Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democracy and Elections

America Is in Major Need of Electoral Reform

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation. Posted July 7, 2008.


America is experiencing a surge of hope -- the time is right to invigorate our damaged democracy and capture greater power for the people.
Advertisement

Democracy in America made a surprising -- and welcome -- comeback this spring. Many of us assumed the front-loaded primary season meant the contest would be less democratic than ever, but instead Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were forced to fight the longest and most nationally inclusive race for a presidential nomination in history. About 3.5 million new voters registered and cast ballots, boosting participation among young people and people of color to new highs. More people voted in the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and Indiana than turned out for John Kerry in those states during the 2004 presidential race. The previously untapped potential of our democracy was on full display.

No candidate has spoken to this potential more directly than Obama. Millions of Americans embraced the presumptive Democratic nominee's "firm conviction...that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."

Obama's audacious hope is intoxicating, but that hope must be sustained by a vision of what a more perfect union would look like.

Essential to realizing that vision in the twenty-first century is a transformation that doesn't rank high in any poll or list of probable reforms.

If we are to realize the potential the primary season has revealed and begin moving toward that more perfect union, if we are to finally transcend our downsized politics of excluded alternatives, progressives will have to drive a bold agenda to invigorate democracy at home and capture greater power for the people. There may never be a better time than the next few years.

Some in Washington have touted the export of democracy abroad (often with disastrous results) while they neglect our own. The terrible irony is that they would not grant unconditional funding to a country whose democratic design looks like ours. The machinery of American democracy is broken: mistakes, chicaneries, snafus and disasters debilitate almost every race everywhere, every two years, with the result that an increasing number of Americans report feeling alienated by the voting process.

There are clear signs of the decline of our democracy: registration and voter turnout lag far behind other democracies; ever larger numbers of citizens are disenfranchised; the cost of running for office is spiraling out of control, excluding citizens of average means from participating in government; and our media, the forum for the healthy debate so essential to any democracy, are increasingly incapable of acting in the public interest.

This decline predates the 2000 presidential contest. Some of its roots are found in the invidious history of racial discrimination of which Senator Obama (all too briefly) reminded us. That unresolved election focused attention on our increasingly dysfunctional electoral system and the larger problems of our democracy. The past seven years of extremist Republican rule have stymied every effort to address the flaws that the 2000 election revealed.

Pollsters tell us that "process reforms" don't galvanize voters. Candidates slight them. Pundits often scorn them, assuming that money will always dominate and that corruption is simply a fact of nature. But the primary season just past -- which saw Americans of every background and political persuasion becoming experts on superdelegates and tuning in to a live broadcast of the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee meeting -- suggests that Americans do care about how our elections are run, and that they want them to be fair and functional. Obama -- and, for that matter, Republican John McCain, who made his reputation as an election reformer -- should, in this election year, address the concerns of millions of Americans about a broken system. And in 2009 progressives should recognize that it is vital to break from cynicism and advance a vision of government that is, in fact, of the people, by the people and for the people. It's time for Just Democracy.

The crisis

American representative democracy is in trouble. New flash points arise daily; others have been with us for years:

The Supreme Court recently upheld Indiana's harsh new law requiring voters to present a photo ID or be denied their right to vote, despite its potential to disenfranchise many people. That was a green light for building new barriers to voting.

The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law recently declared Florida to be "the most hostile state in the nation to new voters -- particularly in traditionally underserved communities that might otherwise see record-breaking participation in this presidential election year." The number of registered voters in Florida has actually dropped seven percentage points since 2004, to only 65 percent of those eligible.

Roughly one-third of all eligible Americans, 64 million people, are not registered to vote. This percentage is even higher for African-Americans (30 percent) and Hispanics (40 percent). Shockingly, for those between the ages of 18 and 24, it climbs to 50 percent. Registration rates are directly correlated with income: about 80 percent of those who make $75,000 or more a year are registered to vote, while only about 55 percent of those who make between $15,000 and $24,999 are registered. It's unacceptable for this country's registration rate to be so low.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democracy

