As we approach another contentious election, many voters are increasingly frustrated with the process of American politics. The erosion of voter confidence in both our politics and our elections has prompted various “reform” campaigns touting supposedly beneficial solutions. Yet, wrong-headed proposals such as open primaries, ranked-choice voting, and additional campaign finance restrictions not only double down on past mistakes, they will likely make things much worse.
Yet there are potential changes that would improve political incentives for both voters and politicians.
Here are two easy ones: provide an official voter pamphlet and hold all elections—even local ones—at normal times. Some states do one or both of these, but many do not. Washington state, where I grew up, has mailed a voter pamphlet to every registered voter before every election since 1914. Several states have moved recently to require local elections to be held as part of the normal election cycle.
Unlike ranked-choice voting, which makes voting more complicated and difficult, these policies actually help people participate in elections. A voter pamphlet provides more information on the process and candidates. Holding elections on the same day makes the process more predictable and efficient. In addition to common sense, plenty of research shows that moving local elections to normal times leads to a significant increase in voter participation.
Two other reforms relate to local control and effective representation. These are to always choose elected officials by districts, rather than “at-large,” and to keep those districts as small as is practical. Electing officials from small districts helps make politics about local concerns, not just party labels or hot-button national issues. It means voters, candidates, and elected officials are more likely to know one another. Voters can make choices informed by more than campaign ads and officials can better represent their constituents.
Consider Nevada and Iowa, which are similar in population size. In the Nevada Assembly (the lower house of its state legislature), each district has about 75,000 residents. In the Iowa House of Representatives, each district has about 32,000 residents. That means Iowa Representatives can provide roughly twice the quality of representation.
A more extreme example: Hawaii has a population only slightly larger than New Hampshire, but has just 51 members of its state House of Representatives while the latter has 400 members—eight times more. Obviously there is an upper limit to how many members can serve in a legislative body, but if the goal is better representation then we should push towards that limit in order to make districts smaller.
The most important reform is also the most complicated because it involves restrictions on political money—and owning up to past mistakes. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the McCain-Feingold bill that drastically limited fundraising by political parties. The unintended consequences? That money now goes to pop-up political groups that have little interest in building coalitions or even being honest because they are here today, gone tomorrow.
Rolling back this part of McCain-Feingold, allowing Democrats, Republicans, and other parties to raise and spend this money themselves, would reduce the power of “dark money.” This would mean healthier political parties and more positive political ads. After all, political parties have an interest in elections all over the country and for years to come.
Hating on the parties has become a popular pastime. Yet American political parties became dysfunctional as they were weakened by past reforms like McCain-Feingold. Healthy parties attract serious people, build broader coalitions, and bolster their brand with positive messages. Both the Democrats and Republicans have played key roles incorporating diverse voices into American politics. They are important mediating institutions and without them, big money interests end up with even more sway.
Finally, both major and minor parties should retain control over the candidates they put on general election ballots. Choosing its own candidates is a core function of a political party. It also helps voters to have clear choices. So-called open primaries are not really primary elections at all. In some versions, they can result in all the candidates identifying with just one political party. That means parties lose their voices and voters get fewer choices.
The advantage of all these reforms is that none are new. Some involve simply weighing the tradeoffs and returning to policies that worked better, as with campaign finance laws. Others require looking beyond our own states to learn what works a little better elsewhere. When it comes to our elections, the best reforms are not “out-of-the-box” transformations but time-tested incremental improvements.
Trent England is executive director of Save Our States and co-chairman of the Stop Ranked-Choice Voting Coalition.
Read Full Article »