Political Reform, Lesson 10: Declaring Our Independent Status

Depending on where you live, your official status as an independent voter may go by a variety of different terms, some good, some bad. The last I checked, here are some of the terms used in a sampling of states:

• Unaffiliated or No Affiliation
• No Party or No Party Affiliation
• Non-partisan
• Decline to State

Some states describe independents in such a way that if I lived in any of those states, I'd be tempted to write a postscript:

• New Jersey—"I do not wish to declare a political party affiliation at this time” ("Gee, give me a minute, though, and maybe I will")
• Oregon—“Not a member of a party” ("Not now, not ever, no way, no how")
• New York (in all caps, mind you)—“I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY” ("I SWEAR ON MY MOTHER'S GRAVE AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY")

Considering that it is elected or appointed officials who determine the language of voter registration forms, it's a wonder we don't have more egregious examples of language designed to manipulate voter registration rolls, as is the case in Arizona. That state managed to erase some 140,000 independent voters from its voter database by changing the wording of its registration forms. Where once you could register as an independent, as of 2006 your only choice was “Specify Party Preference.” It's no surprise that the major parties enjoyed sitting back and watching their ranks swell as some voters felt coerced into choosing a party.

Whatever. I am an independent, unaffiliated, non-partisan voter. I refuse to specify a party preference—because I have none—and I DO NOT WISH TO ENROLL IN A PARTY. EVER. SO THERE.

Political Reform, Lesson 9: Making Sure Our Votes Count

Until the 2000 presidential election, I never gave any thought as to whether or not my vote was actually tabulated. I just assumed it was. After all, this is America, for crying out loud. You fill out your ballot, something or somebody counts it, and that's that.

All voters have reason to be concerned about election problems: machines that malfunction, count a single vote multiple times, or lose thousands of other votes; prohibitively long lines at polling places, particularly in urban areas; holding elections on a workday; inadequately trained poll workers; and the lack of a paper trail of votes registered using electronic machines, among others.

But what makes this a specifically independent-voter issue is the fact that all too many election problems result from voter suppression tactics and election manipulation on the part of the major parties.

Republican strategist Paul Weyrich, one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority, once said this: "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find an example of a Democrat expressing a similar sentiment. Neither major party can lay an exclusive claim on efforts to suppress and manipulate the vote, which is yet another reason why many of us became independents. We refuse to be associated with two parties that are so determined to acquire and maintain power that they would try to keep the rest of us from voting if that would be to their advantage.

We can repair our broken elections systems, but first we need to look at just what needs fixing. Next time: one tactic that especially rankles independents.

Technorati Tags: vote suppression,vote manipulation,voting machines,independents,Paul Weyrich,election reform

Political Reform, Lesson 8: Drawing the Lines

Independents find this abuse of political power to be especially heinous. However, most Americans consider redistricting—drawing the lines of congressional districts—to be synonymous with "drowsy somnolence." Really, if you want to quickly kill a conversation with anyone other than a political junkie, just mention congressional redistricting.

Members of the U.S. Congress would have it no other way. They want us to be bored to death and as disengaged as possible when it comes to determining who will represent us. It's no secret that the two major parties often collude in drawing the district lines: You give us this area with all these Republican voters, and we'll let you have that area with all those Democratic voters.  

All this results in some pretty bizarre—and non-competitive—districts. Enter Manifold System's Dimitri Rotow, who created several Google Earth files showing some of the worst districts in the country. His work is an eye-opener, and pretty cool to boot.

You can also play The Redistricting Game, which was developed by some brains at USC to help the Mensa-challenged understand how legislative districts are created. “This system is subject to a wide range of abuses and manipulations that encourage incumbents to draw districts which protect their seats rather than risk an open contest," the website tells us. The game "allows players to experience the realities of one of the most important (yet least understood) aspects of our political system.” And—the thrills are never-ending—there's a game based on the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2007 (a.k.a. the Tanner Redistricting Bill), which calls for independent, rather than bipartisan, redistricting commissions and other reforms.

Then there's Gerryminder, an online simulation developed to teach college students about congressional elections, representation, and gerrymandering. "By putting students in a position to manipulate district lines in multiple contexts, Gerryminder provides a non-boring, experiential way to teach redistricting," we're told. Let me know what you think; I haven't given it a test drive yet.

There are lots of proposed solutions to this problem, but the powers that be are—surprise!—resistant to those efforts. One such proposal is particularly popular among independents—the creation of “superdistricts,” in which several legislators would represent a single district. They believe that such a reform would increase voter participation, offer fairer representation, and give independents and third-party candidates a chance to not only run but maybe even win.

