Real Election Reform

[alphageek31337]

I've been kicking around an idea for some time now as to reforming our electoral system. One of the major weaknesses I see, and that has been pointed out in the "Who will you vote for" poll/thread is that there really are only two major parties in America, and that, at least as far as the presidency goes, no one else even has an outside shot. Thus, election reforms in Steveland (the small post-industrial nation that exists in my head) would go as follows:

1) Voting is compulsory. No more bullshit, no more apathy. When faced with a decision like this, too many people choose not to choose, because it's the easiest way to do things. If they are forced to actually go out and vote, who knows, maybe the unwashed masses might even take the time to inform themselves a bit. When forced to choose, most people will actually want to make the best decision.

2) Soft money must go. It distorts the will of the people, because the vast majority of campaign money ends up coming from the vast minority of Americans (or even foreign companies), who, in turn, must be pleased by the candidate should he take office, in order to guarantee the continuing flow of the insane amount of money it takes to run for a high office. Which brings me to...

3) Eliminate/severely limit mass media advertising. Part of the severely prohibitive cost of running in a national election is the money spent on advertising. In lieu of 30-second sound bites that really don't do much more than either bash the other candidate or make irrational, emotional claims that have nothing to do with the candidate's stance ("I'm a person for people. I'm an American for America..."), force the candidates to do a whistle-stop tour where they have to fill more than 2 minutes worth of time, and, as such, might actually be forced to go into their stances on the issues of the day.

4) Limit the time that can be spent actively campaigning. The time limit I'm tooling around with right now is one month, though I'm quite sure that it wouldn't be long enough. This also goes to limiting the amount of money that must be spent in order to campaign for office, thereby effectively leveling the playing field between third parties, the Demicans, and the Republicrats.

These are, of course, only ideas. Not only would they never, ever, possibly be implemented (beware the advice of men in power, for they abhor company), but they are only in their infancy anyway, and shouldn't yet be implemented. Luckily, I have at my disposable a whole bunch of reasonably smart people who I hope will help me work these out to an honest-to-God viable form.

Criticism is encouraged.

[iamthewalrus109]

I have to say Steveland sounds like a nice place, but it must be real quiet there being that it exists in a vacum. The consumer culture and the blitz of the information age makes half your suggestions unrealistic for this country. Americans are much more comfortable about what cell service they want to get than having to decide who the leader of the free world will be. With the disjointed, meandering culture left in this country reduntdant statments and 30 second sound bites are all that these candidates can bank on. Furthermore, more choices in this country would only lead to people clinging to "tride and true" parties. Although there is no constitutional provision for a two party system in this country, one developed, and any shift would represent a major departure in the way things are done.

The only way to save America from itself is a reconsideration of global policies and globalism in general. I think that regional issues are too great to surmount with organizations like the UN, the IMF or the WTO. People know more about other places now, and they want what we have here in the US. The proliferation of information and the actual development of information technology has outstipped society's development and society's ability to integrate innovation into existing institutions. In essence technology has far outpaced society's progress, in leaps and bounds. Accordingly I think coroporations and not governments have been able to make the most of things and generally keep up better, hence the level of corporate involvement in the two party system.

The current system of global policy is flawed, if not corrupt. It serves the intrest of a scant few, while pilaging lands for the resoruces they offer. The people of any land should be the ones making the decisions for what they produce, period! Under the current system of banking, trade, and governance the privelaged and the criminals rule and manipulate the fruit of our labors. This is the heart of what is wrong with the government of the United States. I agree about mass media, but we shot ourselves in the foot with the Bill of Rights and freedom of the press. I doubt the framers could ever imagine the development of mass communication, this is a big issue. So the major media outlets can play this tune until this country is in ruins.

As far as making people do anything in this country, a Jacobonian type of government would have to happen at this point. People are too seated in there pleasures and decadances to venture out and become active participants in civics and politics. Jim Morrsion, used to say: "They got the guns but we got the numbers" , well I don't think so, not any more. I thought after 9/11 that there would be some awakening, but to no avail. A few people woke up, but to a netherworld of supressed discontent, disallusion, and escapsim. There has to be a major depression/economic break down and or a major terroist attack to affect any real change. A depression would clean out things for awhile better in the sense that the government would be powerless to control much due to economic colapse. A major terroist attack would be a way to fully mobilize a military government in this country and really be able to seize control of the society. Many have postulated this already, and if their theories are correct 9/11 hasn't had the effect that it should have. I think a nuclear or biologic attack with massive casulaties, and I'm talking over 10,000, would pretty much wrap up this world we know here in the US. Steveland looks better and better.

- Walrus

[Kitsune]

I'd like to see one addition: taxpayer money cannot be used for campaigns. The president should not be permitted to use Air Force One to fly across the country to boost himself in the polls.

Voting is compulsory. No more bullshit, no more apathy. When faced with a decision like this, too many people choose not to choose, because it's the easiest way to do things.

...the hell? That's the whole "freedom to vote" thing, you know, which also includes deciding not to vote if you don't want to? You really think people would make the best decisions held at gunpoint?

You might view it as laziness, but some of us choose not to vote because we don't agree with any of the options given to us. Just as you have demostrated with this post, there are more ways to reform elections, and I think the main one is speaking your mind. Please don't force people to speak their minds in a way they do not desire. Some people who don't vote are just as active in reform as those that do.

[russotto]

All four of your techniques can be accurately summed up as "incumbent protection"

[xoxoxoBruce]

You might view it as laziness, but some of us choose not to vote because we don't agree with any of the options given to us. Just as you have demostrated with this post, there are more ways to reform elections, and I think the main one is speaking your mind. Please don't force people to speak their minds in a way they do not desire. Some people who don't vote are just as active in reform as those that do.

