I can’t help but sigh at all the earnest gushing over how great American democracy is. My sense is that our system is badly broken, that most people feel unheard, are unheard, and know that a narrow range of interests is represented by our leading politicians. Government seems far away, unresponsive, impacting us much more than we impact it. We focus on personalities more than policies, and apathy is rampant. Making matters worse, our voting system is rife with difficulties.
My experience as a precinct inspector, while always enjoyable and even occasionally inspiring, didn’t improve my image of American democracy. We are using some of the most poorly designed materials one could imagine, difficult to see let alone read, where fonts are all the same size, machines are unfamiliar, counting methods are tedious, and human errors, or artifices, are too likely.
Here in LA County, the Nonpartisan voter rules for participating in the Democratic or American Independent Party primary were obviously confusing and should have been dropped years ago. In past elections, large percentages of voters made the same mistake that 94,000 made this year.
Of course, we did it right in my polling place, but only because I have the best crew of clerks in the history of citizen volunteerism. Elsewhere, 94,000 voters may have been disenfranchised by typical government ergonomics.
And don’t blame the voter! Voting should be easy. People are busy, tired, and overstimulated. They don’t need to be learning something new while engaging in this almost sacred civic act. There should be no question about how to vote or who anyone is voting for. I don’t believe that all 94,000 of these folks are just dumb; they are in a rush, don’t see well, got wrong or unclear instructions from pollworkers (who have two hours of training!) or just made an honest mistake. People do that. No one should lose their right to vote for an honest mistake. The system should be so easy a kid could do it. Because even if all 94,000 people are just plain dumb, it doesn’t matter – they get to vote too. We don’t intend ballots to be instruments for weeding out dumb people; we intend them to be easy to use so the vote gets counted. If they’re not, there’s a problem with our design, not with the voter.
Just as troubling was that about five or ten percent of the Democratic voters, mostly African-Americans, who came in were stunned to find they were registered Republicans. These good folks stood in line for as long as half an hour, some with aching backs, sometimes kids waiting to go home, everyone hungry no doubt, but patient, and very excited to vote. And they come, amped up to cast a ballot (would prefer that this were the rule, rather than the exception in our country), and the clerk calls out (for all to hear, as our training oddly instructs us) “Republican ballot.”
You may as well have told these citizens to eat dirt, or accused them of bank robbery. Their looks told me I was crazy or, perhaps, a real jerk – and maybe a racist. Because there was no way they would ever, in a million years, register Republican, and this registration confusion was looking suspiciously like one more way the system has come up with to disenfranchise black people. Registered Republican? Their grandparents would turn over in their graves, their families would disown them, and they would vomit every time they looked in the mirror. You have to be kidding me, they cried. This is wrong, they insisted. Give me a Democratic ballot, okay, they said.
I explained about provisional voting. I explained about primaries. I explained my hands were tied. One man wrote in Hillary Clinton – in the Republican primary, understand. A woman stormed out and said, forget this. Several just voted the state ballot initiatives. There were varying degrees of disappointment, resentment, confusion, anger. A few were frustrated with the clerks, but all were ultimately understanding. None got to vote in the Democratic Primary. They were turned back from a historical moment as it occurred around them. It really was tragic to witness.
I wonder if this is related to the letters I get before election: “Dear Fellow Republican,” they begin, and I know they are pulling a Richard Nixon on me, trying to confuse me, get me to stay home. I’m no Republican; I’m sure you’ll agree it’s quite unfathomable. Why do they send me these letters? I suspect it isn’t a mistake. What’s going on here?
I don’t know if there’s trickery at work or just incompetence, but I know that if one of ten voters challenged their party status, and half of nonpartisan votes don’t count, and less than half the eligible voters turn out anyway, and have only three candidates to choose from, all from the same old two parties, then you cannot say your democracy is alive and well, let alone a model to the world.
And, election procedures aside, we have other profound political problems here in the City on the Hill.
The Presidential election is still nine months away – long enough for today’s zygote to attain its Constitutional right to life, a baseball season away, a day and a half in the life of Jack Bauer – and already the list of “serious” contenders is down to three. All three are US Senators. Two are millionaires. All three voted for the Patriot Act. All three belong to either of the only two political parties to hold the White House and most federal offices since the 19th century, two parties that represent a sliver of the political spectrum that exists in the Western tradition, let alone the rest of the planet. The three candidates all receive contributions from multinational corporations in the same industries – insurance, armaments, oil, pharmaceuticals, entertainment. All three make promises we know they can’t or won’t keep – as it has been for so long.
This is democracy?
