The Democratic Piece

Without in any way endorsing anything McCain has said today, particularly moving the goal posts yet again in Iraq to 2013 (conveniently enough JUST after his presumed re-election against a candidate urging to “cut-and-run”), I do have to say that I like his urging to bring UK-style question sessions to the President. Aside from my belief in the necessity of such things for the health of a democracy, I also believe this type of procedure makes for fantastic television.

I have come to believe that one of the greatest tragedies of the Bush 2 presidency has been the complete transformation of the presidency into a carefully controlled photo-op. While this has helped to reduce unfortunate gaffes by this particularly prone president, it has also turned the most powerful democratically elected office in the world into a complete spectacle. I believe that this has had two harmful consequences:

1) It leaves the American public feeling cut off from their elected leaders, thus reducing government legitimacy and public participation.

2) It leaves the American government cut off from the American people, and worse, cut off from even the most marginal inquiry.

While #1 is unfortunate, I believe that #2 has been disastrous. Perhaps the reason why we’ve seen policy after policy which should never have been implemented is that nobody was ever actually able to ask the President a meaningful question about the policies he wanted to implement. Instead, we received a classic case of cabinet groupthink and, well, we see what we’ve ended up with.

I’m not sure that a “Questions” session is the perfect answer to this problem, but it’s a great place to start. If a President can’t be bothered to learn enough about why a policy should be implemented to defend it to the lawmakers who fund it at the taxpayers expense, well, then maybe that policy shouldn’t be pursued any further. It may not actually bring information feedback back to American government, but it should make for some great entertainment.

Earlier this week, I called the Indiana voter ID decision American-style backslide. For those outside the jargon community, “backslide” happens when a regime becomes more authoritarian. It is an action (i.e. raiding an opposition party headquarters) or structural rules change (i.e. making it virtually impossible for opposition parties to get on a ballot) that effects a persistent chill in democratic contestation.

“Backslide” usually describes “developing” democracies, but I (with some academic backers) reject the notion that the “consolidated” democracies are fully “democratized” and therefore immune to description as “backsliding.”

My own colleagues pushed back. I was being extreme in my characterization of the decision, they said. Countries do not move along a simple democracy-authoritarianism continuum. They become less perfect democracies, but they do not become authoritarian. Ok. Maybe.

Even academic debate over voter ID takes its democratic compatibility for granted. Much of the discussion on the election-law listserv is dryly empirical. What are the effects of voter ID on turnout? To what extent does it really disenfranchise the groups activists claim it will? How can we operationalize those questions? Most - but thankfully not all - talk of voter ID is in terms of an utilitarian harm calculus. Regardless of the policy, democracy is safe in America.

I disagree. Democracy is relatively new in America, and “backslide” can describe our country as anyone else’s. The Polity IV index (PDF) considers America a stable democracy since 1809, even though slavery persisted for 56 more years. I would argue the transition to democracy happened over a century later, when federal voting rights legislation overturned systematic, mass disenfranchisement at the state level. One might argue the transition is still happening. Where is our enshrined right to vote? Why do elected officials control the elections that elect them?

In today’s NY Times, Adam Cohen draws on history to make the point much clearer than I had using comparative examples. Voter ID, he says, is a “modern poll tax.” Calling for federal regulation and standardization of election administration, he writes:

It is chilling to think that state legislators and election officials would intentionally try to make it harder for Americans to vote, but they always have — with poll taxes, literacy tests and gerrymandering. There was a time when the Supreme Court regularly struck these restrictions down. In 1966, it held Virginia’s $1.50 poll tax unconstitutional. In 1972, it ruled that Tennessee’s one-year residency requirement for voting violated the Constitution.

Now the Supreme Court has switched sides. This week, it upheld a harsh Indiana voter ID law that could disenfranchise many poor, elderly and student voters. The ruling will make it even easier for other states to block voters’ access to the ballot box

Read the article, especially the first few grafs, for appalling worst practices. Here’s a teaser: former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell in 2004 trashed voter registration forms printed on the ‘wrong’ paper weight.

