The straight and narrow has its downside

Continuing what’s shaping up to be a trend of centrist politicians and organizations putting more of a stamp on process than on policy – not a criticism, just a fact – Reps. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who heads the Blue Dog Coalition of centrist Democrats, and Charlie Dent (R-PA), who heads the Tuesday Group of centrist Republicans, are now targeting straight-ticket voting. In Canada, that’s both more and less of an issue for us in the following two ways:

1. A vote for a Member of Parliament (MP) is automatically counted as a vote for that candidate’s party’s leader, who is running for prime minister. Yes, we use the word “leader.” Please judge us.
2. Our provincial elections rarely, if ever, coincide with federal elections.

I suppose you could also count the fact that most of us don’t elect senators, but let’s not get into that. Anyway, in the U.S., straight-ticket voting (which we will shorten to STV) allows voters to select all the Democrats or Republicans on the ballot by checking a single box. 15 states allow this, including Indiana, Iowa and North Carolina. If you don’t know why I specified those three, here.

But I digress. Matheson and Dent’s bill, the People Before Party Act, adds language to existing election legislation barring states from the ability to “provide a voter with the opportunity to indicate the selection of a political party as a representation of the selection of an individual candidate.” That may seem like an intrusion on states’ rights, but we are talking about processes used in federal elections. Check Section 5 of Article I if you don’t buy that.

Here’s a quote from Matheson’s press release:

Everywhere I go, people tell me how frustrated they are with the partisan bickering that overwhelms our politics today. This legislation is one step we can take to reduce the role of parties in our elections and encourage everyone to vote for candidates for each federal office by voting the person, not the party.

It’s pretty optimistic to think this bill will make congressional behavior less partisan, especially since this wouldn’t stop a voter from looking for all the Republicans or all the Democrats and making a few more check marks. But it’s a good idea to incentivize voters into looking more closely at their ballots, considering how many items aren’t partisan at all. If Matheson and Dent really want to accomplish their stated objective, their next step would be to require that ballots only list names and not parties. Don’t expect that one to pass.

They’ll also have to grapple with the fact that voters who have stood in line for six hours to vote probably aren’t fond of the idea that they may have to check more than one box. And we can all agree that reform in that area is a much higher priority.

You get what you vote for: None

I remember a year of high school in which a bunch of friends didn’t like any of the candidates running for student council president and decided to organize a write-in campaign. If I remember correctly, they voted for pie. Since 1976, Nevada has . . . sort of alleviated similar problems by allowing voters to check off “none” on their ballots. That move is now unconstitutional, according to a federal judge. But even if it were constitutional, it would certainly be stupid. And if you can’t immediately figure out why, you’re pretty stupid, too.

In Nevada, the only state that had the “none” option until yesterday, any such votes are not counted in the final tallies. Backers of a lawsuit against the Nevada government, which bizarrely included the Republican National Committee – don’t Democrats give a shit about this? – said this disenfranchises voters, and “none” votes are about as valuable as staying home on Election Day. Opponents of this suit said “none” is a protest vote like any other and should be counted, reminding them that “none” has occasionally outdone the two humans on the ballot.

So what if it has? Victory still automatically goes to whichever of the two humans did better than the other. If that doesn’t override the will of the voting majority, I don’t know what does. Perhaps the notion from U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones that this problem be resolved by having the governor appoint a victor. If you asked Nevada voters to choose between that and eliminating “none,” my guess is that they would by and large laugh in your face.

Of course, anyone who thinks “none” is a viable option in an election on any level deserves to be laughed in their own face. Ever heard the expression “Ninety-five percent of it is showing up?” That’s no less true for finding a good candidate to vote for than it is for the mere act of voting. Ways to do that include:

• doing some cursory online research about the people you know are running;
• going to their campaign events and asking questions;
• if they still suck, checking for any third-party candidates who don’t make you want to vomit;
• if there are none, becoming one yourself, you lazy ass;
• and if that’s not feasible, but you still want to vote, voting for pie.