Our odds are better locally. I got to run for Congress last year. I can’t complain about my press coverage, and I was included in all the debates. So were 18 other people. Voters had a chance to choose from a diverse field of candidates. Still, very few voted. Why? I’m not sure most folks even knew – or cared to know – an election was going on. Is it apathy, ignorance, trust, distraction, selfishness? Is it gerrymandering? Is it the negative campaigning, the influence of lobbyists, the ever-increasing cost of campaigns? Maybe people were just busy power-boating and watching the Dodgers.
I suppose not voting is a vote. I wonder what the nonvoters would vote for if they voted. More ice cream? Cheaper gas? Louder music? Free stuff!
Democracy is there for the taking, and maybe I shouldn’t complain. Their apathy makes my voice count more. But I can’t join in the gloating about our triumphant victory in the contest for “world’s greatest democracy”.
And yes, I know, I know – we’re all excited that a woman and an African-American man have a real shot at the Oval Office. It is a beautiful thing to behold, that America is beginning to change its stupid, brutal, racist mind after all these years. It should but doesn’t go without saying, that there are still some racists living in the U.S. of A., plenty who vote, and more than a few who hold public office. So, while the rainbow Democratic field of 2008 may represent a new openness or tolerance in America (2016 Democratic primary: Cambodian drag queen versus Jew who smokes pot?) we have not achieved enlightenment, and in fact racism – overt and covert, personal and institutional – is such an insidious presence on our little planet that anything but courageous examination – and certainly any self-congratulation – is nothing but a glib distraction. What a wonderful gift we would give the violent ruling classes if we accepted the election of a centrist woman or African-American as a sign that our voices were being heard, justice was being served, the elite were overthrown, or capitalism had somehow grown a conscience. None of these things is occurring, nor will any occur during a Democratic administration, just as none occurred during the Democratic administrations of the 60’s, 70’s or 90’s. Racism still exists, and injustice is perhaps more subtle but just as pervasive, and we ought to be tearing down the Good Old Boys’ club, not celebrating that we’ve been (ostensibly) invited to join. But the bottom line is our economic system, which is terminally unjust and inherently unsustainable.
Of course, as Frank Rich is pointing out over at the NY TIMES, the tactics of the Clinton campaign aren’t helping my sense of optimism on the issue of race:
In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself).
The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons. In her California primary victory, Mrs. Clinton drew only 19 percent of the black vote.
As for the gender portion of identity politics – Hillary Clinton may have once been a feminist, but if a woman has to act like a man – and not just any man, but a power-hungry, ruthless, capitalist, warhawk – then her victory is more like a surrender. Feminism has to be a philosophy that aims to reshape the core values of patriarchal society, not just a means to get women into position of power, where they can have the same opportunities to exploit the less powerful that American white men have always had.
I believe the civil rights and women’s movements were authentic expressions not just of ribald self-interest, but of transcendent values like freedom, equality, and justice. Today, I do not believe American democracy is being moved by those deep American values.
I keep hearing and reading people compare the United States to Kenya, where allegations of vote tampering have led to riots and renewed tribal hostilities. I understand that we do not face gunfire and gangs of thugs when we vote in the United States. Whether this is better or worse than doing nothing about election fraud (the Al Gore approach) I’ll leave you to decide, but my question is:
Why are we comparing the United States electoral system to Kenya, rather than to the European democracies, or to Japan, or New Zealand, or even to Bolivia? Kenya, like most of Africa, is still reeling from the legacy of colonialism, and struggling under the burden of its evil stepchild, neoliberal capitalism. Kenya is a semi-developed country, about the size of Texas, with a narrow economy and a brief democratic tradition. Its middle class is new and small.
The United States is the oldest democracy on Earth, the most privileged nation in history, wealthy and powerful, glutted with information and choices, with more than two centuries of democracy under its belt. We couldn’t be more different from Kenya politically. This is not a slight at Kenya – it’s a reality check for people bragging about the United States.
Shouldn’t we instead compare the United States to England, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, Canada, Israel, and the dozens of other “democracies” (I use quotes here because I suspect our collective understanding of that word are highly variable and vague) that followed, as did the United States, in the tradition of Athens, the Magna Carta, and the enlightenment?
Maybe we compare ourselves to Kenya instead of Norway or even Bolivia because, in the realm of political participation and empowerment of the people, many of the western “democracies” are kicking our American ass, and most of the rest are at least as democratic as we claim to be. Particularly in Europe, there are more active political parties than in the U.S with more representation in government, less regulation of people’s personal lives (though more regulation of commerce), more citizen influence on the course of government (and less by industry lobbies), and less dominance by advertising. They also show more faith in the meaningfulness of their participation in the political process. In contrast, Americans, in poll after poll, in study after study, and if our voting habits are any indication (quadrennial delusional hero worship notwithstanding), express very little faith in our political process.