Voter ID is contrived, incremental disenfranchisement through legal channels. It is consistent with historical stains on America’s democratic process, and it is consistent with contemporary examples of backslide worldwide: opposition-fragmenting districting in Morocco, ballot access restrictions and election ‘reform’ in Russia, and power-consolidating election ‘reform’ Kyrgyzstan, to name a few. As we promote democracy elsewhere, we should remember how new and fragile it is at home. We should promote it here too.

As a start, we should see the federalism of election administration for what it is: an excuse for states to inscrutably limit voting rights.

Hawaii’s state legislature has overridden the governor’s veto of the state-based plan to elect the president by national, popular vote, according to a Common Cause news release. That means the compact now has four member states accounting for 50 total electors: MD, IL, NJ and the Aloha state.

Until now, the only states to ratify NPV have had united, Democratic governments. Otherwise it has died on Republican governors’ desks or in Republican legislatures. Hawaii is the first state to break the pattern - sort of.

See plan co-author Rob Richie’s comment on NPV’s background and prospects from the perspective of a movement leader. Just because Hawaii only breaks the pattern “sort of” doesn’t mean we can’t have a normal presidential election by 2012. After all, electoral reform is about defying the model predictions.

Monday’s Supeme Court upholding of Indiana’s voter ID law deserves comment on a blog about comparative democracy.

The short story: you cannot vote in Indiana unless you present valid, state- or federal-issued photo identification. The longer version: there is a fairly narrow list of accepted forms. If you don’t have one, you can fill out a provisional ballot and sign an affidavit as to your identity. If you want that vote to count, you have to go to the county seat within 10 days and sign another affidavit.

I have nothing against voter ID, even if solves a problem that doesn’t really exist. Except for people who don’t want their pictures taken, there nothing intrinsically wrong with voter ID…

…as long as the state accepts responsibility for issuing IDs to all citizens in an equal and accessible manner.

The social inequality of the policy as-is will be clear to anyone with SES columns in his spreadsheet. To vote without ID, you need a car and/or public transportation and considerable free time to dance with bureaucracy. To get a free ID, you need a car and/or public transportation and a valid birth certificate, which, if you don’t have one, means you need a car and/or public transportation and the free time to go get all this stuff.

This certainly will not increase turnout in the world’s most low-turnout established democracy. Especially among the poor and elderly - those without cars, mobility, free time, money or jobs that give them time to vote.

But these old arguments will be familiar to TDP’s Americanist audience. Rather than rehash the projected effects and underlying methodologies, I want to make three comparative points.

One. If the US constitution contained an equal and affirmative right to vote, no amount of judicial balancing would have produced this outcome. Unlike in the world’s other, established democracies, no such right exists. As such, SCOTUS has opened the door to similar policies in states itching to promulgate them.

Two. Even right-to-vote countries risk social inequality spilling over into political inequality. That’s why Canada’s electoral management body goes to people’s houses registering voters. With its policy of compulsory voting, Australia is similarly proactive about filling its rolls.

Three. Some say voting is a right, not a responsibility. If you want to vote, get off your lazy duff and make the preparations. That argument is a mask - one that secures buy-in among libertarian-oriented masses - for systemic efforts to steal elections where technology and learning make overt fraud obsolete. Around the world, parallel vote counts and international pressure have forced authoritarian leaders to “upgrade” their methods. By squeezing participation, restrictive electoral laws let dictators steal elections long before election day. As the number of competitive federal jurisdictions in America drops, state-level entry barriers make electoral conclusions more foregone in all but the most competitive years.

American democracy will survive voter ID, but it’s a step in the authoritarian direction. The short-term solution is affirmative state action to issue those IDs. In the long term, we need a federally guaranteed, equal right to vote.

According to a press release I just received (emphasis mine):

Common Cause’s election reform team will monitor voting problems and concerns that may arise tomorrow during the Democratic presidential primary in Pennsylvania, where an unprecedented turnout is expected, including a huge surge of new voters.

Some 7 million Pennsylvania voters are expected to vote tomorrow on paperless electronic voting machines that lack the ability to do a recount. Common Cause will help monitor problems reported to the Election Protection Coalition’s national voter hotline, 1-866-OUR-VOTE.

Pennsylvania election officials are bracing for unprecedented turnout in a state with a recent history of voting machine problems, and where voter registration and registration changes have surged in recent months.