I realize this is a problem we all face with a political duopoly, and as an independent, I should probably be saying “none” is better than not voting. But there’s no way to make that work without essentially nullifying that vote altogether. Instead, let’s focus on voting reforms that might actually impact the two idiots with whom we’re eternally stuck.

Equal protection and two-tier trust

Time for another constitutional case study, kids! Today we examine the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

Those 14 words alone make laws same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, but we’ve been over that. It’s come up in Obama for America v. Husted, which you know is causing more drama than it’s worth because it involves the incumbent president’s campaign. They’re suing Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted over three extra early voting days granted to service members, on the ground that it amounts to a “two-tiered privilege system.” Republicans see it differently: They’re accusing the Obamans of trying to restrict military voting rights.

Thankfully, the full text of the complaint is online. Here’s a choice quote that tips the truth scale in the direction of the Obamans:

“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to restore in-person early voting for all Ohioans during the three days prior . . .”

So, if the intent is to give both civilians and service members a few extra days, what is there to complain about?

Republicans faulted the extra time for civilians as too costly for local governments and prone to fraud and abuse.

Because it’s impossible for service members to engage in voter fraud and run up electoral costs. I’m sure pointing that out will invite accusations of dishonoring our uniformed. But this attitude toward civilians invites accusations of two-tier trust.

Now is far from an ideal time to enact policies that weigh local governments down any more; Ohio’s budget reached $8 billion last year. If we want to debate the merits of extra early voting for all from a fiscal perspective, that’s fine. But to accuse the Obamans of trying to restrict anyone’s rights is wrong. Taking away special status, sure; taking away rights, not even close.

That a group with such a massive stake in the voting process brought this lawsuit is a surefire way for the other guys to make more of this than it is. But a PR blunder can only go so far in the face of the facts.

What millennium is this again?

Parts of North Carolina and Alabama are challenging the Voting Rights Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Try not to freak out, now. Yes, both states have histories of racial discrimination at the ballot box. Yes, both are challenging the part of the act that specifically addresses said histories. Yes, Texas and South Carolina tried to do the same this year. Yes, they both have good reasons to do it and you can’t instinctively assume they’re trying to justify discrimination, although I’m sure some of you will try. Read on before you do.

The first challenge, the one from North Carolina, concerned a 2009 measure in the city of Kinston that would leave candidates’ party affiliations off future ballots. The Obama administration used the requirement known as pre-clearance to block the move, “saying black voters would be more likely to vote for the wrong person under the new rules.” Later, lawyers for Alabama’s Shelby County challenged the same requirement, calling it unfair and archaic.

Which it is. Pre-clearance means all changes to voting laws in states with histories of race-based voter discrimination have to be cleared with the federal government. The Voting Rights Act was adopted 47 years ago. I’m not going to be pretend either North Carolina or Alabama, or any other state for that matter, has become a bastion of interracial harmony where anyone who so much as makes a racist joke is isolated from society. But it’s worth asking if this 1965 law is proportional to 2012 circumstances.

For the record, I’m very supportive of a measure that would leave party affiliation off ballots. This could incentivize voters to learn more about the people they’re voting for in their own districts, instead of just learning about the parties. But citing likely mistakes by black voters as a reason to block this? If the Obama administration isn’t depending on black voters in North Carolina automatically voting for Democrats, they’re doing a pisspoor job of hiding it.

There comes a time when the necessity of old laws and old ways of thinking fades into resentment, and perhaps that time is soon. Pre-clearance is holding back a measure in a North Carolina city that has the potential to improve the quality of civic participation. Arguments in favor of continuing to punish Shelby County and the rest of Alabama are based on pure distrust. That doesn’t make good policy – at least not anymore.

They don’t have to repeal pre-clearance right away. But the idea that Congress voted to renew it for another 25 years in 2006 is absurdity. All that extra bureaucracy for a problem that exists in such short supply today? It’s already created new problems; we shouldn’t wait too long for it to create more.

