Tag: voting

Addressing Abysmal Voter Turnout

Post author By David
Post date January 24, 2012
No Comments on Addressing Abysmal Voter Turnout

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Adam Brown had an interesting post about possible causes for low voter turnout in Utah. Adam suggests three possible causes for low voter turnout but essentially dismisses the relative youth of our state as being a cause not supported by the data (and he knows data analysis). That leaves us with two possibilities (according to his post):

Second, maybe it’s because general elections have become much less competitive over the years. … If people believe that their votes are less likely to sway the outcome (either way), then they might not bother to show up.

Third, maybe it’s because Utah strengthened its caucus-convention system in the 1990s, making it harder to force a primary and easier to win in convention.

I won’t pretend to have any insights into which of those two options might be a driving factor. What I thought was interesting was that in suggesting potential solutions to the three possible causes he listed non-partisan runoffs as a potential way to address each of the two plausible causes of the problem.

This was interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, back when I was doing a lot more political writing than I have been recently, the issue of increasing participation in the political process was one that I was vocal about addressing. I suggested that increasing levels of citizen participation would be akin to our nation experiencing a new birth of freedom. Second, because in lamenting the voter turnout in 2008 – where we actually had fewer people voting than in 2004 despite a larger population of eligible voters – I suggested an idea that was very much like non-partisan runoffs (a term I had not heard before today). My suggestion was that in voting districts where one party received more than 60% of the votes that party would be required to field two candidates on the ballot. That idea really would work best in a runoff system where the top two candidates, regardless of party (assuming neither got over 50% initially), then had a runoff (I would suggest the Saturday after the election). In areas where the dominant party managed to get both of their candidates in the top two it would be the equivalent of an open primary between those two candidates (after the party delegates had weighed in on which two candidates should carry the banner at their conventions).

A chart from an earlier post by Adam shows that prior to me becoming old enough to vote, Utah always had at least 60% participation or more in presidential election years and 40% participation or more in non-presidential election years. Since that time we have never hit either of those benchmarks and our participation has gone from above average to below average (measured against the rest of the nation). That leaves me with two questions:

Is this a generational issue?
- Did people starting about my age and younger lower our participation levels by not stepping up to the plate when they came of age?
What effect would an idea like non-partisan runoffs have?
- What would it take to implement such a systemic change?
- How could we make such a system work in conjunction with the rest of the nation where federal elections are concerned?

I would love to hear what others think about those questions because if I really thought it would make a difference and that it was possible to make such a change I would start finding ways to get the issue on our legislative agenda (not this year of course – that would be impossible).

Tags civic participation, Instant Runoff Voting, Pursuit of Liberty, voting

General

Eight Ideas for Reform

Kyle Mathews shares eight steps he believes would produce a more functional congress at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen. It is an interesting list including ideas I’ve heard before and a few new ideas. There is also some good discussion in the comments. I thought it would be worth sharing here in the order that he presented the ideas.

Resolve the electoral status of D.C.

I’ve made my position on this issue clear in the past. Kyle agrees with me that it is important and that the current legislation is the wrong route.

Limit campaign contributions to those who will be represented in the election.

Again, I’ve already shared my thoughts on that (multiple times) and I agree with this idea. I like the term Kyle uses – electoral carpetbaggery.

Water down the filibuster.

This is one I don’t think I have written about. I agree that the filibuster is overused but I also agree with one of the comments which said that placing a time-limit on filibusters would effectively remove them completely. As one who believes that the filibuster mechanism provides an important check on the system I think I would rather put up with its overuse, than do away with it entirely.

Eliminate anonymous holds.

I had not considered this before either, but as a believer in transparency and accountability I agree that holds should not be anonymous. If I put a hold on a bill I should be willing to admit it and explain my reasons.

Increase the size of both houses.

Once again, I have made my position on this quite clear, and once again I agree. I had never considered increasing the size of the Senate, but the way that he presents it – three senators per state – would be workable and would still allow the Senate to function in the same capacity that it was originally designed to function. I especially like the way the three senators per state idea would give each state a chance to bring a fresh face to the Senate in each cycle.

Increase the capacity and role of the Congressional Research Service.

This was another idea that was new to me, but it sounds like a good one. One comment argues that members of congress only use the CBO information if it benefits them. That argument is fairly weak because whatever hurts one side of the debate will benefit the other so the information will almost always be used. More information is almost never a bad thing for the governing process.

Restructure the committee system.

This is another idea I have never addressed, but I agree that the committee system is broken. Committees tend to turn committee members into industry insiders (if they weren’t already) and thus minimize any objectivity that should exist between government and industry. One other idea I once heard related to this was random committee assignments and regular rotation. I think there are lots of ways the committee system could be altered and most of them would be improvements over the current system.

Make all elections non-partisan.

