The Unsexy Stuff of Political Reform
By Marcia Ford | Related entries in Independents, News(promoted to the top by Justin)
As I pointed out in an earlier post, independent voters exist along the entire ideological spectrum and will never agree on social issues like abortion or the economy or immigration. The one issue we can agree on, however, is the need for political reform, and that makes us passionate about the things that put the rest of the electorate to sleep. There’s no cure for insomnia like a debate over, say, redistricting, unless you’re a political junkie — or an incumbent whose seat is at stake. Never fear, though; there are lots of people on the ground doing the dirty work of political reform so the rest of the country doesn’t have to.
Those independent activists who have made political and electoral reform their rallying point generally agree on the need for radical change in these very unsexy areas, among others:
Ballot access, the number 1 issue for many independents. Few voters are aware of how difficult it is for independent and third-party candidates to simply get their names on the ballot for statewide or national office. First, the two major parties create nearly impossible criteria for the candidates to meet, and then those same parties challenge the candidates’ qualifying paperwork. Just ask Carl Romanelli, a 2006 Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, where the Democrats challenged his candidacy, paralyzed his campaign for weeks right before the election, and then billed him for $90,000 to cover their legal fees.
Popular vote, or why the Electoral College no longer makes sense. The National Popular Vote plan is popular among independents because instead of attempting to abolish the EC, it circumvents both the EC and Congress. And bypassing Congress warms the hearts of many independents.
Open primaries, which allow independents to vote in partisan primaries. Some states allow this, others don’t, and still others have hypertechnical restrictions on who can and who cannot vote in primaries. Many independents believe they should have a voice in the primaries in part because taxpayer money helps fund those elections.
Nonpartisan commissions that would regulate and oversee such highly partisan functions as redistricting, elections, and debates. With partisans in charge, it’s not hard to figure out whether those functions will be handled fairly.
Term limits and the end of career politicians. Yes, that does mean that the occasional effective legislator will have to go along with the rest of the lot, but surely said legislator can find an equally effective means of serving the country. And surely, in this land of 300 million-plus people, we can find a suitable successor to that legislative seat.
Campaign finance reform. We’re in the middle of what will likely be a $1 billion-plus presidential election. Does anyone besides me consider this to be exorbitant, shameful, immoral, unconscionable, reprehensible, unacceptable, indecent, and a host of similar adjectives? Yes, others do consider it to be all of the above, and many of those people are independent voters who are well aware that big contributors have a big impact, and that spells big trouble for the country.
There are other issues, of course — many others. But I’ll leave it at that and direct you to IndependentVoting.org or a 16-part series on political reforms on my We the Purple blog. You’ll know you’re a political junkie if you don’t just stay awake but also find your heart racing as you read.
Marcia Ford is the author of We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 and is filed under Independents, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Boy, I’m an independent and I even post at the centrist coalition’s blog, centerfield. And I don’t support a LOT of that stuff.
I support somewhat lower thresholds for ballot access, and I support redistricting reform. That’s about it.
• Term limits won’t work. Why? Two words…unelected staffers.
• Open primaries may be a good idea, but that’s for each state to decide. And if any state does it, they have to allow any given party to opt out of public financing and run its own primary as it sees fit. Otherwise, waht’s the point of having a political party of like minded folks? Imagine if the green party was ordered to run an open primary to elect its candidate, and there was an exxon refinery down the street, and everyone decided to show up?
• Campaign finance reform? Crying about cost is the easy part. Coming up with good ideas to change it is the challenge no one has met. And anyone shopping public financing on the day my taxes are due gets laughed out of the box. I could not be MORE opposed to having “the government” pay for political campaigns.
•The electoral college is here to stay. Doing an “end around” will fail for the same reason the proper path (amending the constitution) will fail. There aren’t enough states whose power will be INCREASED by changing the rules. Not to mention the fact that the end-around being proposed may not even be legal. It’s called sovereignty, folks, and it can’t be easily bargained away. Such a chnage would be tied up in courts for decades, and rightfully so. That makes it a HUGE waste of energy.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
How in the world would this “National Popular Vote” benefits Independents, Republicans, Democrats or anybody in states with relatively small populations?
There’s nothing “Independent” about a National Vote — it is either a total misunderstanding or ideological distaste of our constitutional republic.
With all due respect Marcia, doesn’t one to some extent cease to be “independent” when one adhers to a political “platform.” If this is the Independents platform, a guess I am an Independent independent from the Independent platform. Good luck with all this.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I second every single thing thing Kranky has to say. This just goes to the futility of pretending that “independents” can in any way be characterized as a “voting block”, and I”ll just say it – the arrogance of anyone offering a thesis that presumes to speak for Independents, as Marcia does in her last post “What Independent Voter Want”.
Again – a voting block, by definition, votes as a block. That requires organizing the vote around something. What is the organizing principle to convert Independents into a voting block? Parties are rejected in her thesis. Issues also don’t work because, as Marcia says “independent will never agree on social issues like abortion or the economy or immigration.”. I could add a few more to that list. Independents sometimes do organize around a personality. Nader, Paul, Perot come to mind, with Perot hitting the high water mark of 20% of the electorate.
