Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDysfunctional Election Process Needs to Be Repaired
Appearing on the HBO talk show "Real Time With Bill Maher" a few weeks before last week's election, actor Tim Robbins urged voters to stand their ground when it came to demanding their right to cast ballots: "Refuse provisional ballots. They're throwing those out. They can throw those out. If that's your last resort, take it, but fight in the polling place to vote. It's your right as an American. You have every right to vote if you're registered. And if you're not on the rolls and something went wrong, document it. Video cameras at polls are going to be an effective way to fight this Election Day."
On the actual Election Day, in a twist worthy of Orwell, Robbins had to take his own advice. When the politically active actor showed up at the New York City polling place where he has been casting ballots for more than a decade, he was told that his name was not on the list of registered voters. So he refused to leave his polling place in Greenwich Village, even after an election worker suggested that the police might have to be called. Finally informed that he could go downtown to the office of the city's Board of Elections, Robbins made the trek, got verification that he was properly registered, got a judge to rule that he would be allowed to vote, and headed back to his polling place to finally vote five hours after his Election Day ordeal began.
Robbins had the time, the resources and the information to make sure his vote would be cast and counted. He could overcome the hurdles placed in the way of democracy.
But not all Americans were so well-positioned, or so determined, as Robbins. And that is why last Tuesday's election cannot be called a success by anyone who takes serious the promise of the American experiment.
A great democracy that is home to a very busy people ought not ask citizens to wait up to eight hours to cast their ballots, But that is precisely what America has done during the course of this most volatile and critical of election seasons.
As citizens, we do democracy itself a disservice if we finish counting the votes and simply say: All's well that ends well.
Barack Obama has won the presidency. Democrats will control the Congress. And many Americans who griped through the last eight years about the Supreme Court intervention in the 2000 Florida recount and the mess that was Ohio in 2004 will be inclined to put aside their concerns about the problematic process by which we choose this nation's leaders
All is not well with the process by which America registers voters and casts and counts votes. And the time to repair a broken system is now, when the memories of its dysfunction -- so well documented by the group No More Stolen Elections! (www.nomorestolenelections.org) -- are fresh.
What are the signs of dysfunction?
1. Separate-but-equal access to the polls. With voting systems that differ from state to state, and sometimes even within states, the playing field is not equal.
It is easier to vote in some places than others: because there are more polling places, more machines, longer voting hours and more citizen-friendly practices and procedures. And make no mistake about the fact that, when a working mom with kids must wait in line for four hours, that is not an inconvenience. That is a barrier to voting. "When people are waiting in line four, five, six hours, that's just too long for a lot of working people who want to participate in this election," says former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder, who now serves as mayor of Richmond.
2. Even people who are appropriately registered and ready to vote can run into problems such as the one Robbins faced.
This is a simple technological issue. Election boards can and should have laptops at all polling places so that poll workers can conduct checks instantaneously. Not every voter can spend half a workday correcting official errors. And they should not have to do so. "We have the technology," says Wilder. "Why not use it to make voting easier and more efficient?"
3. When voters actually get past the initial roadblocks, it appears that they can still lose their votes in machines that, for reasons of incompetence or chicanery, do not function properly.
There were scattered reports of machine breakdowns on Election Day -- as well as reports about soggy ballots in Virginia that would have to be dried before they could be counted -- and of course serious concerns about vote flipping. Even Oprah Winfrey had a problem with this. So did the Columbus Dispatch, a newspaper that endorsed McCain.
4. There are still patterns of intimidation at the polls.
An Indiana judge ruled last Tuesday that Republican poll watchers had violated a court order regarding the correct process for challenging voters at the polls, and the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund was monitoring similar problems across the country. In Wisconsin, after losing a lawsuit fight to make it easier to challenge newly registered voters, the Republican attorney general -- a McCain campaign co-chair -- dispatched assistant attorneys general and special agents to the polls in order to "monitor" supposed voter fraud, even though past Republican attempts to stir up controversies about voter fraud confirmed that there were few if any problems.
5. Counting processes don't produce accurate results on Election Night, creating false impressions that can become definitional.
A bad call of Florida in 2000 created the fantasy that George Bush had a credible lead in the state. In fact, he didn't. It was too close to call. In 2008, in many states -- including Pennsylvania -- officials planned to delay the counting of "emergency" and "provisional" ballots for days. Even though Pennsylvania went for Obama, such delays warp the picture of the finish -- denying Americans a clear image of the actual election result. And they are not necessary. Again, getting laptops into polling places would make it possible to resolve most registration and voting conflicts immediately.