Once upon a time I might have agreed with this, but I now believe that this would actually make it more difficult for voters to get truly informed about candidates and would further discourage voter participation in the political system. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I would expect to happen.

Out of the eight ideas I had addressed three directly in the past and I agree with six of the ideas in principle – some details would still need to be worked out on some of those. If I had to choose all or nothing I think that making all eight reforms would be a positive change overall in our system despite the drawbacks of the two ideas that I disagree with.

Tags change congress, civic participation, connections, ideas, thoughts, voting

Local State

Go Vote

Post author By David
Post date November 3, 2009
No Comments on Go Vote

I’d like to add my voice to that of at least six other blogs today by encouraging everyone who is registered to go out and vote today. (Props to Jason for posting four of those.) As this is the year for municipal elections your vote has the greatest impact for three reasons:

You are voting in a smaller race so there are fewer voters in any given contest.
Municipal elections have the most direct impact on your daily life.
Voter turnout is lower so your vote counts for even more among the already small races.

This widespread blogger encouragement to vote is just an example of the last push on election day of what I hope political bloggers can and will do in every election.

Tags civic participation, connections, Utah, voting

National State

Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

Post author By David
Post date October 19, 2009
No Comments on Two Good Ideas in One Bad Bill

It’s back – the bill that just won’t die. Let’s first explain why this is such a bad bill that I never pass up an opportunity to oppose it. First, it’s unconstitutional and both sides are compromising the integrity of their ideals in order to produce this bad bill. Second, this is an example of governing by exception which is a long-term recipe for disaster. Having only states be represented in Congress is good, except that we want to treat D.C. more like a state. The current census apportionment process is good, except that Utah felt bad about not getting an extra seat on a technical sliver. Long-term the only people who come out ahead when governing by exception are the exploiters who prefer to live in loopholes rather than being ensnared by the system that they are taking advantage of. These are the same people who rarely if ever actually contribute anything to the society in return for playing the leeches role.

There are two very good ideas in this bill which should be pursued without compromise. The first is giving D.C. a voting representative in the House. Any citizen who is subject to the same federal tax laws as the citizens of the states should have a voting representative in Congress – as far as I know that is only D.C. but that rule would apply to any citizen who did not live in a state whether we started taxing American Samoa or Puerto Rico the same as we do for the 50 states. The privilege of representation in the House should be based on the responsibility to pay taxes because taxation is the primary responsibility of the House. Representation in the Senate should be a privilege limited to full statehood.

The second good idea in the bill is the expansion of the House. This should be much more than two seats. In fact what we need is a bill (probably an amendment) that defines the size of the House as a function of population by setting the maximum number of citizens that a Representative in the House may represent. While I would argue that the size of the house should be multiples of its current size even setting such a ration to such an unmanageable number as 500,000 citizens per representative would be an improvement over this static “435 seats in the House” that we have currently. (That would add somewhere near 100 new representatives – as opposed to the paltry 2 being proposed in this bill.)

While I am not a fan of legislative manipulation tactics (such as the NRA killing the bill previously by attaching an amendment that would curtail the gun laws in D.C.) I have to say that it is better to prevent a law from passing using such tactics than it is to enact a law using such tactics (such as slipping the bill into a “must pass” defense appropriations bill as they are talking about trying now).

The fact that the people pushing this bill have not even proposed an amendment to give D.C. the voting representative they deserve demonstrates that they are more interested int he power grab than they are in actually helping the people of D.C. If they were serious about the issue they would at least be making that kind of proposal even if they also pursued this unconstitutional path.

Tags Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, legislation, unconstitutional, voting

National

Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Post author By David
Post date September 8, 2009
3 Comments on Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Having read and processed all the documents upon which our Constitution was built as well the Constitution itself and each existing amendment along with other significant expressions of American political thought through our history I think I have established a fairly solid foundation for my own political thinking that can be explored by anyone who might be curious about where I stand on fundamental issues of our government. Now I would like to venture into the future by exploring four amendments that I believe we ought to make to our Constitution.

These are not intended to be presented in any particular order (such as the order of importance in my mind) which is why I will not suggest any number for any of them. In fact, the first one I will present here was chosen only because I have already exposed my position on the issue multiple times already. (None of the four are new topics for my writing.)

The founders of our nation made a conscious decision to keep the federal government free from any particular local interest by stipulating that Congress should have complete control over the capital city and that the city should be independent of any state. They certainly did not expect hundreds of thousands of people to have no voice in the government that led them, nor did they intend for the federal government to be as powerful and controlling as the one we have built up. I have been a vocal opponent of the push to expand the house by two seats and give one of those seats to Washington D.C. but that is because the bill contradicts the current Constitution and rather than addressing the real issue in accordance to our legal foundation it ignores our fundamental law with a convenient but half-baked political compromise.