Apparently the organizing principle is this laundry list of reforms. Ok I’ll look for something I like. Redistricting reform. Definitely needed. I’m on board. But it is an indicator of how insubstantial this illusion of a plurality of independent voters really is, when you note that California, a state with a lot of Independent voters, sent redistricting reform to a crushing defeat, because it was supported and promoted by a Republican Governor.
Finally, changing the very nature of how our country iwas organized and founded, while undermining a core concept in the framework of the constituion should not be attempted as an “end-around”. You want to change the Electoral College. Amend the constitution or convene a new constitutional convention. I would remind Marcia, that we are called the United States of America and not the United State of America. Despite its steady erosion over the decades, the concept of this country is still a federation of States, based on the premise that the closer government is to the people, the better. Laws not specifically allocated to the Federal Government were supposed to fall to the semi-Independent States. Under our Constitution the Executive is not intended to serve as the President of the Populus, but instead as the President of the United States.
There should be enough support to change the Constitution on the electoral college if the NPV’s claim of 70% support is to be believed. So thenwhy the “end-around”? Do it the right way. Amend the constitution. I’ll oppose it, but if gets through that process, so be it.
Perhaps a little less grandiose agenda might actually get something done. Let see if we can fix redistricting. Everyone knows that is a mess. It is a pure Independent v. Partisan wedge issue. If Independents cannot get that done, they got nothin’.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Ballot access, electoral vote reform, open primaries, redistricting, term limits, and campaign finance reform are all important issues. How about curbing freedom of speech to include drug companies not being able to advertise on TV. Or TV News shows have to give the facts, impartially, clearly, without bias or slant, otherwise they can’t call themselves news?
All these changes can happen if people would just get involved in politics at the local level. People think they are too far removed from local politics to make a difference however, and the system (counting on those feelings) rolls right over them. If everybody got involved politically (5-10 hours a week) these changes could happen. Write letters, talk to neighbors, canvass for your favorite person, study the issues – actually look at facts and make decisions and determinations – that’s how things use to work in this country. It would also have the added benefit of bringing communities closer together.
Americans are either too stupid or too lazy as a populous to care about these things however, so they deserve what they get politically. Now, if you’ll excuse me I have a reality TV show to watch.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Yeah that’s a banner we can all get behind. Lets take a meat cleaver to the Bill or Rights! Yay! Why? Because Terence knows better than you or me what it is ok for us to see or hear. I know that I for one would feel so much better knowing that Terence or his ilk will be protecting me and shielding me from making decisions for myself that he or others like him obviously need to make for me. I know he is right about that. I know because…
Good thing we have Terence looking after us. You know, I just don’t understand where people get the impression that liberals are condescending and elitist. If we would just accept that they know better than we do what is good for us, we all would be so much better off.
BTW TC – I would spend my 5-10 hours a week doing everything I could to stop any efforts to curb freedom of speech such as you suggest here.
Oh – And which reality show? I just started watching the new series of “The Big Break” tonight. Its one of my favorites. Never miss it.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:49 am
MW
What do you do have a few drinks before you blog at night – read what I wrote again, surely you misunderstand if you think asking people to get involved locally is sugggesting any other activity other than that. If you want to effect political change it can only occur locally – get upset, call me elitist if you need to – but Americans deserve what they get politically because they just don’t care – and as a population they are stupid – look at the results in the last 40 years.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Doesn’t everybody? Hee – this might help your psychoanalysis – my profile. You might find it amusing to locate your archetype in the taxonomy on that site. I’ve got you pegged, but would be more interested in your “self-evaluation”.
Oh, and I think you should read what you wrote. You were not just suggesting that people get involved locally. Maybe that is what you intended, but that is not what you wrote. You wrote that people should get in involved in politic in order to support (among other things) “curbing freedom of speech to include drug companies not being able to advertise on TV. Or TV News shows have to give the facts, impartially, clearly, without bias or slant…”. And I was suggesting that people should get involved in politics to stop that sort of thing from happening.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I am usually piss-drunk when commenting on Donklephant — a condition I find necessary to deal with the likes of Terrence. I am an evil clown, btw.
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm
April 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I love you guy’s
April 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
And by the way if I can’t be the Perv I’ll be the Big Cat……..
April 17th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Interesting choices for both you guys. Knowing his archetype will help me deal with Dos is the future.
But Terence. I dunno. I don’t really see either of those. I’m guessing those are smokescreen picks.
Obviously, real commenters will often have characteristics of multiples of these caricatures. And it is fun to see what people pick for themselves vs. what others pick for them. For Terence I would be looking at Pinko or Ideologue, but if I had to guess only one, it would be Net Rat. This is what I fear most, that I am actually spending time arguing with a kid in high school.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:48 am
This has got to be one of the funniest comments ever. (I say as I sit naked with nothing but a party-hat on, trying to get the tassel on my nipple cups to spin at equal rates in opposite directions.)
There is no “dealing” with me, mw, anymore so than any other political/cultural conservative Mentat all hyped up on the sapho juice. Good Luck.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Look Dos. Just because we dress the same while blogging, will not curry any favor with me. When called for, I’ll still disagree with your politics.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:52 am
You gotta admit the Perv thing was hilarious…….