My super sweet PAC

By voting for anyone other than former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT), you would be voting against the candidate who is legitimately most qualified to be president. Just vote for him. But enough of that for now. Over the past couple of months, you’ve probably heard a lot about “super PACs” and what they can do for political campaigns. With the first primary drawing to a close, it’s time to ask: Are they really worth anything?

They certainly are to campaigns themselves. Super PACs can raised unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and labor unions. They typically use it to buy TV ad space, the most expensive item in a politician’s media toolbox, to pump up their chosen candidate. This year’s contenders:

• Huntsman: Our Destiny
• Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): Restore Our Future
• Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Winning Our Future
• Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX): Make Us Great Again
• Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX): Endorse Liberty
• Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): Red, White and Blue

As you can see, originality in naming is not these groups’ strong suit. Because each candidate can say he has a super PAC supporting him exclusively, you might think the concept is akin to a charitable arm of an educational institution or hospital. But those charitable arms are actually attached to the bodies for whom they raise money. Super PACs are, in theory, independent of the campaign and are not permitted to coordinate activities with it.

If you believe no candidate’s handlers have ever overstepped this boundary before, or that there are mechanisms in place to make sure they aren’t happening, get off the computer and go back to second grade. I am personally not opposed to corporations and unions donating to candidates (assuming they check with their shareholders/members first); that keeps the candidates honest. But to bundle them with individual donations in this way obscures the truth about the origins of the money from the public.

To be fair, the PACs are required to disclose their donors. But how many people do you think are likely to seek them out? How will we know the effect on the candidate’s platform until they take office? And even though individuals can donate to these things, how much of it is theirs and how much of it is from actual special interests?

These are just a few questions that deserve some hard answers after this election cycle is out. This may be overly idealistic, but donations from individual voters will always be the most meaningful, and a candidate who can refuse special-interest donations but does not falls short of the ideal.

For those times you wish you were affiliated

With every new error committed by a less electable candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, my toleration for excuses not to support former Gov./Ambassador Jon Huntsman (R-UT) shrinks. Ask anyone, even his hardest-core supporters, and they’ll tell you it’s his propensity for moderate rhetoric and red meat-free policy proposals that are holding him back. “Retail politics” is the game, and nobody thinks he can play it.

OK. So he at times has been excessively blunt in his criticisms of his own party. As if that’s never been done before; how often does Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) tout herself as the savior of “constitutional conservatism?” (The same Constitution that says nothing about people’s sex lives? Right.) Compared to his record as a whole, that’s pretty petty, isn’t it? Nonetheless he has to contend with primary voters who would rather have an ideologically pure candidate win with 51 percent than a moderate candidate win with 70 percent. Priorities, people.

So where does that leave independent voters who might have to choose between two sides of the same nutcased coin? We’ve talked about open primaries. We’ve talked about putting together a third-party ticket online. Given a choice, I’ll take the latter, assuming candidates on party ballots are eligible. But it might not have to be that complicated. Here’s something I’d like to see: the National Independent Straw Poll (NISP).

Every now and then, some media outlet or think tank or other will commission its own straw poll, focusing on one voter demographic or another, mostly along party and ideological lines, and usually within one state at a time. The NISP would apply only to voters who are registered as Independent or declined-to-state. It would be held about six to eight weeks before the major state primaries, and as you can tell from the name, it would be national. No Labels would run it, since I wouldn’t trust anyone else. And all the major- and third-party candidates would be on the ballot.

I defy any of the candidates on the Republican stage to tell me that independents are a voting bloc they can do without. Remember that we represent 24 percent of the voting population. Capturing that 24 percent would be enough to crush one’s opponent in the general election. But, if one candidate is too busy with their base to bother trying to win, well, they’ll suffer the consequences. It’s not our problem.

If the NISP were held today, based on the sentiments of my fellow centrist/moderate/independent bloggers, Huntsman could easily sweep it. And if only he saw the value in that, so much the better . . . for us.