Next time we move on to reforms that directly affect voters. And non-voters. Or both.

Uncounted Votes

 

Among the political reforms near and dear to the hearts of independent voters and candidates, as well as many partisans, is the need for an overhaul of the way our votes are tabulated. We'll get to that reform later, but right now it's time for recess. In fact, it's movie time.

I haven't seen this particular flick yet, but I'm looking forward to it almost as much as I did when I waited, with rapid and bated breath, for Serenity to come to town. Almost.

This one is called Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, and it takes a look at the vote-counting problems (shall we call it "election fraud"?) that plagued the 2004 and 2006 elections. And as I understand it, the film also shows how angry citizens turned their rage into political activism—the kind of transformation we need to see more of.

Check the website to see if a screening is scheduled to be held in your area. The director, David Earnhardt, holds a question and answer session after each screening.

Political Reform, Lesson 7: Throwing the Bucks Out

As much as I'd like to blame, oh, I don't know, some person for what I consider to be the single most harmful element in our political system, I can't. By comparison, it would be so easy just to throw the bum out if there was a bum to blame. But no. The most immoral, unconscionable, reprehensible factor in politics is the exorbitant and shameful amount of money that controls our elected officials, our legislative bodies, our elections, and as a result, our lives.

Yes, we're talking here about campaign finance reform.

Right now, the projections are that this will be our first $1 billion election. This would not be the kind of milestone we want to celebrate, right? Oh, the adjectives that come to mind! Unconscionable, disgraceful, heinous, abhorrent, scandalous, offensive.

Roget's cannot contain the number of legitimate and made-up words I could use to describe this atrocity.

I cannot wrap my head around the numbers that apply to campaign spending. Nor do I have the ability to figure out which of the many proposals for campaign finance reform might actually work. I'm assuming that if I did use my inconsiderable clout to back one such proposal, I'd eventually find out that it was a mere smokescreen for even more dubious financial dealings.

So I've boiled this issue down to the barest elements of what I need to know. I need to know that McCain-Feingold refers to the wildly unpopular 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which in part prohibits political parties from using soft money, the donations raised by political action committees (PACs) and nonprofit political groups (such as 527s). PACs are special interest groups (think the ever-evil "big tobacco"); 527s are organizations created specifically to impact elections (think the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). Hard money, by the way, is a direct donation to a candidate or campaign.

That's all I need to know. That and the fact that candidates spend way too much money buying our votes. Let's see—I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, so let me say up front that these stats are suspect, as is my math—in 2004, around 200 million people were eligible to vote, while about 125 million actually voted. Let's say that 140 million will actually vote this year, it being a year that should bring out lots more voters. Now let's say that half of those people would vote for their party's candidate regardless of who it is, so that whittles the number down to 70 million votes that are actually up for grabs. Oh, and let's figure that this year 10 million people have already decided that they will vote for third-party candidates who don't have any chance of winning and who raised very little money. So...that makes $1 billion divided by 60 million voters.* That means the two major-party candidates will have spent roughly $16 and change for each vote.

That doesn't sound like much, does it? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote is worth a whole lot more than that. In fact, it's priceless. I feel utterly cheapened.

Yes, it costs candidates a lot to get their message out. But not that much. Not $1 billion for one presidential race. Not so much that special interests end up funding the elections and calling the shots and ultimately running our lives. We need a better way to do this.

Among those trying to find a better way are Common Cause ("Holding Power Accountable"), Democracy21, the League of Women Voters, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Democracy Matters, and other groups that offer information on campaign finance reform. They are the ones who get my vote.

*I was an English major. If my calculation is wrong, you do the math.

Technorati Tags: campaign finance reform,political action committee,soft money,hard money,527s,Comon Cause,Democracy 21,League of Women Voters,Public Citizen,Democracy Matters

Political Reform, Lesson 6: Throwing the Bums Out

The first discussion on the issue of term limits that I recall having was with a political reporter at a newspaper where I once worked. He was such a firm believer in the power of the voting booth that he didn't see the need for term limits. He reasoned that term limits would work unfairly against good representatives and that all we needed to do was vote out the bad legislators. This, of course, was not an original perspective. This is the reasoning many people use in opposing term limits.

That reasoning fails on several counts. Count 1: Without term limits, those good representatives may turn into very bad career politicians. It's not a given, but look at the veteran members of Congress and compare who they are today with who they were when they were first elected. Without naming names—I'm all about keeping this impersonal—I think we could come up with one or two or 200 members of Congress who qualify as career politicians, and very bad ones at that.