The fundamental flaw in the system is that it really is no system at all.
The United States has no baseline standard for organizing federal elections. And thus, federal elections are as often gamed as they are won fairly.
Thus, in Ohio a prospective voter must register his or her intention weeks before election day in order to be able to cast a ballot.
In Minnesota, on the other hand, a resident can show up on election day and vote.
In Texas, voters can cast ballots weeks before election day and they don't even have to get out of their cars. "If you can drive or if you have a friend or relative who can drive you, you don't even have to get out of the car," announces the Texas secretary of state. "Call ahead to notify the early voting clerk that you want to vote from your car. This procedure is called 'curbside voting' and is available to any voter who has difficulty walking or standing for long periods."
In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, there is no "curbside voting." In fact, there is no early voting. Barry Kauffman, the executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, says that "Pennsylvania is very tradition-bound and not inclined to change with the time unless forced to."
And so it goes through every other aspect of the voting process. Different states, different rules. In some cases, within the same state the rules differ from county to county, or even within counties.
What that means is that the American electoral system, while it may last week have produced a satisfying result, is not functioning as it should. Lots of Democrats said during the Bush years that the party needed to win by enough that the election couldn't be stolen. But that should not be the standard in a nation that presumes to offer the world a democratic model.
"If we are an advanced society, if we are monitoring elections around the world, why not make voting right?" asks Douglas Wilder.
If this is to be a transformational moment, then let us begin by transforming our electoral system into one that is finally and truly democratic.
40 Comments so far
Show All1. universal automatic voter registration for all citizens as they turn 18;
2. voting on a four-day saturday/sunday/monday/tuesday weekend, with easy advanced and absentee voting
3. universal paper ballots (printed on recycled paper);
4. hand-counting of the ballots, on the Wednesday after the four-day voting window, to be done by the nation's high school and college students, as the ultimate civic exercise.
5. all ballots and ballot-related materials to be archived for future recounts and academic study.
no more stolen elections!!! harvey wasserman; www.freepress.org.
"4. hand-counting of the ballots,"
Notoriously inaccurate with it's own unique vulnerabilities for fraud.
.Yet many nations, Canada included, manage to do this accurately and quickly.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Good ideas. But gotta take away the cell phones and ipods, and God forbid PCs with internet chats, if you want an accurate count from High School students. :)
Joe
Simplify, standardize and make it as easy to register as it is to buy a lottery ticket. With computers, it is relatively easy to find duplicates, non-addresses, etc. and to check discrepencies on election day.
State by state differences have served no purpose for the last century.
The electoral college is ridiculous, perhaps from the days when votes were carried to the capital on horseback. Not sure the initial intent, but certainly has no use now. Direct popular vote is needed.
Also, I would like to see proportional representation for legislative bodies. But maybe that can wait until we have third, fourth and fifth parties that are actual contenders.
JoeJoe
"Remember that it was Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, simultaneously Bush campaign co-chair and voting machine allocator, who promised to (and did) deliver Ohio to Bush."
Make vote fixing in any of its myriad forms either a capital crime or punishable by a minimum sentence of 35 years in a maximum security federal prison with no possibility of parole and we'll soon find out whether scum like Ken Blackwell want to screw the electorate.
Stealing votes should be a serious crime.
Joe
.Two of Ohio's finest were tried, convicted and sentenced to federal prison for their actions in subverting that election. Justice yes,but the net was simply not cast wide enough.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
In Wisconsin, ..., the Republican attorney general -- a McCain campaign co-chair..."
This practice of letting the foxes run the henhouse is a bit of a problem. Remember that it was Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, simultaneously Bush campaign co-chair and voting machine allocator, who promised to (and did) deliver Ohio to Bush.
Paper ballots, no lines, easy voting, early voting, all these ideas and more are desperately needed to rescue our abysmal system of voting.
We want honest elections- but it seems that's too much to ask.
How the U.S. can go to other countries to help them vote more "democratically"
is beyond hypocritical.
We've known for years (particularly since 2000) that an overhaul was needed.
The measures that WERE put in place this year, at least documented the problems more effectively.
Thank goodness for Greg Palast and Robert Kennedy Jr., Bill Moyers and all the others who helped to ensure that- this time- more people knew to expect major problems. That's probably what helped people to persevere while they waited in line for so long.