And understandably so, because:
1. We have so few candidates to choose from
2. We trust none of them completely and few of them at all.
3. We know money has undue influence on politics
4. We doubt our votes are counted properly.
5. We know big business runs the country anyway, and that the market is amoral.
6. We know the bureaucracy of government will continue to move lethargically and soullessly, no matter which party rules.
7. (Most importantly, perhaps) we are given bread and circuses, and see no reason to bother voting. Our lives are comfortable.
There are several ways United States citizens can create a government that functions more democratically. They should appeal to a broad swath of our political spectrum, as they are common sense, simple ideas that would dramatically increase citizen participation in and influence on government.
And everybody wants that, right?
Here they are:
Instant run-off voting.
This deserves an entire column, but for now, I’ll keep it simple. IRV means you pick your top choice candidate, and then rank all the rest (or as many as you wish) in order of your preference. This system makes it much easier to vote for a small party candidate, and still be able to stave off a victory for candidates you absolutely cannot stand. So, to take a notable example: If IRV had existed in the 2000 presidential election, one could have voted for Nader first choice, Gore second, and put Bush last, after the Libertarian and Natural Law candidates. When Nader didn’t win (though who knows, with IRV in place?) your vote would count for Gore.
No spoiler affect, in other words. This one simple change in voting procedures, already being used in some localities and in other countries, would forever and profoundly change democracy for the better.
Campaign finance reform.
The most important thing we can do is put strict limits on what candidates – and parties – can spend, and fund smaller candidates and parties with public money. That means finding a way to decide which parties and people deserve funding; presently, the litmus test is how well you appeal to rich people and corporations, an inherently anti-democratic method. With more equal financing, grassroots campaigns will be able to go national. That’s democracy. Additional contributions should be allowed only through anonymous PACS, ensuring that bribery isn’t disguised as “political speech.” Finally, changes to the media, and the way that airwaves are managed, can ensure equal access to the market of ideas.
Free speech television.
Here’s a simple idea: Devote a few bands to political ads, offer time free to qualified candidates and parties, and prohibit candidate ads on other channels. There’s no free speech issue, because any ad can be run on the designated channels, and license holders make speech concessions (such as those regarding adult content) all the time anyway. This one change to the telecommunications laws would open a new era in American political campaigns, making them much less expensive and much more diverse.
Proportional representation
If I live in a Congressional district that’s heavily Democrat and I am not a member of the Democratic Party, I have no real voice, no representative. In parliamentary systems, minority parties get a few seats in the legislature, even if they don’t have a majority in any one district. Amending the Constitution to allow a few more parties into the Capitol would transform the federal government, making it more responsive and more representative, which means more democratic, which means more American.
End war profiteering conflicts of interest.
Keep military merchants out of policy positions. No one who stands to make a profit off war should be appointed to positions of power in the federal government. Congressional representatives should be forced to give up investments in military manufacturing firms, and should not be allowed to accept campaign contributions from those firms. Anyone leaving government service should be barred for 10 years from working or investing in armaments.
Or, we could make it even simpler: All weapons are manufactured by non-profits. The influence of military contractors on geopolitics is vast; it should be nil.
Neighborhood councils and city government.
City-states were the original political entity. They sustained themselves and, when democratic, offered denizens the experience of true empowerment. We can recapture some of that by building neighborhood unity and then using that unity to influence city government. But influence it how? Mainly, to foster independence from state and federal institutions, as well as from the ubiquitous needs of capital, by meeting many of its own needs – for energy, food, and technology – bioregionally.
Bioregionalism and permaculture.
These are perhaps the most important economic – and, potentially, political – ideas of the 21st century. Bioregionalism means meeting the needs of a geographic region using resources solely or almost solely, from that region. This radically reduces energy consumption, economic instability, and the need for huge political bureaucracies. Permaculture is a method of agriculture and energy production that sustains itself indefinitely by combining scientific farming and gardening principles with modern green technology for energy production, as well as tremendous conservation methods and a deep appreciation for regional strengths and weaknesses.
In other words, its culture that will last a thousand years or more – not destroy itself and everything that lives by taking with ruthless glee from the earth and giving back virtually nothing. Does that sound familiar? Our global economy of wealth creation and resource destruction necessitates global government, not only to standardize practices and enforce contracts, but lest we be utterly defenseless against the ravages of private interests. A smaller economy allows smaller government; it’s really that simple.
Support new parties.
We need them. Start your own if you must. Or get on board with the Greens, Libertarians, Greens, Natural Law, Peace and Freedom, or Greens. Register with a small party. Vote for small party candidates. It doesn’t matter if they “have no chance of winning.” This isn’t a horse race; it doesn’t matter if you pick a winner. What matters is that our elections become meaningful again, and for that we need new voices.
These 8 ideas are a start. With or without them, though, the only real answer is you. Keep at it.