No problem, all you have to do is register, go to the poll, sign for your receipt to keep you out of the gulag, and then vote "none of the above". We just want to be sure you had the opportunity to choose.

Oh,..BTW,....don't forget to claim your family at the compound.

[wolf]

Ah ... but will your family be willing to claim YOU?

[alphageek31337]

Originally Posted by russotto

All four of your techniques can be accurately summed up as "incumbent protection"

I beg you to elaborate, sir...

edit: I think I do see where you are coming from, though. The incumbent already has his name out, people know him and his politics, and you see this as a Good Thing. But, I dare say, the incumbent would have to campaign harder to try to win over the people inevitably lost when he didn't come through with his campaign promises. Look at how middle-of-the-road Dubya has been in the past six months, trying to please as many people as possible and avoiding his neo-con agenda for the time being. The only proof of that you need to see is the parade of minorities at the RNC.

[Chewbaccus]

I was going to post all this earlier, but when I hit the "post" button, the notorious Pitternet hiccupped and lost all my thoughts. Yes, it took about eighteen hours to reconstruct them. So what, it took a millennia to reconstruct the world after Rome fell. I think I made good time. Anyway:

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

1) Voting is compulsory.

This scares the ever-living fuck out of me, ask anyone I've gotten into this debate with. Personally, I love low voter turnout. Love it. Love it. Can't get enough of it. If I could, I'd make it mandatory that CBS premiere every new season of Survivor on the first Tuesday of November, with a day-long marathon preceding it. And that's only because I can't control the weather. Yet.

Yes, low voter turnout means 15-25% of the country is deciding who's running things. But at the same time, when that 15-25% go into the booths, odds are that they know what they fuck they're doing. If you take the time to vote in today's political climate, you're more than probably educated on the issues and are making an informed decision - like we're all supposed to. When you ratchet up voter turnout, you get more and more people like one friend I know whose primary reason for voting for Bush was that when throwing out the first pitch on Opening Day, he threw a strike. No more, no less. Is it sad a quarter of the country is making the calls? Yes. Will we look on it nostalgically after a political torch-and-pitchfork-wielding mob take to the polls thinking "The Republicans sent around that big ass semi with the plasma screens and the Xboxes, so they must be the right choice?" I like to think so. Forcing someone to make a choice, I've found, ensures that they make the expedient choice of the moment, rather than the beneficial in the long-term choice.

2) Soft money must go.

Agreeable, but tricky. I forget if it was the FEC or the Court, but somewhere down the line, someone with a nice enough hat decided that money was speech, and as such, snuck in under the First.

3) Eliminate/severely limit mass media advertising.

Again, tricky. Probably the best thing I can think of is to apply the truth in advertising laws (I'm operating on the principle they don't), otherwise you have someone screaming "They're trampling my right to speak to the people!" and some such.

4) Limit the time that can be spent actively campaigning.

Now here we might have something. You cut the window down to a month or two (for the gen. election phase - the rage that front-loading is in the primary phase these days, I don't see how it'd work), then you have the cut in funds required and consequently, a cut in the contributor hooks that a successful candidate has to carry around in office.

[smoothmoniker]

#4 is perhaps the biggest constitutional challenge of the lot. What does campaigning consist of? Get people to assemble together, speaking to them, communicating ideas (or at least things that smell and feel like ideas), trying to persuade others to do the same things with their friends and neighbors.

All of these things are fundamentally protected acts, and clearly should be. I don't know that I want to limit the actions of a candidate by such draconian measure.

[xoxoxoBruce]

odds are that they know what they fuck they're doing.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Shit, man, half of the ones that do vote, do so out of habit and vote the party their family always did.

[alphageek31337]

As you all may have noticed, my main point here is to make the elections more accessible to third parties. If Libs, Greens, and hell, even Populists become a real threat, it would shake up the demicans and republicrats enough that, in order to salvage their constituency, they might have to resort to having strong views and feelings on political issues. This pandering to the most middle-of-the road, pussy candidate really bothers me, and I think that as long as it continues, the system is not healthy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

.......it would shake up the demicans and republicrats enough that, in order to salvage their constituency, they might have to resort to having strong views and feelings on political issues. This pandering to the most middle-of-the road, pussy candidate really bothers me,.....

Isn't "pandering to the most middle-of-the road, pussy candidate" the way to garner the most votes, ie, "salvage their constituency"???

[alphageek31337]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Isn't "pandering to the most middle-of-the road, pussy candidate" the way to garner the most votes, ie, "salvage their constituency"???

It is, indeed, and it's working right now. If any major third party gets their act together, though, and really gets the word out, they will gain support from the people alienated by the non-commital candidates and, as I said, be forced to actually stand for something

[Undertoad]

Alph I swear I tried that and it doesn't work. People actually want the government they are voting for.

[glatt]

Former President Jimmy Carter is sounding the alarm about Florida. He thinks it's just as bad, if not worse than, it was in 2000. As someone who has observed over 50 elections in foreign countries, he is an expert in this sort of thing. From an editorial in the Washington Post:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Carter

Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote

By Jimmy Carter

Monday, September 27, 2004; Page A19


After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.

The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"

The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.

The most significant of these requirements are:

• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.

• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.

It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.

Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.

The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.

Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.

It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.

Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

I know that "To the victor go the spoils" but some posts should be civil servant posts, not politically appointed ones. Any positions having to do with the election process should be as non-politicized as possible. It's amazing, but unfortunately not surprising, to me that the Republican election officials are trying to influence the outcome of the election by selectively disqualifying voters.