.Nothing illustrates the way the American people have abrogated our responsibility to our nation more than this voting mess. The right to vote is a fundamental building block of democracy, those who seek to subvert it by whatever means, whether subtly or blatantly, are enemies of democracy.
Canada uses paper ballots and knows which candidates won mere hours after the polls close. Yet we settle for corrupt or suspect elections year after year. Why? We have spent public monies to purchase machines manufactured by rabidly partisan CEO's, machines that, after three election cycles still function improperly. Why? We see, again and again, an unequal dispersal of voting machines, depending upon the economic status of neighborhoods and, in many cases, the majority registration therein. Why?
The answer to those numerous Why? is not that there are corrupt people in charge, though of course there are. The answer is because we allow this to continue. We will get the government we deserve, sad to say, and disinterest and apathy run rampant here. Democracy is a participatory sport.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ken Ward
I am another Australian. My compatriot did not mention the other absurdity of the US presidential election, namely the ten or eleven-week interval between the election and the inauguration of the winner. What would have happened had Roosevelt lost in 1944 and a hiatus of such length occurred in the last year of World War II? I know of no other country in which the victor in a presidential or parliamentary election has to wait for so long before taking up the reins of office. This tempo may have suited the late eighteenth century but needs to be overhauled.
In Mexico the election is in early July and the president takes office on Dec, FIVE months later.
We in the non-American English speaking world look at the US voting system with utter amazement. We wonder how you can try to teach the rest of the world how to be deomcracies, and yet not be able to run a decent election.
In Australia, we firstly have compulsory voting, which I know no American would accept. We vote on a Saturday, so you don't have to try to vote during your lunch hour on a Tuesday. We have a national Electoral Commission, which maintains a national roll of all Australian electors.
The independent national Electoral Commission also determines the boundaries of all the federal electorates, so that within reason, they not only have roughly the same number of electors, but they are also reasonably contiguous, and not in the peculiar and bizarre shapes of some American Congressional districts.
If you doubt me, I suggest you have look at the following Illinois districts, and tell me if you think they are democratic. 1,3,7,8,10,11,15,and specially 4,17 and 19. If your districts are so distorted, you simply cannot call yourself a democracy.
By all means establish national rules, an independent commission, but take away the state legislature's rights to draw the district boundaries. Otherwise it's all just a joke.
By the way, I'm not suggesting that the Australian system is perfect. It isn't.
But then we don't go around the world lecturing other countries on democracy.
"In Australia, we firstly have compulsory voting, which I know no American would accept." You are wrong there. I'm American and I'd welcome compulsory voting. In fact, I'd recommend tying a citizen's tax refund to a voting receipt.
It's extremely rare that I so strongly disagree with an idea, but the idea of compulsory voting in the (former) U.S. (now Obamination)is so repugnant to me it infuriates me. Compulsory voting is what they have in Dicatorships that call themselves Democracies, places like the old Soviet Union. Of course, there's only one party on the ballot and only one candidate for each position, but the idea is that by forcing people to vote for "The" party, they soil their hands with it's indignities and are guilty by association and thus must support it's survival. Compulsory voting thus shuts off the one and only remaining method of quiet protest, i.e. opting out. Thus as the former U.S. moves toward the one party state, ALL will be required, under penalty of fine or (better yet, why not forfieture of property to be donated to the state?), to vote directly for infanticide, euthanasia, and any other noxious concepts that souless secularists might want to promote. Oh, yeah, we got consensus now! Ah, and then, finally, the ultimate insult of compulsory voting in the U.S., the forcing of the chronically "stupid" and illiterate to vote. You seem to forget that we have a 40% high school drop out rate. You forget that 40 million don't pay any taxes because they can't work a cash register, read a newspaper, balance a checkbook and yet you want this team of rocket scientists to vote. With a national average I.Q. at 86, you really want compulsory voting?
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote.
I did not recommend compulsory voting at all.
It was simply one observation of several about how the Australian system works, (and I have to say, works very well).
Your comparison of Australia with the old Soviet Union is simply insulting.
As for having one party on the ballot, we often have up to 15 or more.
One of our recent ballot papers was referred to as a tablecloth because it was so big.
You say "Compulsory voting thus shuts off the one and only remaining method of quiet protest, i.e. opting out." We can opt out to, because IN FACT, although we call it compulsory voting, its really compulsory attendance at the polling place. What we mark on the ballot ranges from the poetic to the revolutionary and the insulting.