How will PA affect the big picture? Not very much, according to PoliBlog:

I must confess, it is difficult to get too excited about the Pennsylvania primary, given that no matter the result, we will be in basically the same position: Obama with more popular votes and pledged delegates, and therefore on the surer footing for the nomination.

Another part of the big picture concerns close elections. As Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 taught, close elections strain the legitimacy of rules otherwise considered minutiae. Will voting equipment and voter rolls join Michigan and Florida as flash points in the Clinton-Obama saga?

Via Richard Winger, Mike Gravel has joined the Libertarian Party.

On the face of it, this is odd from a guy, ostensibly left of center, who nominally sought the Democratic nomination just months ago.

Then again, Gravel’s self-interest calculation probably has shifted to long-term instrumental. The Dems having rejected him, he has to seek voice through other channels. One is electoral reform. Closely related, another is a minor party. If one wants to effect reform or party-building, one should join a relatively viable organization. That gives him a choice between the LP and Greens. In that case, this is not so odd.

On February 1, the National Republican Congressional Committee revealed “irregularities” in its accounting practices. Wachovia Bank, which had made a $9 million loan to the NRCC in 2006, was notified and the FBI called in to investigate. Over the past four years, it was discovered, the NRCC treasurer Christopher J. Ward had funneled as much as $1 million of the NRCC’s funds to other political committees and, perhaps, campaign accounts; “dozens” of which he oversaw as treasurer. How was this permitted to happen?

According to the Federal Elections Commission’s rules, summarized in this Post article, “Campaign committees are not required by law to perform an internal audit each year… But most corporations and large campaign committees do perform regular reviews to ensure their numbers match the reports they file with the FEC.” Reporting inaccurate numbers to the FEC is, indeed, a violation of FEC rules and so punishable by fine.

Recognizing that under these rules organizations with sound accounting practices could be penalized due to the illegal actions of an individual staff member, the FEC issued a “Statement of Policy” in May 2007 entitled: “Safe Harbor for Misreporting Due to Embezzlement.” This document proposes a set of guidelines that, if followed, could absolve organizations of liability for inaccurate reporting. The guidelines are mostly commonsensical in nature, suggesting for example that bank accounts be opened in the organization’s name and that no single individual both “[receive] incoming checks and [monitor] all other incoming receipts.”

Bresnahan and O’Conner write at Politico that Rob Kelner, a lawyer hired by the NRCC to oversee its internal investigation, “admitted that the NRCC — which had not done a legitimate financial audit since 2001 — lacked some of the basic internal financial controls laid out by the FEC. Instead, he said, Ward was solely responsible for tracking much of the money that flowed through the committee.” Under Representatives Tom Davis and Thomas Reynolds, the NRCC relaxed other regulations, including a requirement that the executive committee sign off on expenditures exceeding $10,000.

The decision to reduce regulatory oversight was undoubtedly driven by the desire to increase electoral competiveness. With financial controls resting in the hands of a single individual, money could be rapidly disbursed to needy campaigns. Of course, this advantage comes with disadvantages that Christopher J. Ward, buoyed by his penchant for creative art (i.e. forging audit documents), was able to exploit.

New NRCC Chairman Tom Cole, claiming “we were the victims here,” hopes that the FEC will be swayed by the NRCC’s efforts to come clean and refrain from slapping the NRCC with a harsh fine. I beg to differ, not because I’m not a Republican, but because regulation – enforcement of the rules of the game – is what makes the U.S. political system function as well as it does (or as poorly, if you want to be negative about it). The NRCC tried to gain an electoral advantage – against the FEC’s recommendations – and got burned by one of their own good ole’ boys, resulting in the NRCC’s violation of FEC rules. “I told you so” should be the refrain of the FEC.

On a final note, Cleta Mitchell, a campaign finance lawyer for a number of Republican campaign committees, remarked of the people at the NRCC: “They’re not businesspeople… They won’t spend a dime on management.” Does Ms. Mitchell know that she’s working for the party of “small government?”

Ralph has decided to run again, and he’s getting a beating for it. The argument goes like this: Green-leaning candidates “take” votes away from Democrats. This particular election is so critical that “we” can’t afford to lose. Nader therefore should do the “right” thing and withdraw.

