9 Solutions For Our Broken Election System

With the close of the mid-term elections last week, and the beginning to the ramp up to the 2012 election, it occurred to me that this whole system sucks. It has created what can only be called a permanent campaign. Campaigns filled with empty promises, misleading and pervasive political adverts, and the politics of personal destruction.

The whole damn thing is exhausted and ineffective. Too often we end up with far less than the best options for public office. Our candidates end up primarily focused on keeping their jobs as opposed to giving us a decent reason as to why they should deserve the gig in the first place. Then--once in office--there seems to be more concern on the part of the official of figuring out how to get re-elected as opposed to being remembered for anything of merit.

So, what to do?

Well, here is my flawed (perhaps), incomplete (probably), and doomed (certainly) prescription for our cracked election system.

Here we go:

1) Term limits for senators and representatives-This is a pretty safe and popular solution that simply lacks political traction (a recurring theme). As voters, we often complain about "career politicians." And we're right to. Why in the world should the president be limited to two terms while members of congress can serve past the point of decrepitude (see Strom Thurmond)? I mean really, why are these guys so damn special? Furthermore, why do senators get a 6 year term and house members only 2?

In the kingdom of Dave, senators and representatives would both get two 4 year terms then they're out. While the current 6 year term for senators is undeniably fatuous, I actually think the two year term for representatives is even worse. It creates a cycle of working for the public good for one year then spending the next year trying to win re-election. So in a sense, we're only getting one year of work versus one year of campaigning. Does this make sense to anyone?

Now, I know the concern would be what happens to the exceptional public servant that might deserve more than two terms. Well, first off, those folks are true exceptions. Secondly, they could still run for other offices outside of the ones they are leaving. And lastly, I wouldn't be against a politician running for senate a third time as long as they sat out one cycle.

Limited terms for all nationally elected politicians would foster an influx of new ideas on a consistent basis while also allowing current office holders the ability to focus on getting things done instead of figuring out how to keep their jobs. Hell, it might even create a climate where courage and bipartisanship actually have a chance.

2) Publicly funded elections-One of the main concerns of most voters is all the money that comes in from outside groups and infects the integrity of the process. We could eliminate this concern by requiring politicians to take only public funding. Can you imagine how interesting it would be if the democratic and republican nominees for presidents had a budget of say, $80 million a piece? We could actually see who could manage a damn budget. That would be worth it's weight in gold. Not only that, but since public funding would come from tax payers instead of corporations, political action committees, and the like, maybe--just maybe--politicians would be more beholden to us than the fat cats who now line their pockets.

3) Non-partisan redistricting-One of the dirty little secrets in American politics is that in most states, the governor's office controls redistricting. This allows whichever party in power to gerrymander districts and increase their chances of taking more house seats in the subsequent election. To give you an example, in my state of Indiana--where the governor is republican, Mitch Daniels--there is much discussion of moving Laporte County out of the 2nd district prior to the 2012 election. Why does this matter? Well, in last week's mid terms, Democrat, Joe Donnelly one re-election by a single percentage point. And, if you take out the results from Laporte County (which went for Donnelly by over 20 points), Donnelly would have been toast. Of course, there may be valid reasons in some circumstances to redistrict. But in this particular instance, the only reason to redistrict is to guarantee the election of a particular party. Not very democratic to say the least. Both sides do this, and it is shameful.

My fix for this would be to create a committee in each state to consider the merits of redistricting and the most fair way to implement the process when necessary. Some states already do this. In those states that don't, they are essentially giving the ruling party the power of a king. Not a good idea to say the least.

4) Make all voting machines electronic and uniform-One of the most confusing aspects to voting is the myriad systems at play on election day. Punch ballots, lever pulling, darken the circle, and electronic voting are all in use in a variety of states and counties. Wouldn't it be best to have the same system everywhere? In the modern age, can't we all use electronic voting machines? Of course, the concern is the possibility of tampering with the machines as well as the lack of a receipt being provided by the device. To which I say, build machines that print a damn receipt. The receipt would provide you a number and allow you to confirm that your vote was tabulated correctly. No more butterfly ballots, hanging chad (the plural of chad is chad), or Supreme Court decided elections. Can't we all get behind that?

5) Allow early voting and voting by mail everywhere-There has been some progress here. Many states now allow early voting with no excuse necessary. As well, the state of Washington primarily votes by mail in all elections. Not only does this increase voter involvement, but it reduces the cost of elections while also making the tabulation of votes more efficient. Making the voter process cheaper, more convenient, and inclusive is as democratic an idea that I can think of.

6) Not election day, election days-For the life of me, I can't figure out why election day has to be in the middle of the week and only held on one day. Wouldn't it be better and (once again) more inclusive to have elections held on Friday and Saturday? This would allow those who prefer to vote the conventional way two chances to hit the polls including a weekend day. What would we lose? The single night election coverage on the various networks? Big deal. Sure, it would feel different to not have all the results on the same day, but it's an election not a pageant. We can afford to wait a day if it allows more people to participate in the process.

7) No closed primaries-In many primaries across the country, the only people that can vote are those with a particular party affiliation. This means that independents are often shut out of the primary process. Now, I do think that independents should have to choose either the democratic or republican primary to vote in, but they should not be left out. With more and more Americans registering as independents, inclusive primaries will be more necessary than ever to get a true result.

8) Repeal the law that allows only those born in America to run for president-Really, isn't this pretty silly in a nation of immigrants? I'm not saying that someone shouldn't have to be a citizen, but once they are, shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? What if you have a 40 year old candidate who has lived here for 36 years? Is he/she less American than the rest of us? How many of us speak Apache anyway? Besides, why should we be limiting the talent pool? Do we really have so many great candidates that we need to narrow the field? I don't think so.

9) End the Electoral College-One man, one vote. Right? Wrong. The fact is, you can get fewer votes for president and still win the election (see 2000). All because of the risible electoral college. A system created by our founders who feared the direct election of a presidential candidate. To put it another way, they didn't trust the public to make the right decision. Don't believe me? Well, here's a quote from Alexander Hamilton taken from the Federalist Papers:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

"A small number of persons" he said. That's not only outdated and undemocratic, but it's downright insulting. We'll give you a vote, but only a limited amount of control? In a country that is supposed to be "for the people and by the people," it's time to end the Electoral College.

And let's be clear, the issues aren't merely philosophical. The Electoral College discourages turnout. Say you live in a state like Utah that almost always votes republican in a presidential election. Why even come out? However, if your one vote was a part of the deciding cumulative tally, then wouldn't you feel more encouraged that your vote actually counts?

As well, the smaller states have a disproportionate effect on the election versus the larger states. It is a fact that if you live in California or Texas, your vote is worth less than that of someone in Delaware or Montana due to the way electoral votes are divvied out.

For example (taken from the FairVote Archives): "Each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people."

Now, the argument for this math is that you don't want to give the larger states too much say in the process. But should that mean you should favor what I like to call the "empty states?"

You could argue for the Electoral College for a million years, but to me it all comes down to this: One man, one vote. It's simple, clean, and fair. What more can we ask of our system?

So there you have it. My RX for what ails us. This list is by no means complete or without flaw. And truth is, I probably won't live to see any of these measures implemented.

But a boy can dream, can't he?

Sumo-Pop
November 13, 2010