I would love to see some type of election reform in this country because I think it's been a long, long time coming. And it would be nice to have a voter turnout higher than that of the baby democracies that we are so keen on making happen in other parts of the country.
It's pretty pathetic when people in this country can't make it to the polls when you consider that Iraqis dodged bullets and suicide bombers for a chance to participate in their election. And though I would love too bash voter apathy again, I will refrain from talking about the low-life scum in this country who don't make an effort to get off their ass to vote. I'll save that for another rainy day.
Yesterday three members of the 'We Think Voting is Rad' club gathered on the steps of Capital Hill to introduce legislation that will turn Election Day into a national holiday. The bill also proposes allowing felons to vote (a nice touch), requiring paper vote receipts, and spending $500M to fix pot holes in democracy around the country.
Is it me or did Clinton just say that the United States is no longer considered the gold standard in democracy? Not that I don't agree but did anyone else pick up on that? And since when do we have high national standards for elections? Where in the hell were these standards after the 2000?
Blast me all you want but I think these people are the last ones we want pitching for making improvements in our democracy. For starters why kick this off in partisan fashion? Couldn't they wait to announce this on another day when John McCain wasn't getting his hair cut? I can't imagine members from the other party refused to get on board but then again there is something to be said about standing close to open flames.
"This has nothing to do with me," said Kerry. "It is not partisan, or shouldn't be."
Dude, you just lost the biggest election in the world and you're trying to sound like an impartial champion for American democracy? Take a page from Gore's playbook and move away from anything election related for a while. Maybe you could join a technology company like your predecessor, I understand HP is hiring. Besides, don't you have a war to stop or something?
I digress.
Indeed we do have a long way to go but unfortunately it's going to require that both sides admit that the process that brought them to Washington isn't the best we can do. Maybe then we can see real Democrat on Republican bipartisan legislation that not only addresses the issues above but also does away with connect-the-dots creative redistricting, mandates a required set of public debates for Presidential candidates (more than 3 please), and puts a cap on the absurd run-away costs of national campaigns.
Of course I'd be a fool to think any real reform in our election process any time soon. Instead my gut tells me it's time we all went shopping for Orange colored things and start preparing to march, protest, and riot in the streets of 2008.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Nothing like a good riot, but perhaps that's beside the point. G, you seem puzzled by (or not noticing) the plain contradiction inherent in 'election reform'—Why would the party that benefits from the system most as it is want to reform it? Reform is always a partisan effort, with reformers using 'reform' rhetoric as a critique of those in power. It only works once people finally get disgusted with the ruling clique, which is always just a question of when, not if. I wouldn't mistake the changing of the guard that then occurs as reform—it's just the system. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
The main seperation between people in the United States is not Democrats vs. Republicans.
It's between people who vote, and people who don't vote.
Think about....it's a pretty even split.
People have reasons for not voting. It's not just because they are lazy.
"...and spending $500M to fix pot holes in democracy around the country."
As a citizen living right around Kansas City, Missouri, I'd settle for legislation that would fix pot holes on my drive to work.
Seriously though, I'm not sure you can have reform without it being partisan. That's like asking for a revolt that is supported by both sides. Why on earth would the Republicans want election reform right now?
And voter apathy isn't as simple with ever voter as to be a black or white issue. Some voters refuse to participate in a broken system, or for other thought out reasons. I agree that many are lazy and don't care enough about the issues (which IS just stupid) to vote... but this certainly isn't the case with everyone who didn't turn out.
How about a fair vote?
Did you know that voting is directly related to the amount of education you have? If you line up people in a line against a wall with no idea who votes and who doesn't and you had one question to ask to determine who does and who doesn't that can't be, "do you vote," the question to ask would be "how educated are you?"
High School drop outs never vote, those with a GED will vote some of the time, and college graduates almost always vote.
The reason voter turnout is low, I think, is that our system is currently a winner-take-all system where no other parties get a piece of the pie after elections.
I think getting rid of the electoral college and allowing the smaller parties to participate and gain some influence (as they do in most other democracies, such as the UK) would really get people more involved.
It would give people something to vote for, because to a lot of people, they're just a drop in a very large bucket. Granted, a lot of drops will make a difference but if you're only one drop out of a few thousand, there isn't much happening for you.
