3 Reforms to Revitalize Our Democracy

by David D. Murray

Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unlikely of places and this essay is no exception. You see, being trained as a political scientist and having participated directly in campaigns and the every day workings of a DC Congressional Office, I am one of those rare people who finds the concept of Democracy (yes I use a large D) fascinating. So when posed with the topic “Democracy,” I had no shortage of ideas to write about. I quickly decided what I wanted to write about, researched it, outlined it and then let it sit for a month. Why? Because as several people have pointed out, when most people hear the word “Democracy” they glaze over just as fast as if you said “politics.” But when I thought about it, I wasn’t really surprised. Most people’s encounters with the democratic process are usually frustrating and tedious at best. So my essay languished for weeks until the most unlikely of inspirations came to me in the form of the 39 year old, former Nirvana bassist turned democratic reform activist, Krist Novoselic. I was perusing CNN’s website (yes I know I’m a nerd) when I came across an article about Mr. Novoselic’s new book entitled “Of Grunge and Government: Let’s Fix This Broken Democracy.” As I read on I found that we shared essentially the same beef with the existing system and that he highlighted at least two of the four reforms I decided to write about a month earlier. And while I wasn’t the biggest fan of grunge rock back in the day, it occurred to me that the majority of my generation was; and while most people don’t care much for the subject of Democracy, perhaps Mr. Novoselic will be able to popularize some of these much needed reforms. Perhaps he might even make the subject appear “cool.” Who knows, but regardless of whether you choose to read the rest of this article or pick up a copy of Mr. Novoselic’s book, I will now attempt to propose three reforms that have the potential to revitalize our Democracy.

Reform #1: Public Financing of Elections

It has been said that he who pays the piper names the tune and Washington is no exception to the rule. Having been there I can tell you first hand that any given night of the week there is some moneyed interest throwing some sort of reception in the hopes they might wine and dine congressional staff into doing their bidding. As a matter of fact the cost of waging and winning recent elections has become so prohibitively high that one needs either to be a millionaire or to sell their soul to Corporate America to stand a chance. This is one of the major reasons the Democratic Party has, over time, gone from being the party of the people to the party only slightly more for the people than the Republicans (most of whom are unabashedly pro-corporate). This is because corporate conservatives have no reservations about accepting corporate money because it poses no conflict to their ideology. Progressives, on the other hand, are often put in the uncomfortable position of either loosing to their conservatives opponents, who can afford flood the mass media with smear ads, or to tone down their idealism in order to raise enough money from the very moneyed interest they in principal oppose in order to win. Given this it’s no wonder that conservatives have triumphed in recent years by appearing to be more ideologically consistent (and inspiring to their base) than progressives, who have increasingly alienated their activist base. The problem is structural (it lies more within the system, than the character of the individuals involved).

The other problem with the existing system is that it totally violates the principal of one-person-one-vote. Seeing as public opinion has become so easily manipulated via the mainstream media, the true power to decide the outcome of elections is no longer the ballot box, but the campaign contribution- made either directly to a candidate or spent on 527 smear ads like the now infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This unfortunate situation is the result of a misguided Supreme Court opinion which essentially elevated the campaign contribution to exalted heights of First Amendment speech. Not only is it outrageous to suggest the “right” to give money to politicians is equal to your First Amendment right to free speech, but just think about the political implications of such a doctrine. If there are say 100 people in a room, all of which are free to discuss the pros and cons of this or that measure or candidate and at the end of the meeting they vote their preference; that is fair. The current system, however is like that same room of 100 people, but in this case 5 to 10 of those 100 people where allowed to purchase bullhorns which they use to amplify their message beyond their actual numbers and drown out the voices and opinions of the others. That is the unfortunate reality of our campaign financing system today and it is an affront both to free speech and equal representation.

The solution is simple: public financing of elections. Candidates are given equal time on the public airwaves to make their case to voters. In such a system candidates are forced to run on the quality of their ideas and their ability to articulate their messages, and no one is allowed to purchase a mass media bullhorn. Please understand this perhaps an oversimplification of the reform, but you get the idea. The result: campaigns would be cheaper, less dirty and more honest. Political office would become more accessible to the general public (not just the super rich or the super-bought-off), and electoral outcomes would be determined more by the power of a candidate’s ideas than the power of their fundraising.