You also say "to vote directly for infanticide, euthanasia, and any other noxious concepts that souless secularists might want to promote."
How on earth did you get that out of my rather laid back comment?
My main point was that Americans are famous for telling the rest of the world how wonderfully democratic they are!
We may be distant cousins of the late Soviet Union, but at least we have a sense of humour!
Finally you say "With a national average I.Q. at 86, you really want compulsory voting?"
Nowhere did I suggest that at all.
Get a grip man, have a cup of tea, a bex and a good lie down.
And have a nice day now. :)
http://fairvote.org/
Unlike Civil Rights, the voting rules vary from state to state. Someone earlier brought up the issue of low voter turnout in local and even state level elections. It would do a lot of good if voters did indeed pay attention to their local and state elections rather than count on the corporate controlled pols in Washington to pass some sweeping legislation on voting out of the blue. I am surprised that the author of this article does not even mentioned failure to pay attention to local and state level elections. That's what needs to be done rather than getting hypnotized into presidential races alone or at best select Congressional races dictated by the corporate media.
"the voting rules vary from state to state"
That's right, in accordance with the constitution.
Jake,
I am an engineer and not a US constitutional lawyer but perhaps this is where some changes could be made, in the constitution itself. After all the constition was never intended to be absolute. Like all legal documents, constitutions are provisional in that they tend to evolve over time. Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Jefferson who suggested that the constitution be re-visited every generation? (Twenty years)
For some reason I believe that the people of the United States would welcome something resembling the Canada elections act or the national elections acts in Australia and the United Kingdom.
I believe that people should have the right to not vote if they so chose. I would not be in favour of any compulsory voting requirements.
"Like all legal documents, constitutions are provisional in that they tend to evolve over time. "
Yes, in that the constitution can be amended as prescribed.
I have no strong opinion on this, but you can imagine the different takes on a state by state basis on something like whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.
I believe it takes 2/3 of Congress AND 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution. At this rate, only getting it right on the local and state levels are better ideas. If people in their states want those election fixes, they need to step up to the plate and get better local and state pols who'll actually pay attention and fix the mess.
"At this rate, only getting it right on the local and state levels are better ideas. If people in their states want those election fixes, they need to step up to the plate and get better local and state pols who'll actually pay attention and fix the mess."
I tend to agree, and keep in mind the "mess" is often based on things going on at the county level.
Jake and Carla,
I guess you do what ever it takes to cleanup the voting system. My concern is that over time people will completely lose confidence in the electoral system. It is hard enough to get people out to vote.
What ?!?
People have already lost confidence in the electoral system a long time ago and it's not because a presidential candidate stole an election via the college. The voting problems that come up can easily be traced to failure to act on local and even state levels. If you elect lame brains on a local level or you don't even bother to show up and vote for a better local pol who'll actually do what's right for the community, then you're part of the problem. Politicians on the national level are supposed to govern on national issues, not on local or state issues. If you want to see Congress and the White House push for a universal voting system which would effectively knock most every existing voting system in the states out, be my guest but it's not happening. Some states have had better results while others haven't. And the same can be applied to counties. Why do rural counties and even suburban ones have less problems than urban ones? Simple, voter turnout in most urban areas is lower than that of rural and even suburban areas. If you're living in a county where voting problems are persistent, try getting your locals to bring up that issue and put the local candidates to a litmus test and hold the winner's feet to the fire. Trust me, it'll work over time.
States rights. No guarantee of a right to vote. Uniform registration is needed. In some countries you are born, and you are registered to vote automatically. What a concept.
Back before 2000, I had heard of the hypothetical possibility of someone losing the popular vote but winning the election; I even knew of the reality of this happening in the 19th century. But I had grown up as a 20th century American to the consensus that it was only a slight chance, and if it ever happened, there would be such an uproar the electoral college would be dead. Florida would not have been stolen if it didn't already fit into a strategy based on this arcane and anti-democratic electoral process. I know we have so much to fix, as detailed in this article, and in the other comments. But I find to my dismay that even on CD no one seems to care about the core legally anti democratic voting process they are trying to engineer electoral reform to get back to. Completely aside from the 2000 results which should never even "hypothetically" be allowed to happen again, the whole red state/blue state thinking is a product of the electoral college. The pundits would have to learn a whole new way of analyzing election results, but it would be an election worth having. If we aren't blue states or red states, but the United States, can't we have a united election???????????
