Fixing The Vote (Part Two)

Campaign finance reform is always on the periphery of politics, but not because the politicians in power want to change the very system that they have carefully constructed to maintain the status quo. Rather, these reforms are trotted out every so often as a means of placating the public, to assure us that our elected officials are making every effort to stay noble to the cause of public service while avoiding possible conflicts of interest with potential donors. The truth is that campaign finance is a sham, a game played by the wealthy corporations and the individuals that run them. Our system of funding candidates and elections is nothing more than a shell game run by charlatans. Despite the large number of complex regulations currently applied to campaign financing, the fact of the matter is that the system has been brutally finessed by those who seek access to power and have the money to buy it.

A primary cause for voter apathy is the fact that most political candidates do not represent the average citizen. It is hard to get enthusiastic about electing as your representative to the lawmaking halls of society someone with whom you have no common connection or point of view. The average citizen is not born in a wealthy family. They are not universally educated at the most expensive universities. They do not have six figure incomes, luxury boats, or domestic servants. Now take a look at the average politician at the federal and state levels of government. Most are millionaires, from well off families, living a life more luxurious than their countrymen. For people in this position, it becomes difficult to imagine, let alone empathize with, the life of ordinary people. But the costs associated with running an election, even a relatively small local contest, is beyond the means of most citizens who would likely take a shot at being involved if only they could afford the price of admission. What we end up with is the usual slate of candidates, well connected to the established political machines and corporate donors, offering little real choice for voters who crave change. For those left in the game (for that’s what it has truly become) the commencing battle becomes less one of ideas than one of wallets. The only winners are the corporations themselves, giving money for access and getting it back threefold or more when their candidate gets in. They play the odds and support both sides, so they’re always guaranteed a victory. And while it may be technically illegal under today’s laws for corporations to donate to a candidate directly, the spirit of the campaign finance laws are always circumnavigated by the crafty legal teams hired by the corporations and wealthy individuals who think that their great wealth gives them the right to rule the world.

Real reform is what we need if we are going to have a shot at getting our government back from the corporate interests who dominate the halls of legislation these days. We must leveling the playing field for candidates and lower the costs of running a campaign. First, we must enact tight spending limits on all campaigns including the amount of money a candidate (or their campaign committee) can collect. This will have the effect of reducing the amount of money donated, thereby reducing the inequity of influence by donors. Limits can be based on a cost per voter formula, costs per week of campaigning, or other such assessment. Second, we much put a cap on the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign and eliminate any kind of collective corporate, union, or PAC donation drives. This cap could be tiered for each level of government, with a lower threshold set for local elections up to a maximum of $1,000 per person in federal elections. This regulation would have the effect of removing inappropriate influence from single entities contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a campaign, in effect buying a candidate. It would also give individuals greater control over their own political dollars by eliminating de facto political contributions culled from membership dues and other collective, but not necessarily elective, mandatory costs. Third, we must limit the number of weeks that active campaign advertising can take place, both for a primary run-off and a general election. By reducing the length of campaign advertising to within a month before a primary or general election, we would not only force candidates to spread their message through actually meeting and talking with constituents, we would reduce the costs of campaigning by reducing the amount of advertising that would be purchased.

Next, we must mandate that commercial broadcasters (who currently have practically free reign of the publicly owned airwaves and broadband spectrums) provide free political advertising for all candidates in a general election and token rates for all candidates in a primary election. These businesses exist at the good will of the Congress, with a stated obligation to use their frequencies for the public good. It is arguable that television shows are somewhat to blame for the dumbing down of Americans, so merely running their regular programming, laced with commercial messages, doesn’t really satisfy the obligation. Mandating political advertising concessions would be a small price for these companies to pay for the privilege of growing rich on the publics back. In return, broadcasters could be free to charge whatever rate they could command for any private political ads, provided they are issue oriented and contain no reference to a specific candidate. Such soft-money ads are often just a front for a candidates political assassin squad, but eliminating their ability to discuss anything but a particular public issue, without mentioning a candidates name or position, would remove some of their persuasive power, at least so far as demonizing a candidate is concerned, and would make the public learn about a candidates views by talking to them instead of relying on sound bites.

Fifth, limit political party contributions to candidates, making would-be politicians focus their energy on meeting the citizens and raising money through them. Political party funds could instead be used to pay for bipartisan (or multi-partisan) election commissions who would monitor, organize, and validate election results, prepare voter informational materials and cover the hard costs of having an election. And finally, each level of government should establish a specific fund that would pay the living costs of the non-incumbent, local and state candidates during the general election campaign cycle, up to a certain amount. This would allow people who have public service in their blood the ability to make a run for office without having to lose their home or have their kids go hungry while they were on the campaign trail. We’re not talking about extravagant funds, but enough to make the bills while standing up for election.