The main problem with our current voting system is the electoral college. Although it's pretty unlikely that it'll be completely abolished any time soon, I think it needs to be restructured at the least. Maybe having it so that the distibution of popular votes actually carries over to the distribution of votes for the state as a whole would help... The way it stands now, the popular vote may or may not actually decide anything, which is just sheer stupidity in my opinion.
I'm with Stephen on this one. A huge shortcoming in our form of government is almost the complete lack of choice. I voted, but I didn't really feel good about either candidate. Of course on the other side of the coin, voting for a 3rd party is pretty much the equivalent of throwing your vote away. And that’s just sad.
Greg mentioned making more debates mandatory. I would go one step further and put together a system by which 3rd parties could take the same platform, and discuss issues (instead of being summarily dismissed from the debates altogether)
good point, Steve. I was actually going to mention something about 3rd party candidates but I forgot.
I absolutely HATE the fact that there are candidates out there who would represent me better than either the Democrats or Republicans, but if I vote for them I know they aren't going to win and it's just going to take a vote away from whichever of the two leading candidates I favor more... It's a really messed up system.
I live in England so I'm not up on your voting system but I can tell it's crap.
We have a good voting system in this country, basically the people who get more votes win and run the country... I know there's a word for it, begins with a D.
At the end of the day ( I know people will hate this )but religion chooses you president and it has done for many years. One thing I would like to say about the 2004 election. I record number of people voted to save bush but a record number came out to vote him out...
SO, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE NEXT TIME YOU LAZY SLOP.
Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya. Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya.
Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya. Ohhhh Lord. Kumbaya.
Er, sorry, but being that conservatives a majority of the federal government, doesn't that mean you ought to make ANY realistic effort in Washington conservative friendly? Regardless of whether you think Bush's reelection was the product of a conspiracy or popular opinion, the only feasible option seems to be to court the aid of the victorius party. Jumping about with signs and drawing horns on the pictures of our elected officials will only get you so far, you know.
Either way, I think empowering our third parties will add a great deal of depth to our system and the arguments that are carried out within it. Most issues don't have only two sides, after all.
The electoral college is not necessarily the problem. The system was designed to protect smaller states from becoming irrelevant, and that is what it still does. All post 2000 rants aside, will removing that particular mechanic do anything to weaken the two party system at all?
I don't think changing any one thing will fix it... there are multiple problems.
I would go one step further and put together a system by which 3rd parties could take the same platform, and discuss issues (instead of being summarily dismissed from the debates altogether)
Agreed! Someone make sure that's in the minutes.
Actually one solution that wouldn't require constitutional change is Instant Runoff Voting (number of sites on web supporting it) where everyone votes for the 3 or 4 people they want in an office in order. Each count that a candidate doesn't get a majority, the lowest vote getter is removed and their votes go to the next choice of the voter. Repeat until a candidate gets a majority of the vote.
Benefits are pretty obvious:
1) The winner actually is someone the majority of people would like to see win even if he wasn't their first choice.
2) Main party candidates still have to go after those who are voiting for minority candidates first, since they want to be their second choice incase there is no majority winner the first count. Helps minority candidates help shape the winning policy and also lets people vote their conscience rather than voting to just win.
3) with modern computer vote tallying its easy to implement.
Con
Explaining it to those who have trouble voting for just one person.
This would help bring in the disinfranchised, help foster minority party voter support, and help moderate the 'yes/no', 'good/bad' ' democrat/republican' mentality that we have descended to.
I personally don't think having voting day as a holday would really make a diffrerence - most don't vote because they have no intention of doing it, not because they don't have enough time.
. . . know how there’s a charge to have your phone number unlisted. Have the IRS in on this one -every 4 years charge non-voters a fee for the freedom not to vote!
Boy, that instant runoff voting system sounds like a good idea! Excuse me while I go and write a gushing letter to my state representative!
Too bad no one trusts those new fangled computer devices, what with the "security issues" and all. Oh, and if not with computers, imagine determining the order of the hanging chads. The chaos!
I think instant the idea of an instant runoff would be better suited if it happened on a deserted island in the China Sea. Candidates would be forced to live off the land while participating in gross and demeaning contests in order to remain in the race.
Either that or just hold a large knife fight. They stab each other enough already, why not just bring it out in the open and televise it.