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Pabulum for the Slick Barry set
Posted by: Teller on Jul 7, 2008 3:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She writes, "We're calling for radical democracy, birthed by bare-knuckled politics," yet there's nothing in this tedious gruel that is radical or bare-knuckled. Rather it reads like an application for a job in the administration of her beloved high-finance water carrier and friend of Tony Rezko - but will Slick Barry be able to find a spot for her amid the phalanx of Clintonoids with whom he's surrounded himself? Maybe she could take dictation from Anthony Lake, or Robert Rubin, or Madeleine "We think the price is worth it" Albright.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Happiness starts at home!
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 7, 2008 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dont think our democracy is broken, I think our leaders are broken. What we really need are true leaders, not "party" advocates. More importantly, Americans need to become more involved in the outcomes of their lives. Many complain about high oil prices but do nothing to help combat it - ie use less. We complain about lost jobs but we continue to buy the cheaper gods made in China.

We can have a great leader, or change the way government works, but if we are not willing to make the sacrifices, it wont make much difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Going to the highest bidder...
Posted by: magistre on Jul 7, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our democracy isn't broken, it was sold like everything else in this country. In this country corporations have more "rights" than the ordinary citizen.
And as I said to Barrack Obama about six months ago, "Are you the candidate we like? Or are you the candidate we're suppose to like?!".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our democracy is not!
Posted by: leland61 on Jul 7, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy and the masses of people have almost no real part in what government does.

1. Direct Democracy: one person one vote. No electoral college - a devise put in place to thwart the will of the people if it does not accord with the will of the ruling elite: including the "Founding Fathers" who were hardly part of the 'masses' of people but privileged land and slave owners.

2. Public funding of all elections. Not one red cent of private money. The airwaves belong to the people. The government, acting on behalf of the people, can order all radio and television stations to carry advertising and debates for free - they are already raping the public and fleecing every dollar they can get on our airwaves.

3. For the presidential race. One nationwide publicly funded primary that would include all candidates for president - regardless of political affiliation. The top two contenders face a runoff in 30 days.

These are three essential ingredients to reform the the process and make it truly democratic and fair.

Another way that would produce fairer elections with more voices heard would be to change our government to a parliamentary system - but with public funding and no private dollars allowed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Our democracy is not! Posted by: madregal
» RE: Our democracy is not! Posted by: Clockwise Cat
Now on to education !
Posted by: reelectnoone on Jul 7, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am delighted more people are appearing to vote. By my observations, more are taking the time to learn about the issues and speak out.

It is good...but still not enough. We need ways to drag more people, screaming and kicking, to learn what their government is, how it should work and what is broken.

More uneducated voters could be worse than fewer but better educated ones when it comes to a difference that helps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good to See IRV Get Some National PR, but...
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 7, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I think the author doesn't tout its advantages as well as she could, nor really the problems it helps to mitigate. The dominance of two-parties is, on the face of it, a problem, but when you consider how it arises from our electoral process itself, you realize it is actually a response to the deeper insufficiencies of that process. As a response, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It's comparable to the nasty symptoms you get when you have a cold or the flu: they suck, but their absence despite the presence of infection would probably mean worse things.

IRV doesn't simply remedy the two-party system (a symptom) any more than a decongestant remedies a cold (a deeper problem). IRV remedies the way our political choice appear to us from without---notably in the media, but also in the sense that makes "Candidate A stole votes from Candidate B" meaningful, as if the votes belonged to them. In this sense, our vote is not our own, but almost literally the property of the candidates. When our political choices appear to us to come from sources other than us, the electorate, then our political will is effectively not our own. Worse yet is the triangulation that takes place between us, the politicians, and the supposed place where we meet to tell them what to do. We end up compromising with the politicians and media, rather than amongst ourselves, which is both the source and the end of political polarization from Nixon onward.

What's at stake in calling for IRV is not simply the "freedom of choice," if that at all, but the ability to take political responsibility. In this sense, it is not only demands that we change how we look at politicians ("now with more choices!"), but how we look at our own political responsibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This agenda for electoral reform is incomplete
Posted by: Earthian on Jul 7, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Katrina vanden Heuvel's article states, for implementing her suggestions for reform:

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus could take the first step, calling on Democratic leaders to support the agenda detailed here."

The problem is that this agenda is incomplete.

It falls well short of even recommending full public financing of elections, something done in every advanced, established democracy.