Just put your cards on the table

When Canadians vote, we are required to bring ID that shows our address and our photo. I don’t have a driver’s license, so I use my health insurance card and my MLCC (Manitoba Liquor Control Commission) card. It’s not much of a hassle because I have all my IDs in my bag, except for my passport. But how about people who don’t have any ID at all? That’s the bone of contention over a related law that was just signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC).

The law makes South Carolina the tenth state to adopt legislation requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls. If they don’t have it, they are required to obtain a new voter registration card with a photo. According to The State, the largest daily newspaper in South Carolina, the state Election Commission will foot the bill for the new IDs, at a cost ranging from $500,000 to $1 million; nobody seems to be clear on that.

From the outset, it seems like a fair compromise. People of voting age who don’t have a photo ID for whatever reason – never went to university, couldn’t afford a driver’s license, the list goes on – get it for free, and no one can argue that the idea is out of the public interest. Frankly, I would rather have a single voter registration card with a photo so I wouldn’t have to keep my wallet out longer than necessary. (Petty, I know, but I had to come up with something.)

But the opposition here is to the same thing that has come up in discussions of net neutrality legislation: Is it proportional to the problem it’s designed to fix? As much as I support net neutrality as a concept, I have seen no evidence of even an attempt at a corporate takeover of the Internet. To justify photo ID requirements, supporters cite voter fraud. Is there a nationwide epidemic of voter fraud that nobody told me about? Has America sunk to the level of Haiti?

It’s important to answer this question before pursuing most bills. Unless someone has a good reason to bring it up, it can waste time in the legislature while it’s being debated, and it can waste money for taxpayers after it’s enacted. I can’t imagine that the most vocal opponents of voter fraud would appreciate being tricked into blowing resources on something of minimal importance.

Even that little mishap doesn’t merit a legislative solution, ridiculous as it is. But it’s something legislators should expect of, and demand from, each other, if only so they can do their jobs more efficiently. I’m sure Haley has more time on her hands now that the South Carolina GOP primary is over, but it would still help.

The impossible logistics of open primaries

Primaries are a very exciting event for us all – or, at least, those of us who are willing to align themselves in full with a political party. Not being one of those people, I’d have little to do during primary season but offer recommendations. Under an open primary system, which has been advocated by a number of other centrist bloggers in recent weeks, voters could choose a party’s nominee for the general election regardless of their own affiliation, or the lack thereof.

The centrist argument for open primaries is that it allows independent voters to give a more moderate candidate a bump. From what I can tell, it would also allow partisan voters from the opposite party to come in and provide an influx of votes for the candidate they take the least seriously. And don’t tell me that no official party member would have so little of a life that they’d actually go for it. Imagine the ensuing Facebook campaigns!

Sol’s post cites Walt Pozgay, a letter writer in Kentucky, who had this to say:

I know that many will say that I should have joined a party. While my reasoning is beyond the scope of this letter, I simply cannot. Neither should I be forced to join one party or the other just so that I can vote for positions that should not have anything to do with party affiliation to begin with.

I can’t disagree with Pozgay’s sentiment (though where he comes from, primaries are often the only elections – no generals), but I still can’t bring myself to say that an open primary is the answer. The concept is disingenuous when we’re still operating within the two-party paradigm. Besides, I seriously doubt there would be a high enough percentage of centrist primary voters for the outcome to suit them. Rank-and-file party members and hyper-partisan firebreathers would always be larger contingents.

Sol’s other argument is that taxpayers should not fund events like primaries in which many of them don’t have a say. Now that I agree with. If the primary is only going to serve one party in particular, that party should be responsible for paying for it. No sufficient argument can be made for keeping public funding in place.

Because independents, and indeed centrists, are by their nature an intellectually amorphous mass, there is no way for us to agree on our ideal candidate, much less put them up before the primary. If you want a candidate who agrees with you most of the time, you might have to become that candidate – or help change the political culture as Gordon Chaffin recommends.