Sure, Iraq had a much higher turnout than the US does. But half of those voting there were illiterate. How is that actually democratic? If half of those voting cannot read about the candidates or their positions, what is their vote based on? To call Iraq's election democratic is rediculous and I really wish that people would stop comparing it to U.S. elections in a way that creates shameful feelings about turnout. There are way too many variables to consider. As for felons, when you are convicted of that level of crime you give up certain rights and are considered a special situation under the law. No way should felons have the right to vote. If they wanted the right to vote so badly they should have thought about it before they committed a crime. I really enjoy your website, but this article smacks of the type of knee jerk reaction you discourage in comments. Is the election process in the U.S. great? No. It can most certainly be improved. Advocating rioting in the streets in 2008 is not going to help.
As for felons, when you are convicted of that level of crime you give up certain rights and are considered a special situation under the law. No way should felons have the right to vote.
Yes, if they are in prison, then sure they shouldn't be voting. But if we've let them out, then that's the equivalent of our prison system saying they've been reformed. (The fact that isn't true is an entirely different debate, but not relevant to this one.)
If a felon has been freed, then they should have the right to vote. Putting them in prison is saying "You are not part of our society." Freeing them says "You are part of our society again." Being part of our society includes voting for the direction it is to take...
First of all I must say, Stormy, I didn't realize you posted here.
On to other news. While Blue is correct in stating that the electoral system exists to keep small states from becoming irrelevant it was also intended to make sure the votes of intelligent voters were not ruined by those who are ignorant. Technically, the electoral system as it stands does make those small states irrelevant.
The biggest problem with the dumbest college in the world is the fact that states do not split their electoral vote by their popular vote (though I believe that can legislate changes to that on a state by state basis). Let's say Florida, with 27 electoral votes, splits the electoral votes by the percentages of the vote that each candidate received. 48% of us voted for John Kerry. In terms of electoral votes Bush would have received 14 electoral votes instead of the 27 he received. I don't have info for all the states but I bet this small change would have made a lot bigger of a difference in this election.
This would also give smaller states slightly greater voting power instead of swing states calling the election right off the bat. Why do we waste all that money polling everywhere when swing states facilitate the changes? That sounds somewhat ludicrous but how far off is that statement?
This system of instant runoff sounds interesting because it would allow me to vote for a third party while making sure the asshole democran or republicrat that I don't like doesn't get my vote or take it away from the other.
The biggest reforms I'd like to see are not giving criminals the right to vote (that's part of being a criminal) but changing the debate structure. First of all there should definitely be more debates. Most importantly, though, is the fact that some people (*cough* Georgie) have a certain knack for lying about things during the debates. I'm sorry but when I catch you lying in a debate it's pretty bad (I normally read up on the candidates but I rarely get to actually hear all of their statements throughout their campaigns). What they need is, as I affectionately dub this, the bullshit detector. Judge Joe Brown would suffice. Judge Joe checks on every statement that they make and if it's wrong, a lie, or a stab at the opposing candidate he immediately jumps on stage calls them on it and asks them why they said that. If the answer is unsatisfactory, Joe get's to punch them in the face. If they duck he can break their arm. That is the only way those damn things can be fair.
Another reform I'd like to see is them not being able to put any ads up anywhere. Have enough debates that they can have enough face time. I'm tired of seeing the same stupid ads bashing each other over and over. When Bush would be on their I'd be livid for like ten minutes — just in time for the next Bush ad. I'd also love for them to stop receiving campaign contributions. Here's an idea, give normal people a freaking chance. Have the debates televised on a few national channels and don't let those assholes go anywhere. I don't want Bush here, I've got one too many as it is. I'm tired of them only going to certain proven places over and over again. Either preach to the choir or shut the f*** up.
in Australia it's illegal to NOT VOTE if you're a registered voter. go figure
Joshua, thank you for qualifying my response. You are absolutely correct. If a convicted felon has done his/her time and has been released, they should then be accorded the rights of any other citizen. While they are in prison they should not have the right to vote.
Hey Greg, great job. A very balanced piece and I entirely agree. Sticking Kerry in that group was not a wise move for the dems. A bipartisan show of support would of been the best way to do it. Having the easter island statue out front just made it look like sour grapes all over again. See Gore, Albert "He betrayed this country" and other great rantings and ravings.