She writes: "Short of introducing a system of full public financing, one modest proposal . . ."

So her modest proposal would preserve the distortions of money in the electoral process. But that is not all of where this article falls short.

The article mentions a need for proportional representation, but offers no solutions to having a true multi-party democracy. New Zealand did this in the mid-1990s, eventually choosing a version of the German model called MMP. This gives each citizen in their parliament a party vote, and translates the resulting percentages directly into seats, and yet still allows district representation. Each small party above five percent of the party vote gets that many total seats in the legislature.

And she fails to even mention that the over-powered Senate (with control over treaties, cabinet appointments and judiciary appointments) is grossly unrepresentative. Wyoming has two seats for less than 500,000 people, while California has two for over 36 million people. If California had proportional representation in the Senate, it would have over 144 Senators. This problem has been described by many progressive writers. And some key Senate powers should be given to the House.

She fails to point out that The People of the United States can decide no question by petition and referendum.

We cannot elect the president by direct, popular vote (which she mentions, preferring IRV). But not only that, we cannot amend the current Constitution with amendments proposed by the people. Montana can do this. So can many other states. If we had Montana's amending article, ten percent of the people of America, including 10 percent of half the states, could propose either amendments (such as one to recall presidents and vice-presidents or banning private contributions for ads during elections) or a new constitutional convention itself to modernize the ancient 1787 document, with majority rule determining the final decision. (Our states have had over 200 such constitutional conventions.) Yet she fails to challenge the problems of Article V for amending our Constitution with five percent of the population represented from the 13 small states able to block any amendment or a convention.

And there are many other key omissions from the standard progressive electoral reform platform.

For this more comprehensive agenda, see the Green Party Platform, the Kucinich platform and the Nader platform. Also, see these books:

Steven Hills "10 Steps to Improve American Democracy"
Dan Lazare's "Frozen Republic"
Sanford Levinson's "Our Undemocratic Constitution"
Larry Sabato's "A More Perfect Union"
Robert Dahl's "How Democratic is the American Constitution?"

This article is good as a first step. But the agenda the CPC should propose in Congress needs to be informed by the standard progressive electoral reforms platform taken from the above sources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Start with the nominating Process
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jul 8, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being one of the SCREWED Michiganders, One Day all candidates Primary vote is one of of my mantras. This would end the elimination process, which is innately unfair to all states who fall in the middle or end of the voting process.Why should the last state to cast their ballots be relegated to who ever is left standing. I hold the leading 'Dems' in my state responsible for not only the fiasco But also the rigging that occured. No Dem is guaranteed my vote in Nov- esp incumbants like Levin -traitor to our Party,state,and country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electoral College Flunks
Posted by: Malbone on Jul 9, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can argue about optical voting, ballot stuffing and dirty tricks all we want to, but the essential fact is that no one polling place would be statistically significant if voting in presidential elections were truly national.

Having 535 Electors vote for President is not a whole lot different from simply having the 535 members of Congress -- 468 of whom are elected on the same day -- choose the President. Why do we tolerate one but not the other?

The solution is a simple Constitutional amendment:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America who shall hold that office for a term of four years and, together, with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, shall be elected by the people of the United States. No citizen of the United States shall be denied the right to vote in a presidential election."

Come on folks, someone has to start this rolling!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lectoral College Flunks Posted by: donl51
Range voting an even better option
Posted by: richa on Jul 17, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a definite improvement over the plurality system we now use for Presidential elections, and it has the advantage over several other alternative methods that it has recently been implemented in a number of USA cities. However, i've become convinced that range voting is so far superior that it deserves support rather than IRV.
Range voting allows each candidate to be given a "score" in a given range, say 1-5, with 1 being least favorite up to 5 being most favorite. This system is commonly used on the web, such as in rating books on various bookseller sites. The candidate with the highest average score (and meeting a minumum threshold of votes) wins. It is simple in practice, is said to be compatible with existing voting machines (IRV often is not), and would eliminate the so-called "spoiler" effect, while allowing third parties the chance to grow and compete.
More information is available at rangevoting.org. The best overview of the various proposed voting systems for Presidential and other inherently single-candidate elections (such as mayors and governors) is provided in William Poundstone's recent book "Gaming the Vote", which i highly recommend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]