Provided by the support of taxpayers like you

You know what’s even better than writing about elections? Writing about the policies that will determine the fate of elections. (According to moi.) Case in point, today’s “largely symbolic 239-160 vote” in the House of Representatives that would end public financing of presidential campaigns. I figure everything that has no chance of clearing the Senate or President Obama’s desk during this session will be known as “largely symbolic.” Also, everything with little fiscal impact.

Since the Watergate scandal, taxpayers have been permitted to check off a box on their tax forms that would send $3 (why can’t we fund the arts that way?) to a federal campaign fund from which a candidate who forgoes private fundraising can take an $84 million lump sum. The justification at the time was that it would “reduce the influence of unregulated private donations.” Both President Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) refused to take this option in 2008, and instead raised their money privately.

Today, only 7 percent of taxpayers check off that box. If the program were eliminated altogether, it would generate $617 million in savings. Proponents want those savings to be used for deficit reduction and nothing else. According to my calculator, it will shave a whopping 0.0004 percent off the $1.4 trillion deficit. How very effectual. Next thing you know, we’ll have a “largely symbolic vote” on switching from Charmin to generic toilet paper in congressional bathrooms for the sake of fiscal responsibility and stuff.

But every bit of savings adds up on top of the last one, and it’s good to start small right after the State of the Union. (During which Obama himself called for deficit reduction and less spending, doncha know.) All such measures must be decided on the basis of principle. And in principle, considering Americans are allowed to choose if they want their money to be used for this purpose, it does very little to hurt them.

In fact, it doesn’t hurt anyone, unless you consider laziness on the campaign trail to be a form of self-hurt, which I do. By taking these funds instead of the ones provided to you directly, you are essentially admitting that there aren’t enough voters who would think about doing that. Or, if you are popular, it’s an admission that you like free money too much. In any case, a candidate with a large voter pool wouldn’t need them.

At the end of the day, only little-known third party candidates benefit from this program, and only if they meet the requirements. I’d like a third-party president as much as any good centrist, but they, more than anyone, should fundraise on the basis of merit.

Dude, where’s my district?

Picture this: You are the Democratic incumbent in a swing state that has leaned conservative at various times, depending on the political winds. As predicted, many of the midterm races on the state level end up going to the Republicans, but you managed to squeak by solely by virtue of your incumbency. The new composition of your state’s Legislature means you have a lot of new opponents. They have the power to redraw the state’s district map – and take away the district you have served for years.

For the politically unsavvy, this may seem like the plotline of a political thriller that happens to be a bit low on thrills. But it can happen, and it certainly may this year in states such as New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. State politicians who have more long-term thinking skills than others have either seen this opportunity already or cackled with glee at the reminder of it. Not only does it clear their opponents out of the way, but it bodes well for them should they choose to run federally.

Most states do give control of redistricting to their Legislatures; some don’t even need to consider it, as their population only warrants them one House representative. (Another note to the politically unsavvy: Senators don’t have to deal with this redistricting business. Every state gets two senators regardless of population.) It would be nice if we could have faith that the sitting members of said Legislatures would keep partisanship from getting in the way of fair redistricting practices. But when they don’t have to, can we expect them to?

Six states – Arizona, Idaho, Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey and Washington – have a different method that works along these lines: There is an independent redistricting commission with an odd number of members. No more than 50 percent of those members can be from any one political party. So if the commission has nine members, four would be Republicans, four would be Democrats and one would be an independent. (Thank God for that.)

Why hasn’t it occurred to every other state in the union that this is the way to do things? Granted, a couple are so blindly blue or red already that even fair redistricting wouldn’t save them. But it does allow for state districts to be determined for their truly important characteristics – population, relative size, etc. – and none that would benefit anyone for strictly partisan reasons.

Sadly, were the federal government to attempt to legislate this across the board, it would look like they were worried about losing again. Therefore, voters must demand that their districts make sense every session.