Chapter 10. Reforming the System

Bob Botsch -- Fall 2008

Theme: See much discontent about how we choose a president (length, cost, negativity, voter knowledge and participation), and we wee many proposals, but none perfect, because:

• rules never neutral—losers are ones who usually want to change the rules
• all have trade-offs
• all create unanticipated consequences

Moreover, major reforms are unlikely because:

• people/parties/states have stakes in present system
• American political system biased against change
• Some signs of improvement, like increased turnout
• no major crisis—present system works reasonably well

I. Nomination Process -- Many Complaints

• length
• cost, rewards early money
• wear on candidates/voters
• mud over substance
• discourages good candidates--rewards fanatics
• too much media influence—they interpret the meaning of each primary
• few small states given disproportionate power
• candidate centered so that ties with other elected leaders are eroded

Proposal 1. Only allow only “closed” primaries

A. Benefits

· Nominee better reflects views of party base

· Prevents outsiders from interfering with process—crossover voting

B. Problems

· Disenfranchises independent voters

· Party base is more extreme ideologically

· Little evidence that crossover voting makes any difference

Proposal 2. Winner-take-all voting in primaries to avoid divided party

A. Benefits

· Chooses a winner sooner

· Decreases chances of deep divisions going to convention

B. Problems

· Helps initial frontrunners, penalizes dark-horse candidates

· Takes decision away from states

· Does not accurately represent voters in each state

Proposal 3. Shorten process

A. Benefits

· increase voter interest and does not sour voters

· reduce media influence and time for all those negative stories

· long process hurts sitting president who is lame duck

B. Problems

· previous attempts have largely failed

· states get exemptions and resist—front-loading hard to stop

· more concentrated primaries increases expense

· advantage to frontrunners

Proposal 4. Regional rotating primaries

A. Benefits

· Ensure broad based support

· Give equal weight to all regions b/c of rotation

B. Problems

· Promotes sectionalism

Proposal 5. National primary

A. Benefits

· Popular (usual plan is a 40% min w/o runoff)

· Consistent with 1 person 1 vote principle—voters everywhere have equal influence

· shorten process

· stimulate turnout

· focus on national problems, not problems in unrepresentative states like Iowa and NH

· More clear-cut results in terms of who wins

· Cuts media interpretation out of “winnowing-out” primary process

B. Problems

· undermines role of states in federal system

· bias to front-runners

· further isolates winners from party leaders and state parties

· if large field, extreme choice possible—the “voting paradox”

· antidote is "approval voting," but that may be too confusing

· creates two national elections every four years, maybe 3 or 4 with runoff—more voter fatigue

·

II. Campaign Finance: More Problems than solutions

• compliance and reporting can be evaded by 501C groups
• 527’s provide a way around ban on soft $
• Stealth party groups can continue to raise soft money in unlimited ways
• No serious candidate accepts matching money in primaries
• Have precedent for refusing general election money—may become new standard
• Obama has set new records on raising money using internet
• Few people will use check-off with new precedents, so public funding may be near dead
• June 2006 ruling in Randall v. Sorrell that Vt.’s contribution and expenditure limits violate 1^st Amend free speech rights
• June 2007 ruling in FEC v. Wisconsin undermines limits on issue ads under 1^st Amend.
• The balance between freedom to spend and equality of all citizens is tilted strongly in the direction of freedom, which generally favors wealthy interests (though Obama is a notable exception)

III. Problem of creating better informed voters

• How much do people need to know to cast an informed vote? Party model vs the vote the person/issues model
• Is sufficient information available? Yes, but it has costs, information costs
• Problem is our unwillingness to pay those costs—ignorance is very high—e.g. Obama being a Muslim
• Free air time proposal? Networks would strongly oppose and candidates already get much free air time (talk shows, soft news, cable news)

IV. Improving News Media Coverage

A. Many complaints

· too much drama and “horse race” coverage

· too little substance and issue coverage

· invites “spin” games

· tracking polls misused to fit game framework—reality tv—who is off island?

B. Reforms? Many impediments

· Danger of violating First Amendment free press

· media must respond to viewer desires—structural bias—of “newsworthy” stories

· how many times can you cover an issue position and attract audience?

· we can fact check ourselves if we really want—we are the problem

C. Should we place restraints on exit polls?

· Impact of voter turnout and results? Minimal if any

· We want to know who won—media competiton with self-imposed restraints on reporting while polls open

· More important, help us interpret mandate and what voters were thinking—important in a republic

V. Is Turnout a problem? How to increase

A. Many complaints about low turnout

· Bias in who winner represents—wealthier and more educated have more influence

· Winner usually does not gat a majority of votes from eligible population!

· Undermines legitimacy of electoral system

· makes governing difficult

· national embarrassment

B. Reforms—many gradually taking place

· mail ballot -- Oregon

· no-fault absentee ballot or extended voting time (used in 20 states)

· same day registration (used in a few states)

· national holiday -- Sunday or holiday voting

· citizenship education (like USCA’s American Democracy Program)

· grassroots campaigns, GOTV (used in 2004 and 8 with some success)

· forced to vote? Undemocratic? Right to not vote?

VI. Electoral College reforms?

A. Many complaints

· “faithless elector”

· non-plurality winner (2000)

· disenfranchised voters in noncompetitive states reduces turnout (good paper topic!)

· complexity—few understand

· possible strange results—e.g. temporary president serving at the pleasure of the House

B. Possible Reform 1: Automatic Plan

· no human electors

· only deals with trivial problem

· may need human electors if tragedy takes place between election and December

C. Possible Reform 2: Proportional Plan

· Electors divided proportionally to popular vote in each state

· Congress still chooses if no majority

· increases influence of 3rd parties

· Congress could reverse popular vote

· would have changed past elections: e.g. 1960

D. Possible Reform 3: District Plan

· vote like Maine and Nebraska

· smallest states still statewide -- no help to them

· increases importance of how district lines drawn

· incumbent mc’s want noncompetitive districts

· only campaign in competitive districts (as states today)

· would also change some past elections

E. Possible Reform 4: Direct Popular Election

1. Benefits:

· most popular idea -- simple -- on surface

· 40% plus runoff

· creates competition for votes everywhere

· would increase turnout

2. Problems with Direct Popular Election

· undermines mandate

· may delay results -- recounts

· extends campaign if runoff

· increases costs

· Rep’s oppose b/c loss of larger base

· Dem’s oppose b/c minorities lose influence

· 3rd party influence increases

3. Reforms unlikely

· If it ain’t busted ... (see summary of plans in Table 10.1 on pp.364-5—few differences in results from current system—would we have better presidents with these plans?)

· May require a great crisis -- like nonplurality winner when people care deeply, not like 2000 when they only wanted it to be over

· Difficulty of constitutional amendment process

· Alternative of “interstate compact” where states pass identical laws to give all electoral votes to national popular vote winner—only Md so far