When it comes to the candidates themselves, there are several ways we can reduce the costs associated with entering politics, and reduce the probability of improper influence peddling through political contributions. First, we should remove any regulations that allow a prospective candidate to purchase their way on to the ballot. In many areas, in order to qualify for a primary ballot, you must collect a significant number of signatures from people living in the district you wish to represent. Or you can just pay a fee, usually more than a thousand dollars for federal or state office, and several hundreds for many local races. Those with the money just pay the fee, bypassing the whole “connect with the common man” element that signature gathering fosters. But the number of signatures is usually next to impossible for a working person who can’t afford to pony up the dollars to get in the door. Level the playing field here and you’ll get more people who look like the voters. Let’s remove the “fee option” and reduce the total number of signatures required to get on a primary ballot.

Also, we should prohibit all elected officials from soliciting donations prior to three months before an election. They are not supposed to be campaigning during their terms anyhow. It is hard to govern when you spend all your time begging for money. That, and the fact that their incumbency should give them an upper hand in collecting campaign funds would reduce their exposure even more to those who would try to buy influence. First time candidates could get and extra month or two to raise funds and build name recognition. At the end of an election, all campaign funds not used would go to the national campaign fund or be divided by the prominent political parties for use in the next election cycle. Presidential candidates would have somewhat larger collectible donation thresholds and longer campaign periods simply due the size of a national constituency.

The final piece of the puzzle is the administration of swift and harsh punishment for politicians or political professionals who violate the public campaign finance laws. If found guilty of gaming the system for their benefit or for another person’s benefit, they should be dealt with as treasonous individuals who would subvert our government for their own selfish gain. The rules should be clear and simple, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Any efforts to bypass the spirit of the law should also be dealt with by banishing the offender(s) from public political aspirations. Such unbending resoluteness against any corruption may be just the deterrent needed to help end the abuse and usher in Common Sense reform.

Fixing The Vote (Part One)

Voting is fundamental to our system of democracy. It is through our votes that we pass initiatives that shape our laws. It is through our votes that we elect people to the halls of government. Without the ability to voice our political desires, democracy does not exist. But, as with so many other facets of our political and social reality, the practice of voting, and of counting the votes, has become an exercise in the ridiculous as voter apathy and party corruption distort the outcome, leaving the average citizen less represented than ever before. The title of this essay, Fixing the Vote, is an intentional double entendre, for it most aptly describes both problems of apathy and corruption while admitting that something must be done.

For many of us, voting as a concept is instilled early in our lives through student council elections. We experience our first campaign slogans, often just clever rhymes, and encounter our first campaign smears, often just childish retorts. We learn the concept of selecting someone to “represent” our class interests, but since as school children we really have few pressing political goals, class elections inevitably turn into individual popularity contests, with the outcome being of little consequence, except for bragging rights to the winners. While this may expose us to the fundamental mechanics of voting, it also creates an impression of what politics in the adult world will be like, and the seriousness of the whole system is lost. Perhaps this kind of political indoctrination is part and parcel to some grand scheme to keep political (and therefore, practical) power concentrated in the hands of the elite classes, perhaps it is just a reflection of what our real life politics have become. Regardless, the result is the same: large numbers of adults eschewing politics and voting because it seems pointless or unimportant in the big picture of life.

The result is predictable: elected officials are selected by a minority of eligible voters and supported by corporations and unions and special interests. As fewer voters participate in elections, politicians become less accountable to their supposed constituents and spend more and more time currying favor with their money mills, passing favorable legislation for their corporate cronies and filling non-elected positions with their sycophant fund raising hacks. The common voter, seeing the corruption sitting at the table of power, loses even more confidence in “the system” and opts out of future elections. As elected officials come from a narrower and narrower sampling of society, they tighten the rules of admission, effectively keeping out those same people who are frustrated with the way things are, leaving fewer options for real change available at the ballot box. The whole circle becomes a vicious feeding frenzy, engorging itself on its own rotten fruit.

What then can we do to change the way things are? The problems of voter apathy, voter disenfranchisement, and political funding must be taken on squarely and addressed with Common Sense solutions. Each must be reformed for the whole to be repaired and for the people of this country to reclaim for themselves real representation in the halls of government, from the smallest towns to Washington, D.C.