Count 2: In a nation of 300 million-plus people, I do think we could scare up some effective representatives to succeed those whose terms have reached their limit. And the departing politicians, if they're all that good and effective, could surely find a way to continue serving the country.

Count 3: The good people of, say, Georgia would love the opportunity to vote out some of their career politicians. But when said politicians are so powerful that they consistently run unopposed, voting them out is not that simple. There are legislators across the land who own their districts; heaven help the candidates who mount viable campaigns opposing them.

Oh, and here's another argument against term limits: By the time a representative learns how the system in Washington (or your state capital) works, it would be time for him or her to go home for good. We need experienced members of Congress and our state legislatures, some people argue.

Counts 4 and 5: I say "Thank God!" to the first part and "Baloney!" to the second. Thank God that maybe one day none of our representatives will know how the system works. The system—politics as it is practiced in America today—is broken, corrupt, and in need of repair. I want representatives who, whether out of ignorance or determination, will pioneer a new way of doing politics. And as to the need for members of Congress with experience, I suggest that the worst kind of experience is that which comes from years, and even decades, of learning to work in a dysfunctional environment without attempting to change that environment. Again I say that in a nation of so many competent people, I do think we can find candidates whose experience outside of politics would serve the country well for a few years.

We imposed term limits on the presidency way back in the 20th century, and many independents and partisans alike feel it's time to do the same with Congress. Public support is as high as it is for the elimination of the electoral college, with more than 75 percent of the people favoring term limits. Some groups would like to impose a two-year limit on all members of Congress, while others have proposed a single, longer term. Citizens for Term Limits proposes one six-year term for senators and three two-year terms for representatives. Other groups include ThrowTheBumsOut.com (“The Independent Journal for Independent Politics”), whose mission is self-evident, as is the mission of the Pennsylvania-based PACleanSweep.com.

Some states and municipalities have already passed term-limit laws. You can find out what's going on in your state by visiting U.S. Term Limits (“Citizen Legislators, Not Career Politicians").

And before you even ask, yes, the independents I know support term limits on independent candidates. We're nothing if not fair.

Technorati Tags: political reform,term limits,career politicians,Citizens for Term Limits,ThrowTheBumsOut.com,PACleanSweep.com,U.S. Term Limits,independents,Congress

Political Reform, Lesson 5: Fusing Two Parties

Fusion in the political sense of the word is a controversial reform, even among independents. I probably should have saved it for Lesson 20 or so, but it fits in nicely with our recent ballot discussions, so there you go. Lesson 5 it is.

Here's the deal: Fusion allows a candidate to run as a member of two or more "parties," including as an independent. Partisans on the losing end of the deal hate fusion. Some independents don't like it either, because the fusion candidate is often associated with one of the two big, bad parties and because it gives voters fewer choices.

Case in point: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who ran, and won, as a Republican and as a candidate with the Independence Party of New York City in his 2002 election and 2006 re-election. His name appeared in the Republican column and the IPNYC column, and in 2002, the number of votes he received in the IPNYC column gave him the win. Had he run only as a Republican, he would have lost, assuming that the IPNYC votes would have gone to a different candidate chosen by the Independence Party. That "different candidate" would have at least given the voters an additional choice, some independents say.

But fusion has several advantages, not the least of which is its face-saving and conscience-saving value. In Bloomberg's case, independents, IPNYC and other third-party members, uncommitteds, and even a Democrat or two were able to vote for him without embarrassment or guilt; by voting for him as the IPNYC candidate, they could neatly circumvent the horror of voting for a Republican.

A second advantage is this, and again I use the Bloomberg campaign as an example: The Independent Party of New York City did not automatically embrace Bloomberg as its candidate of choice. The IPNYC held the cards; Bloomberg had to listen to independents' concerns, address those concerns, and pledge to make them a priority should he be elected. Only when he did so, to their satisfaction, was he named their candidate.

Partisans hate fusion, and you can see why. Running against the opposing major party's candidate is bad enough, but when that candidate has the official approval of independents and third parties, he or she becomes a much more formidable opponent. Not surprisingly, partisans are at the forefront of efforts to ban fusion in states where the practice is legal and to defeat pro-fusion initiatives in other states.

There you have it. Political fusion. Definitely not sexy, but it can liven up an otherwise ho-hum race.

Technorati Tags: fusion,Independence Party of New York City