This Week: Seven Steps to Better Elections

Quote of the Week

Voting? Almost Half of Us Don’t Bother

Seven Steps to Better Elections

Greetings,

Everyone is thinking about the upcoming election, so I’ll join the crowd this week. But, rather than talk about “the issues” of the campaign, useful though that may be, I thought I would back up and take a look at the process we use to conduct elections. I update and publish these ideas every time there’s a big election. If you have any good ideas, send them along, and I’ll try to include them in 2006 or so.

The reason I do so is that our current system seriously limits our choices by limiting what we are allowed to think about. Did you know, for example, that there are about 75 registered candidates for president of the U.S. this year, including the four registered women? (Granted, some of them are pretty far out there. But, some are not.)

So, this week’s issue of the Notes is all about improving our elections in this country, and a few thoughts on why we might want to.

Your non-candidate,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This is Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal reporter and author, writing in the October 17 New York Times Magazine about the current resident of the White House:

“In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend – but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’”

Voting? Almost Half of Us Don’t Bother

In the 1996 presidential election, fewer than half of all eligible voters in the United States bothered to vote. The scandalous election of 2000 brought just over one-half of those eligible to the polls (51.3 percent, officially). In the midterm elections of 2002 fewer than 40 percent of eligible voters in the United States voted, which is about the norm for non-presidential election years. Some people expect a “record turnout” in the upcoming election, with turnout levels reaching towards 60 percent of the voting-eligible population.

But, before we start celebrating, let’s look around a little bit. What do we see, for instance, if we compare this country’s voter turnout with that in other industrial democracies? How about Italy? On average, about 90 percent of those eligible to vote in Italy actually turn out and do so. In Sweden it’s 84 percent. 85 percent of eligible voters go to the polls in Greece, 83 percent do so in Australia, 84 percent in Belgium, 81 percent in Argentina, 82 percent in Chile – the list could go on.

The contrast with the United States, where it’s rare for much more than one-half of eligible voters to take the time to register their opinion at the polls, is stark, and I don’t chalk it up to voter apathy. Since the system we have brings out the worst in people, such 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. Even in a year when “the country is more divided than ever”– as pundits like to say about 2004 – it’s likely we won’t reach the turnout levels of the 1950s and ‘60s. This is, in part, a consequence of having no genuine opposition party in this country – at least not one that has a chance of winning anything at the national level.

Privatized Politics

The elevation of “the private sector” in the U.S. means that 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 by the media, 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,” and are thus not subject to public discussion. Voting? It has little meaning in these crucial realms.

People who are self-employed (at least the lucky ones) might get to set their own hours, choose their working conditions, and so forth. But fewer than one in ten people in the United States are self-employed. Half of all households still don't own stocks – even counting retirement accounts – and most of the other half own relatively little (less than $25,000). Finally, ponder the fact that, of all the stocks that are held by individuals in the United States, the wealthiest 5 percent of the population is estimated to own roughly 73 percent; the same group owns about 81 percent of the bonds. 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. That would be 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, having to do with regulation and “incentives” and so forth.

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, drawn Social Security, or been without health insurance for a long period. In this case it might be good to take a look at your class background to see 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 – in the short term – 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.

So, what follows is a set of ideas that might help to do that.

Seven Steps to Better Elections

As we hurtle ever closer to the momentous presidential election of 2004, it seems like a good time to take a look at the system that we use to elect public officials in the United States. Here are seven simple proposals for reform of our current system. These proposals are simple, in the sense that most of them could be taken by any Congress and could take effect more or less immediately upon passage. But “simple” does not in this case mean “easy,” since the current political context in the United States makes passage of these reforms unlikely in the short term, to say the least.

But 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.

Step 1. LIMIT THE LENGTH OF CAMPAIGNS. From three to six weeks should do it. Maybe ten. Other countries (England, Canada, Australia, and Italy, for example) have limited their campaigns in this way.

Step 2. 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.

Step 3. 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 for 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 based on recent election law in Brazil. Fifty or more countries provide free air time, on a more limited basis, to their political candidates.

Step 4. 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.

Step 5. 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. (Back-door effect possibility: Maybe this would end up being an incentive to raise the minimum wage!)

Step 6. 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. This proposal would address the apparently-widespread practice of attempting to suppress the vote of unwanted constituencies – e.g. poor people, people of color, immigrants – by one party or the other.

As an added bonus, 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. (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.)

Step 7. MAKE REPRESENTATION PROPORTIONAL. This would be the biggest change and, perhaps, the most significant. Proportional Representation (PR) is the norm in Austria, Belgium, Panama, Spain, 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 first, second and third choices, and they all affect the outcome. (San Francisco elected in March of 2002 to adopt a form of IRV, which they call RCV, or Ranked Choice Voting. There are ongoing, organized efforts in several U.S. states to institute a system of Instant Runoff Voting at the state level.) 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.

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. So, let’s get to work.