Absolutely:
Amend the constitution, abolish the electoral college, let the vote of the people decide the election.
I, like many over here in Great Britain, am amazed at the shambolic voting arrangements in the US.
One problem you seem to have, which the article doesn't mention, is having so many different elections all on the same day. Of course we don't vote for judges or dogcatchers or town meeting chairpersons, but if we did, we'd never put them on the same ballot as our votes for Parliament. No wonder you have to stand in line for hours.
Here, my local council sends a registration form every year to every household. We take a minute to fill it in and send it back. Other families will take longer, perhaps to register children reaching voting age. Then, before election day, we are sent postcards that on election day we take to the polling station (in our village hall) so that we can be checked against the electoral roll that the tellers have with them. Even if I forgot or lost the card, I could use another form of ID such as my driver's license on the day. Yes, the system can be abused, but abuse is rare and easily found out. I've never had to queue to vote, even when turnout has been 75% plus.
And we stick with paper ballots and pencil crosses against candidates' names. Not only is it simple and quick, it can be quite entertaining. A few years ago my better half stood for the Green Party in a town council election. After the votes were counted (by hand, with the candidates and their partners and friends such as me watching) the spoiled and dubious ballot papers were placed on a desk for examination. Some were filled in wrongly, but with the chosen candidate being obvious, and these were counted. Others were unclear, so were not counted. One was marked "I'm not voting for any of these bastards!". After everyone had stopped laughing, it was amicably agreed not to count that ballot.
The greatest "dysfunction" in American elections is the dumbing-down of campaigns into vapid slogans and obsessions about the personal and social characteristics of candidates; and hand-in-glove with that, the totally disproportionate amount of money spent on political campaigns. Between them, these produce elections that, even were every vote of every voter accurately counted (as should be the case), we would still produce an outcome in flawed occupants of public office because we elect people who can buy elections and "charm" us rather than those who will serve our real public interests. Maybe little could be done about the dumbing-down process that is part of our "celebrity" culture, but we can and should demand severe limits on the abilities of individuals and parties to "buy" elections.
This article would be better if it included an explicit, unambiguous call for the elimination of all electronic voting and vote-counting machines and a return to paper ballots and hand counting throughout the US.
q
"hand counting"
Subject to inaccuracies in the counting and various potentials for fraud. I agree with the paper trail but electronic counting ought to be implemented in a sound manner.
That and a call for taking everything related to elections OUT of private hands and putting it where it belongs - as part of the US Government, maybe the Census Bureau.
AND,
Instant runoff voting;
proportional representation;
and let's go whole hog with a constitutional amendment defining what a "person" is so that corporations are not able to construct the legal fiction that they have human or civil RIGHTS of any sort.
What legal status should a corporation have and why? Bear in mind that many small businesses are organized as corporations.
BTW, in case it seems relevant, i sit on the boards of directors of two legally chartered corporations. i am not "anti-corporate", or "anti-entrepreneurial", i am against the concentration and accumulation of unaccountable power in any form.
The current distorted economic and political structure has centered vast unaccountable power in these legal fictions, corporate "persons" that dominate the United States and the world.
Before you reply with more questions, spend some time at POCLAD, the Program on Corporations Law and Democracy, www.poclad.org
The legal status of corporations to be as it was originally intended, subject to a corporate charter granted by the government, for specified limited purposes.
The why being, for the public good, as defined in the corporate charter, and subject to review and revocation if the corporate obligations under the charter are not met.
Not the current absurd legal fiction of corporate "personhood" as upheld by the courts, ascribing "rights" to corporations that are constitutionally reserved for "persons".
Corporations are not "born" and do not "live", they are created by sovereign governments and should remain explicitly and absolutely subservient to the public good.
I agree with you. Corporations are merely tools of commerce and certainly should not enjoy the rights of personhood.
"Corporations are not "born" and do not "live", they are created by sovereign governments and should remain explicitly and absolutely subservient to the public good." (Webwalk)
That is how it should be. Corporate entities are by necessity not democratic institutions and should not be placed on par with the citizens of any democratic nation state.
"subservient to the public good."
Thank you for you response. The above touches on what I think is the crux of the matter, that is, that the "public good" is ostensibly arbited as such by third parties (politicians) that have less expertise and investment in the matter than the principals involved, and suffer no consequences when their determinations are wrong. You might understand why I would be suspect of that process.