Now you may be thinking, “Sounds great! But how likely is it?” Given the current configuration of power in Washington D.C., not very. However, there is little to stop the movement at the state level. As a matter of fact at least one state and many localities have already adopted public financing, most notably Arizona. So there’s nothing to stop activists from pushing it at the state level, just as the California Clean Money Campaign is currently pushing it here. And in the meantime, it doesn’t hurt to push your Senators and Representatives to continue to support campaign finance reform efforts like the groundbreaking McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.

Reform #2: Instant Runoff voting

Two of the main reasons people cite for why they don’t bother voting is: that they don’t like either of the major party candidates or they feel it’s a waste of their time to vote for a third party candidate because regardless of how many people may agree with them, most will vote for the Democrat to prevent the election of the Republican or vise-versa. What’s more, whenever someone decides to protest by voting a Green or a Libertarian they are chastised by those around them for helping elect “the bad guy.” Similarly, whenever a third party candidate stands up to criticize the two major parties for the issues they ignore or the way they have allowed the system to be corrupted, they are beaten down labeled spoilers.

The solution to this two party, center pandering, outsider excluding monotony: instant runoff voting (or IRV).
Instant runoff voting is an ideal system for single seat positions like President, Senator, Representative or Major.
It’s simple, instead of voting for just one person (or party) you rank order your preference. For instance a progressive may vote Green, then Democratic, then Libertarian. Likewise, a Libertarian may vote Libertarian, then Republican, then Democratic. Then the ballots are counted. If no candidate succeeds in getting at least 50% (a majority) of the vote (which they rarely do), the votes the second or third choice of those who voted for a candidate excluded in the first round are redistributed to the two people left standing. So if two highest vote getters are the Republican and Democratic candidates, then those who voted Green first and Democratic second or third will have their votes reallocated to the Democratic candidate just and those who voted for Republican second or third will have their votes reallocated to the Republican candidate. Regardless of the outcome, you can still express your true political opinion (even if you vote Socialist or something) and still have an effect on the actual outcome of the election (if you choose to).

There are so many advantages to this system that would make races far more dynamic. First of all, third party or independent candidates would have a much better shot than they do now, because their participation in debates would be welcomed by the major party candidates (as they attempt to garner their supporters’ second or third choices and fear them as “spoilers”). This would have the effect of opening up the range of political debate and force major parties to engage issues they might otherwise ignore. Third party and independent candidates are also more likely to be elected seeing as their supporters can vote for them first without fear of inadvertently helping to elect a candidate they despise. But regardless of who is elected in the end, the greatest thing about and IRV system is that the true preference of the voters will be made known.

Lastly, as a Progressive, there is nothing I would like to see more than Libertarian-minded Republicans disassociating themselves with the Republican party thus destroying the public perception that the ideas of religious right represent the majority view, when in fact they just barely represent a majority of conservatives. As for the likelihood of IRV catching on it should be noted that it is currently used in Australia and Ireland and London. It has been instituted in city elections across the country and enjoys the support of such prominent figures and Senator John McCain and the newly elected Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean. So there is hope, we just need to apply more pressure at the State and local level.

Reform #3: Abolish the Electoral College & Establish A Same-Day Party Primary

Every four years the contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination flood New Hampshire and Iowa with non-stop, door-to-door campaigning while the other fifty states are virtually ignored, save for some fundraising stops in California and New York. And seeing as a few states get to determine the whole dynamic of the race the other 25 to 50% of the states are excluded from the selection process because the nominee is usually already ordained by the media before they even have a chance to vote. This is because the states that vote after Iowa and New Hampshire are heavily influenced by the results in those two states, not to mention the subsequent media spin placed on who’s in and who’s out” which greatly skews how they would have voted had the primaries took place in all fifty states in a single day. And as a result, the eventual nominee tends to be more reflective of the preferences of people in the early voting states than the nation as a whole. And the only excuse that keeps this outdated system, which came before mass communication, television and jet planes, is tradition. There is no good reason that the Democratic Party couldn’t hold its primaries on the same day. However, seeing as the reform-minded Howard Dean is now the Chairman of the DNC and he knows first-hand what a royal pain it is to run in such a system, we may see this change sooner than later, provided of course he can show that such a change enjoys widespread support within the party.

