In our last post, the Monkey and I described the fundamentals and history behind the Electoral College and offered the idea that the College must be scrapped if we are to move into an era of more free and more fair elections in the 21-Century.

it is clear that electing our President soley by means of a popular vote would not only fairly gauge the intentions of our entire nation of voters, but it would also remove any suspicions of legitmacy when the odd circumstance occurs in which the outcome of the popular vote is different than the electoral college result, as it happened most recently in George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000.

More Expansive Campaigns

Most proponents of the Electoral College maintain that this system is still adequate and legitimate because it does a better job of lending authority to smaller states by making their votes count more and maintaining fairness by precluding large urban areas from determining the outcome of the election by making their votes count less. The Monkey and I would argue, however, that what the current system actually does is in essence make the election “about” a handful of swing states, rather than about the concerns and issues facing the entire nation.

The 2004 election is a perfect example of this. Each candidate visited Ohio over 20 times in final month of the campaign. More than anything, the 2004 election was “about” Ohio, and therefore the issues the candidates spoke about were skewed towards issues mainly facing Ohioans: unemployment, lost manufacturing jobs, and “values” issues like Gay Marriage that made its way onto the ballot in Ohio. A national popular vote would force the candidates to make their campaigns more broad and expansive, catering more to the concerns of the entire nation, rather than to the idiosyncracies of one contained geographical area.

In 2008 the number of swing states or states in play has expanded beyond Ohio to include Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Indiana, Missouri, and perhaps a few more. So in many ways, this seismic shift in the traditional red state/blue state electoral map has forced the candidates to become more inclusive in their rhetoric and policies in order to capture the votes of a broader based spectrum of voters, but this is more due to Candidate Obama’s broad appeal than any advantages or inherent qualities of the current Electoral College voting system. No Republican would have predicted in late ‘07 that North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado would be in play for Democrats.

51 Simultaneous Elections a Recipe for Chaos

Perhaps more significant than the fact that we currently don’t use a national popular vote to determine our President in this country, is the reality that on Election Day we are running 51 state elections executed by hundreds or even thousands of local Election Boards, each run in a different way under different rules with different standards, different ballots, and different means of collecting votes. It is almost as if our current election system is asking for chaos, disorder, and uncertainty on Election Day. It should be recognized as a national shame that for the past two election cycles, in 2004 and 2000, that some level of controversy has stained the outcome of the election and that a winner was unable to be determined on Election Day itself. Instead, this type of uncertainly has come to be expected. The sad reality is that in the midst of chaos and lack of uniformity lies the opportunity for shenanigans. Without a uniform ballot, a uniform voting machine, and uniform rules stipulating how elections should be run, it is virtually impossible to conduct a clean, transparent, and fair election.

Election Day a Federally-Mandated Holiday?

Instead of celebrating one of our greatest freedoms and the most visible aspect of living in a democracy, for many Americans, Election Day is a day of hassle, wasted time, and frustration. For many living in urban areas, long lines, a lack of machines, misinformation, and general chaos makes voting a rather daunting task. Combine that with the pressure that many feel to go to their jobs instead of vote, or the fact that many employers intimidate their workers to not shirk their work duties in order to vote, turnout is often a problem because our country does not support workers on Election Day. When I was filming my documentary Swing State Ohio, I ran into several voters on Election Day who did not want to be interviewed for our film for fear that their employers might see them voting instead working their jobs.

Election Day should be a federal holiday like Labor Day or Memorial Day, with the vast majority of our workforce having the day off to celebrate their freedom and their precious privilege to vote. Many schools are already closed on this day as they are often used as polling sites. Imagine what a different day Election Day would be if American workers all across the country threw Election parties, held colder-weather barbecues, and purposely celebrated the most fundamental aspect of living in a democracy? There would certainly be a loss in productivity, but the gains in voter confidence, enthusiasm, and turnout would be priceless. Soft intimidation to not vote would also be a thing of the past, and so would ridiculous lines or feelings of frustration about rushing to get back to work, or even worse, giving up at the polls when the wait is too much to tolerate in light of the pressure of having to answer to an employer (which was the case for one of the gentlemen we spoke to while filming our documentary).

Take Money Out of the Equation: Federally Mandated Airtime for Candidates

When thinking about Presidential campaigns, we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: should capitalism extend to politics? Much has been made this year of Barack Obama’s renegging of his promise to accept federal election funds, in contrast to his opponent, Sarah Palin’s Running Mate, who has stuck to his word in order to collect some $80 million in federal funds for his campaign. While this may be a legitimate criticism of Obama, it is odd that a Republican is choosing to take advantage of public funds while the Democrat is engaging in economic realities of the free market in order to fund his campaign, by some estimates to the tune of half a billion dollars when all is said and done.

It is absolutely outrageous that our political system allows this kind of money to be spent on what is in essence an extended job interview. While one could argue that Obama enjoys such a huge campaign coffer due to the enormous support he has cultivated from millions of Americans and is merely a reflection of the will of the American people, it is still sad that at the end of the day, money fuels politics just like everything else in our society. The consequence of this is that prominence of money promulgates an unfair two-party system which inaccurately relegates to the choice of President into two black or white categories (no pun intended), instead of reflecting a wider spectrum of perspectives.

A solution: take most of the money out of the equation. The vast majority of money spent on Presidential campaigns ends up on our televisions. If instead of the current system we had a system in which the Federal Government mandates a certain quantity of airtime on federal airwaves (upon which our major networks broadcast) for each candidate, coupled with a requirement for party candidates to accept Federal election funds as well as a stricter restrictions on how that money can be spent, we would have a campaign mostly devoid of misleading, negative advertising, as well as an opportunity for third-party candidates to also have a voice.