The proper solution to this situation is to pass an amendment that would allow Washington D.C. the legitimate voting representation in the House that their population warrants. I believe that the amendment should be worded so that it does not apply exclusively to Washington D.C.. Some might argue that not all our territories should have a voting representative in Congress but it seems only right than any territory in which residents pay the same federal taxes as the residents of the several states should have voting representation in the House of Representatives. Under that restriction Washington D.C. qualifies and anytime another territory has a legitimate claim about “taxation without representation” (the mantra that supporters of voting rights for D.C. have adopted) the problem would already be constitutionally solved rather than having to patch each leak in the boat that we may encounter in the future.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fourth seat, future, voting

General

Constitutional Amendment 26

Post author By David
Post date September 3, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 26

Like the 15th and 19th amendments before it, the 26th Amendment is direct and to the point in extending the right to vote to a previously disenfranchised group.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

With three amendments extending the right to vote I think it is always fair to ask – are we done?

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, voting

General

Constitutional Amendment 24

Post author By David
Post date September 1, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 24

I would guess that poll taxes made more sense before the government adopted income taxes but because poll taxes could be abused (and were being abused) the nation used the 24th Amendment to end the practice of poll taxes and to make failure to pay taxes insufficient reason to deny the right to vote.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Notice that this is the fourth amendment that was at least partially aimed at leveling the field for civic participation of minorities (specifically blacks). Imagine what Congress could have done with “Comprehensive Slavery Reform” rather than the iterative approach we took – we’d probably be even worse off than we are now.

Tags amendments, civic participation, Constitution, documents, history, voting

National

Constitutional Amendment 23

Post author By David
Post date August 26, 2009
5 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 23

Reacting to changes in society that the founders could not have anticipated, the 23rd Amendment provided representation in the electoral college to residents of Washington D.C. in presidential elections.

The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

To get an idea of how they might have made this oversight, we should look at what the founders envisioned for the seat of government. They would have anticipated an essentially agrarian society, a federal government with limited power, and therefore a city that would not draw any particularly large number of people. Many of those who would be drawn there would, in their expectations, have been temporary residents – members of Congress and federal employees – who would have the right to cast their votes in their states of residence.

Those who would live their permanently would likely have been farmers. The Constitution stipulates that the capital city not exceed 10 square miles which is 6400 acres. In 1865 freed slaves were initially promised 40 acres and a mule. I think it is safe to assume that, as this was a promise to ex-slaves, 40 acres was not a particularly large amount of land for one family. in other words, if the entire city were populated by farmers it would have a population of no more than 160 families – and representatives in Congress were to represent at least 30,000 people according to the Constitution. It is understandable that they would not think it necessary to give those few people a vote in the electoral college.

In many ways the 23rd Amendment was a half measure. Considering the expanded (and expanding) breadth of congressional authority (especially over Washington D.C.) it is very reasonable for the residents of Washington D.C. to desire a voting representative in the House. In order to achieve that we will need to pass another constitutional amendment.

Perhaps it is because they have been breathing the capital air too long (and because previous attempts to amend the Constitution have been rejected for overreaching by seeking full statehood) the residents of D.C. have spent their energy trying to circumvent the Constitution in their efforts to gain that otherwise well-deserved voting representation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, fourth seat, history, voting

General

Constitutional Amendment 19

Post author By David
Post date August 12, 2009
6 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 19

Some amendments are so obvious now that they need no comment.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex.

Some states had allowed women to vote long before 1920 and been stopped by the federal government. Now, in a day where I have seen calls to lower the voting age to 16, the only question on this subject that we have to ask ourselves is where to draw the line.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, voting

National

Constitutional Amendment 14

Post author By David
Post date July 21, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 14

I have written previously about the Fourteenth Amendment as an example of a law that declares a legal principle of equality but does not extend to defining a quantitative measure of the level of equality that is expected. This amendment is applicable to current political debates for two reasons. First, that we are grappling with the proper way to construct laws to protect the liberty and equality of all citizens. Second, this amendment is referenced in some debates about how to deal with the issue of illegal immigration.

Section 1 of the amendment declares the principle – and it is a debate about what it means to be “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that is applicable to some proposed legislation related to illegal immigration.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2 specifies the consequences of abridging the equality specified in the first section.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Some people have argued that the non-outcome-based approach to the problem of abridging voting rights is what lead to widespread discrimination against blacks in the south for a century after this amendment was adopted. I think that it would be more accurate to say that failure to impose the declared penalty was more at fault for this practice. People cannot have their inner thoughts and desires regulated by written laws, but they generally will mold their actions to their own best interest. If the penalty of reduced representation were applied to the states that were using intimidation and Jim Crow laws to prevent blacks from exercising their civic rights I have little doubt that those states would rather quickly have found the motivation necessary to end such practices in order to have a full voice in the actions of the federal government without needing the creation of some of the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s that focused on equality of outcomes rather than universal principles of equal protection.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, voting