But regardless of whether the existing system makes sense or not, the Democratic nominee then goes toe-to-toe with the Republican nominee (determined by an equally outdated process) in a handful of so-called swing states to the exclusion of all others. And again this handful of states gets the up-close-and-personal treatment while the others, if visited at all, are usually done so in order to raise money (not so much to engage the issues important to the populations of those state). As a result, the swing states suffer overkill while the rest of us are reduced to mere spectators. Because of the winner-take-all system (necessary for the electoral college to “work”) it is virtually denied that the red states have substantial blue regions and blue states have substantial red regions. And as a result, the votes of Democratic African American’s are virtually nullified in the South, just as votes of Libertarian-minded Republicans are nullified in New York. What’s more, if all of California’s electoral votes are all but sure to go the Democratic candidate, why should a Democrat even bother voting, or a Republican in Texas for that matter? These people are hardly ever engaged by their own parties. It’s outrageous! And it does nothing but discourage voter turnout and increase our sense of alienation from our leaders and the system as a whole.

Imagine if it where different? What if your vote was just as important in the last election as someone’s in Ohio
or Florida. What if we all held the power to decide the final outcome? Some defenders of this antiquated system
have charged that if the Electoral College where abolished, candidates would only campaign in large, populous states. While they would surely spend more time campaigning in major population centers, the fact still remains that a vote is vote, and if they all count equally in the final tally, a good smart campaign will try to cover as much ground as possible, particularly if the opposition is likely to accuse them or ignoring certain regions. What’s more, with or without public financing of elections, the power of television adds would be greatly diminished seeing as it is much harder to target voters nationwide with television ads than it is in a handful of media markets in handful of closely contested swing states.

Yet another outrageous feature of the Electoral College system is that the votes of people in smaller states have much greater electoral value (or weight) than the votes of people in large states. This is because each state gets one electoral vote for each of the state’s Representatives and Senators. The number of Representatives in a state is determined by that state’s population while all states, be they California or Rhode Island still have two senators. And a few states are so small that they either and equal number of Senators than Representatives or more Senators than Representatives. So swing-state or no swing-state, if you’re voting in Rhode Island or Wyoming your vote is effectively twice (or more) as powerful as those voting in California, Texas or New York. How is that fair? Imagine the public outrage if Congress passed a law explicitly made some peoples votes count more than others. There would be rioting in the streets! The existing system is no different. It’s just accepted because it’s been that was for so long, or, more likely, because people are totally unaware of the inequality.

What is particularly comical is when some people defend the Electoral College by citing the mystical wisdom of the founding fathers. What they fail to realize that many of them thought the Electoral College was a bad idea as well; federalists and anti-federalists alike. For instance, James Madison, of the primary architects of the Constitution and one its staunchest defenders wrote, " The present rule of voting for President... is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality... and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate and best friends."

Thomas Jefferson, on the anti-federalists side of the fence had this to say about the Electoral College.
“ I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election [that determined by the Electoral College]…as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit.”

And by ”someday hit,” Jefferson was referring to a Constitutional Crises, not unlike the one we almost experienced in the year 2000 when the electors of given state where called into question or an election could have been effectively determined or overturned by a single elector changing his or her vote in the Electoral College. What’s more, the so-called founding fathers where not the only ones to see the inequality and inherent danger of the Electoral College. As recently as 1967 the American Bar Association (the nation’s legal experts) officially declared," The electoral college method of electing a President of the United States is archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous." But perhaps the most compelling argument against the Electoral College is that, if it didn’t exist, and we elected the President by popular vote, no one would dare suggest creating it. It should also be noted that while many countries have copied the American system of government, not a single one has copied the Electoral College.

In conclusion, there are a lot of great proposals on the table that could offer voters a greater stake and voice in the halls of government, which could make it more representative and responsive to the will of the people. The fact of the matter is that the system has become stagnant and requires the kind of radical change that Thomas Jefferson suggested would be necessary from time to time. My unlikely bother in arms, Krist Novoselic made this comparison, “ Once music becomes predictable and a formula to sustain the establishment, people tune out, they become cynical and they stop buying records. But then a new wave of bands come in and restore vitality to the music scene…. What we need [today] is a new wave of democracy, because elections are predictable and they’re formulas for sustaining the establishment.”

All we need to do is get involved, whether it be in some organization or just popularizing the concept of such reforms with our own friends and family. What’s cool about these ideas is that they are neither liberal nor conservative on their face. They just make sense. And speaking of making sense, here’s another idea: How about an election holiday so the working stiffs can get out there and vote too. Too many holidays you say? We could always drop Columbus Day; he wasn’t American and he didn’t discover squat.

Resources

California Clean Money Campaign [caclean.org]
Good IRV Website [instantrunoff.com]
The Center for Responsive Politics [opensecrets.org]
Novoselic’s Website [fixour.us]