I want to make the case for Nader’s candidacy. This is not an endorsement of the man or his program. His decision to run urges consideration of structural ‘democracy problems’ in America. 2008 may be more critical than 2004, 2000, 1932, 1896 or even 1796, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore our democracy problems. Run-of-the-mill condemnation of Nader reflects a choice to do just that.

The Democratic Party would benefit from three reforms that Nader’s run brings to mind. A direct election for President would decrease third party “spoiler” impact by taking the emphasis off battleground states. Remember Florida 2000. Second, instant runoff voting would translate most votes for Greens into votes for Democrats. Third, proportional representation would undo the conservative bias in Congressional elections that inheres in the nexus of our partisan geography and winner-take-all elections. In a sense, PR would unpack the packedness of those population-dense districts Democrats tend to inhabit.

The absence of each reform is a democracy problem. The electoral college silences voters in “safe” states and sometimes crowns the wrong winner. Plurality elections force voters to support candidates they don’t like and candidates to pay lip service to those voters, lest they defect to a spoiler like Nader. And the only real diversity of opinion in our two-party Congress comes from members’ personal predispositions. These old institutions diminish democracy for everyone.

If bad institutions hurt more people than Democrats, why the concern with Democrats? They are the likely agents of change. Politicians don’t improve institutions out of commitment to democracy. Reforms are self-interested. Nader’s candidacy underscores Democrats’ overall vulnerability in the present party system-cum-electoral system. As the vulnerable camp, with majorities in both houses and a prospect for united government in 2009, Democrats are best positioned to effect electoral reform.

Yet they don’t take their vulnerability seriously. Hence the case for Nader.

Two scenarios confront the Democratic Party. One is to learn the hard way. Nader costs the Dems another election, they make the institutions-outcomes connection, and they become a party of reform. The other option: skip step one, make the connection, and become a party of reform.

To blame Nader is to shoot the messenger. The conversation should be about lasting solutions. Browbeating Greens to depress their turnout, if doable at all, is not a lasting solution.

Santa Fe, NM voters will decide March 4 whether to use instant runoff voting in municipal elections. The campaign website is here.

The area’s major daily, the Santa Fe New Mexican, has come out against Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 is for “instant runoff,” or “ranked-choice” voting.: Make your first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. This would, at last, ensure majority-elected politicians, más o menos — but it depends on well-run elections using special computer programs. We say wait and see how it works in huge numbers of other cities — and, for now, vote against.

Fear of technology is a bad reason to sideline principles like majority rule that the editors otherwise support - especially since the number of US cities successfully using IRV grows each year.

The campaign needs help. If you’re in the region, you can get involved (or donate) through this site.

David M. Mason, chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has rejected Senator John McCain’s request to pull out of the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Program that he entered when his campaign was in the doldrums. Mason has cited two reasons: 1) the FEC has only 2/6 seats filled at present and so lacks a quorum and, 2) McCain used the program as collateral for a loan he took out from a bank late last year. The details of the second point are not fully clear and it appears that there may be two loans involved and not just one loan from a Bethesda bank that the Washington Post talks about.

But who cares about the FEC? What should the Federal Election Commission have to do with this anyway? That’s what former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, McCain’s “top lawyer” seems to think. From the Post’s story: “‘We believe that Senator McCain had a clear legal right to withdraw from the primary matching fund system, and he has done so,’ Potter told the Associated Press. ‘No FEC action was or is required for withdrawal.’”

I enjoy it when former top officials of a given agency, with the change of a hat, suddenly seem to think that the rules of their previous institution of employment are mere suggestions. Potter’s lack of respect for the FEC’s rules demonstrate the most egregious problem in Washington, D.C.: the fact that politicians believe that they are above the law when it inconveniences them. Jan Baran, a lawyer quoted in the Post’s article, is entirely right: “Ignoring the matter on the grounds that the FEC lacks a quorum, Baran said, ‘is like saying you’re going to break into houses because the sheriff is out of town.’”

If we want to improve the American political system, we can start by empowering politicians who respect the rule of law. Good-bye, George. Good-bye Hil.