Ending Voter Apathy In 2004, 58.3% of eligible voters cast ballots in the national election. In most local and state elections, the percentage was even lower. While this represents an increase from the 51.3% who voted in the 2000 elections, since 1976, the year of our national bicentennial, the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots surpassed 60% only one time- in 1992, when 61.3% voted. Even if all other problems with our voting process were removed, at least 40% of voting age adults in this country do not take the time to make their voices heard. The number one reason for not voting (at nearly 21% of respondents) was because people were “too busy.” Another 20% either didn’t like the candidates they had to choose from or felt their vote would make no difference. In fact, legitimate excuses such as illness, lack of transportation, and inclement weather together only account for 18% of excuses for not voting.

Ending voter apathy clearly will be tough work, but a little creative thinking could reinvigorate the average person to hit the polls, especially if they know that by doing so, they are helping themselves. And in our ever-quickening pace of life, with its increased productivity expectations, making elections a priority has got to be given higher visibility. We should start by making election days official holidays, with half-pay for all employed voters, and free refreshments for everyone. With the exception of medical and emergency personnel, all retail, service, and manufacturing activities would grind to a halt on elections days, encouraging citizens to participate in the running of their lives and deflecting the “too busy” excuse. We can sweeten the pot even more by instituting an election lottery. Create a lottery system that guarantees at least one winner in each state a substantial financial reward for participating in elective democracy, and multiple smaller awards for state and local elections. (The money to pay these awards could be culled from tax receipts earmarked for electoral expenditures.) These two measures alone could draw back many of the so-called “disenfranchised” voters by appealing to their “me” centers. You could further induce voting by adding a “stick” to the “carrot” approach, essentially fining any eligible voter who doesn’t vote. Combined with the reward possibilities, voting would begin to look less and less problematic.

Increasing the number of voter’s casting votes is the first step towards fixing the vote. As larger numbers of people make their voices heard, it becomes increasingly difficult for politicians to claim mandates for their programs that may not exist. It becomes harder to shun accountability when more of the public is engaged in the system. But increasing the number of voters alone doesn’t guarantee a better system. Eventually, those people who always vote and never win the election lottery will need to satisfy their own “me” centers, which is where voter disenfranchisement (and early education about civic responsibility) comes in to play.

Voter Disenfranchisement The way the system works now, by the time an election day rolls around, the choice of candidates is extremely narrow. Through a system of awkward primaries that exclude all but the majority party candidates through a concerted lack of exposure by the media and the electoral commissions, voters often feel as if the only real choices available are not representative of their own political and social goals, and decline to vote at all. The effects of this practice alienate voters and exclude a potentially large body of candidates from getting a chance at all. To the political parties and their poster children, this system has guaranteed a perpetual sew-saw struggle of pathetic proportions, but the reins of power are certain to remain within their spheres of influence, so they prefer the status quo of low turn-out and limited candidate eligibility.

Again, a little imagination could offer a solution to this problem. The primary system should include an independent (or non-affiliated) election primary as well as the organized party primaries, with the top two or three non-affiliated candidates getting a place on the final ballot as well as equal exposure. These “all-comer” candidates could offer viable alternatives to the present cadre of politicians, many of whom would be needed to really get down to the business of creating change.

Disenfranchisement also addresses the problems of voter registration and convenient polling stations. While only 9.5% of non-voters listed these as reasons for abstaining, that still represents several million people who need to be casting their votes. To erase the problems with voter registration, we should move to an automatic registration program, perhaps using biometric indicators and Social Security numbers to get every person in the voter rolls. If it were a biometric indicator, like fingerprint or retina or DNA, the information could be gathered upon birth, stored in an encrypted data base until one achieved voting age, and then registered with the appropriate state and local jurisdictions automatically at the appropriate time. Upon voting, one would simply match their bio data to that in the record, and proceed to the ballot. Through the Social Security system automatic registrations based on the address of ones job could help establish proper jurisdiction for allocating ones vote. And while the debut of computer or online voting has so far been fraught with claims (both documented and undocumented) of fraud and abuse, the problems of poll convenience could be eliminated through a digital voting system, albeit one with stringent security mechanisms, tangible voting records and receipts (necessary anyhow, for the lottery enticement), automatic count verification, and total transparency.

Political funding is the third leg of reform with regards to fixing the vote, and it deserves an essay all on its own, because it includes reforming how we fund campaigns, how we learn about our candidates, and how we verify that votes are valid. I hope you will join me again as I explore more solutions that will give government back to the citizens.