seven simple proposals for reform of our system of elections. Please bear in mind that "simple" does not in this case mean "easy." While it is true that most of these steps could be taken by any Congress and could take effect more or less immediately upon passage, it's important to think about the context we're in when thinking about making any effort to enact significant changes in business as usual. And I do mean "business". I do not offer these reforms as goals in themselves. They are mainly ideas which might usefully be included on the agendas of grassroots groups already working in the community. LIMIT THE LENGTH OF CAMPAIGNS. From three to six weeks should do it. Many other countries (England, for example, and all the Scandinavian countries) have limited their campaigns in this way. BAN PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISING. The main problem with political advertising is not, as many have been saying, that it's too negative. The problem is that political ads do not and will not educate or inform potential voters because that's not what they're designed to do. The solution? Get rid of them. REQUIRE EQUAL COVERAGE OF ALL CANDIDATES. Any candidate who meets minimum registration requirements should be accorded equal exposure in the media. This would be easily accomplished by making such balance a requirement of the acquisition or renewal of a broadcasting license. I suggest that all licensed broadcast outlets be required to provide two prime-time hours daily throughout the 3-6 week campaign, divided equally among all legal political parties, with this two-hour package broadcast simultaneously on all stations. This suggestion, by the way, is not original. It's lifted directly from election law in Brazil. CHANGE WHO MAKES THE RULES. Currently, the rules governing election campaigns are set legislatively. That is, by the victors of the most recent elections. It is unreasonable to expect the victors to change the rules under which they achieved their victories. So I propose an independent Election Commission, composed of people who have never run for elective office, and who agree not to do so for 10 years after being on the commission. Maybe these people would be elected directly, or maybe we could figure out a way to appoint them by someone who would not have a conflict of interest. Maybe just the fact that commission members cannot run for office would be sufficient. BAN DIRECT FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES. If people must give money for elections, allow them to give it directly to the Election Commission, which would be required to disburse it to the party you specify anonymously. That way, everyone gets to support the party of their choice, and the party doesn't owe any individual a thing. I suggest a dollar limit for individuals, as well, to reduce unfair class advantage. Perhaps the equivalent of the wages that one full-time worker earns in a week at the minimum wage. Currently, that's $206. REQUIRE A TRUE MAJORITY TO WIN. Currently, a majority of the votes that are cast is sufficient to win an election. I propose that no one be allowed to take office with less than 50% of the votes of all possible voters. Not voting, under these rules, would amount to a vote for "none of the above". If an election fails to yield a majority for any candidate, another election is immediately held, either with the same or with different candidates. This system would do away with the so-called "mandates" often earned with 20% of the possible votes. Incidentally, I believe this would go a long way toward limiting the much-bemoaned "negativity" in campaigns, as successful candidates or parties would need to inspire people to actually vote for something rather than against. This seems hard to imagine in modern-day America, but maybe it's still possible. (A milder but still significant reform would be to require, as some nations do, a run-off election if no one receives at least 50% of the votes that were actually cast. I don't know that this would make much difference in the United States.) MAKE REPRESENTATION PROPORTIONAL. This would be the biggest change and, perhaps, the most significant. Proportional Representation (PR) is the norm in Austria, Belgium, Panama, Peru, South Africa, and a couple of dozen other nations. There is a broad range of PR systems. Some are based on voting for political parties; others for candidates. Some allow very small groupings of voters to win seats; others require higher thresholds of support to win representation. All of the variations are based on the idea that 10 percent of the people deserve 10 percent of the representation. Under our current "winner-take-all" system, 10 percent gets nothing; in fact, 49 percent sometimes gets nothing. As far as the chief executive being elected, some systems have the majority legislative party choose the executive (president, governor, etc), while others have a system called Instant Runoff Voting, in which voters cast votes for their 1st, second and third choices, and they all affect the outcome. (San Francisco elected last March to adopt IRV, and there are ongoing, organized efforts in several U.S. states to institute a system of Instant Runoff Voting.) The key point is that every voter can cast an effective vote to help elect someone that represents that voter. This has many benefits for diversity, accountability, participation, and elevating the quality of discourse. (Everything you ever wanted to know about Proportional Representation can be found on the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy at www.fairvote.org) Well, those are my seven ideas. I don't think that any of these changes are actually going to happen in our country in the near future. Any one of these changes would require a groundswell of support based on an organized grassroots campaign of huge proportions. And this sort of organization assumes a political environment which includes a well-developed democratic infrastructure that would create, and be created by, an active and politicized citizenry. Such an infrastructure would include things like strong unions, for example, and broadly-based citizens' groups. The sorts of things that have been declining in the United States for the past few decades. But until the day when we are able to elect the people who actually make the major political decisions, I offer these proposals for reform of our current system in the hope that they might inspire someone who is currently doing nothing to do something. And to do it by working together with other people. For it seems to me that, unless and until a large number of people are willing to organize themselves to think about, to plan, to propose, and to build alternatives to the current system, alienation will continue to grow. And if that's the case, then we can expect that trivial matters will continue to be elevated to levels of prominence, and business as usual will continue to be conducted. And I do mean "business." |