Just my humble opinion.
Nathan, every felony (other than statutory rape in cases of consenting minors that are not much younger than 18, at least in my state) is a serious crime. Criminals are usually expected to repay their debt to society. Giving up the right to vote is part of paying that debt.
At least that's how I see it.
If the fee, or penalty, for not voting -after all, we have the Australians on the planet who consider it illegal- is set as a percentage of earnings that would be fair, no?
And this proposal is simply supplementing the establishment of the runoff or ‘numbered choice’ system.
there are two main things i'd like to see, that i think would go a long way without introducing "radical" changes like instant runoff voting or proportional representation (both of which i support, but i don't see them happening any time soon):
1. A national primary. Let's let the whole country pick the candidate, and not make it about who panders most to Iowa and NH, and who has the money to last the longest beyond that. Too many people don't vote because the candidate(s) they support are either no longer on the ballot or such a long shot by the time they get the chance to cast a ballot, that their vote wouldn't matter anyway.
2. Open up the debates. Drop the rule that says a candidate must poll 15% to be allowed in the debates. If you can meet the qualifications to get on the ballot, you should be allowed to debate. More debates would be wonderful too, but I'd be happy just to hear from everyone rather than only the front runners.
Re: Joe
Usually I just read and don't bother posting... but this time I actually had an opinion on the matter so I thought I'd put in my two cents.
I think in CA they were planning on changing it so that it wouldnt matter if you really had one person from dems and repubs but it could be from the same party if they were the two most popular people. An idea I think that goes in the right direction but could be better. It would force the parties to actually have to offer something instead of just saying Im better than the other side......nah, nah, nah etc.
First of all, if you're going to split the vote in Florida, you might as well split if everywhere else - like in California. And if California split - well, just go look at those red v. blue maps. California has a lot of Bush supporters in it. And you've got to keep the electoral college, otherwise politicians would just spends weeks in metropolitan areas campaigning, and ignore entire states all together.
I don't believe a felon should vote. Well...let me put it this way. I have trouble with the democratic party striving to get every felon to vote, while systematically trying to block military votes.
Does there need to a removal of "irregularities." I am not personally aware of any actual reported voting irregularities, only implied problems. I should look into this. I also don't want the future of my country determined by people who lack the ability to drive a nail through a piece of paper (see 2000 election). And while democrats talk of "irregularities" that could have altered the results of the election, they seem to ignore the attacks and bombings of republican/conservative campaign stations before the election, and the slashing of tires on some 100 vans intended to take voters to voting stations in Milkwaukee
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/24/tires.slashed.ap/
If there are problems in the system, then by all means, fix them. Fix ALL OF THEM, not just the ones related to your party losing the election. Seeing Kerry and Clinton talking of such issues make me think of sore losers. At least get some other prominent politicians out there
Ross, this is exactly why Bush is in power again. People don't listen (and yes I realize that you're Republican). I didn't say that they should split electoral college voting in only Florida. I said that they should do it everywhere. Florida was my example to explain the actual splitting of the votes because, as I live in Florida, I still remember what percentage of Florida Bush actually won. It was 52% to 48%.
What kind of stupid system is allowed to remain in existence that automatically rounds 52% to 100%? If banks did that it would be great, wouldn't it? But it wouldn't make sense.
Clerk: What amount should I round to?
Clerk 2: How much is in the account?
Clerk: Fifty-two thousand.
Clerk 2: One-hundred thousand.
Me: Thanks gentlemen.
Oh and BTW, if you didn't have the electoral college, the candidates would go to the same places anyway because most swing states happen to have high population densities. Besides, these days we can estimate much better how a state will vote so it's not like they can't plan their campaign trail just like they always do. When the electoral college was thought up, they couldn't just call an office in California and find out how their candidate was doing in popular polls.
Oh and Ross, if that felon thing was directed at me, I clearly stated that I'm against most felons being able to vote, with the exception of certain statutory rape cases: i.e. an 18 year old guy and his 17 year old girlfriend have consenting sex and her father finds out and gets him thrown in jail.
How is Clinton a sore loser, BTW? The guy won two terms and would have easily one a third if he was able to run against Shrub, even after the impeachment farce.