For example, if a candidate is nominated by a political party and received a reasonable number of votes or signatures confirming their candidacy, they would be entered into the new Federal Election System, (mandated by a Constitutional Amendment, to be discussed in a moment). Currently, the “major party” candidate can receive public financing for their campaigns based on guidelines outlined here. A read-through of the guidelines will tell you that this system is still not without the influence of private funds and is still heavily skewed towards major party candidates. Interestingly, back in 1907, President Theodore Rooselvelt suggested that an entirely public system be put into place, with all private funds to be forbidden. Why is not this notion common sense? Why are not more Americans outraged that Campaigns are to be sold and bought by the highest bidder, whose concerns will later be addressed and recompensed by the elected candidate?

My proposal for a new Federal Election System would grant all eligible candidates blocks of longer-form television advertising, which lends itself to greater veracity and reduced communication through sound-bites, elevating the discussion to actual themes and issues that voters care about, rather than personal attacks, wedge issues, and red-herrings. An example would be that during a certain week of programming, each candidate would receive 10 minutes of programming from 7:50pm to 8:00pm. Monday would be the Democrat, Tuesday the Republican, Wednesday the Green Party, Thursday the Independent, etc. This would level the playing field and make the campaign a disussion of ideas.

In addition to say, a dozen or so blocks of programming for each eligible candidate, the Presidential Debates would be the other national forum for candidates to make their case. Obviously the debates would include more than just the two parties, and they would be true debates with ample opportunities for each candidate to directly question and respond to one another.

A side note: most often the major rationale for excluding third party candidates is because they lack broad support, only represent fringe issues, or worse yet, don’t stand a chance of winning. We would argue that their absence from the national stage is the reason why they don’t stand a chance of winning, in addition to the general lack of awareness on the part of the electorate to their existence at all. Our society is so skewed towards just two parties thanks to endless marketing, lobbying, and propaganda on behalf of what amounts to two sides of the same coin, that voters are often left with a false choice or a battle between the lesser of two evils. Our democracy should be able to withstand the entrance of more voices, more perspectives, and more choices. This will only serve to enrich and enliven our political health.

The public funds disbursed by the Federal Government would be a much smaller amount and would be used for the candidates to travel around the country and reach individual voters with their messages. Under this proposed system, the only allowable use of private funds would be for Parties to fund their conventions, but the conventions of all eligible parties would receive equal broadcast airtime.

Instant Runoff Voting

Another major problem with our election system involves the inherent weaknesses of “plurality voting,” in which in our system a candidate who doesn’t even receive the majority of votes can win the Presidential election (as was the case with Bill Clinton and obviously George W. Bush, to name two). Some local governments employ runoff electoins in which candidates who received the least number of votes are eliminated from the ballot and a whole new election is held to determine a winner. This type of system is more fair in that it ensures that the winner will in fact receive a majority of votes, but it is problematic because it is costly to conduct and often turnout is low because voters have to return to the polls on a separate day to finish the election.

A preferrable and more practical system is called “Instant Runoff Voting,” in which voters rank-order their candidates on a single ballot. This is a more accurate gauge of voter preference, eliminates the “spoiler effect,” an instantly ensures that the winner will receive a majority of votes. Here’s an animation that explains it better than I can:

A Constitutional Amendment

While the Constitution addresses voting in terms of not infringing the vote in relation to a voter’s gender or race, there is no specific right to vote guaranteed in the Constitution, nor is there any Federal law stipulating specifically how elections should be run, as this function is left to the states to legislate and execute. We propose that Congress adopt a Constitutional Amendment stipulating the following functions and features of the vote for the office of the Presidency:

• Voting is a right, not to be implicitly or explicitly infringed by employment obligations.
• The Presidential Election is federal election. Citizens vote directly for the Office of the Presidency by means of a national popular vote, determined by a uniform paper Instant Runoff Ballot.
• Election Day is federal holiday.
• Eligible Presidential Candidates must use public financing. Use of any private funds is prohibited, except to fund party Conventions.
• All eligible Presidential Candidates receive equal broadcast airtime, in the form of long-form advertising and Presidential Debates.

A Tall Order: First Task is to Believe in the Possibility of Change

We are not suggesting small, incremental changes in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns and elections. Instead, we are suggesting both a paradigm in shift in the way we view these important functions and features of democracy, as well as the granting of new voting rights for all Americans. Some might argue that this is too much to ask, that the problem will never be fixed, or isn’t worth the energy as the system is already completely corrupt. It is important to remember that no change occurs without first the belief in that change existing within the mind. As out of reach and crazy this type of reform might seem, we must believe that change can occur before any change will occur. While some might dismiss my proposals as mere fancy, it is important realize that this type of cynicism will only result in more of the same.

Although others may have different ideas as to how to reform our system, it is pretty much commonly accepted that our system is outdated, prone to fraud and abuse, and not an accurate way of fairly and transparently measuring the will of the electorate. It is abundantly clear that the variety of ballots, laws, and systems in place in each individual state creates more opportunity for confusion and frustration instead of a pervasive feeling of empowerment and participation in a system that is often billed the first and greatest democracy in the world but often fails to measure up to that expectation. Without a fair vote, our voice is lost. And by definition, without the people’s voice there is no democracy.

Thought for the Day, 11/2/08:

“The only way ‘yes’ can be manifested is when you do more affirming than denying. The Subconsious Mind always acts — and it acts on the most predominant thought.” – U. S Anderson, “Three Magic Words,” page 36.

For more information on this important issue, please visit:

FairVote.org

National Popular Vote.com

Photo by: Steve Woods.