Ways to Perfect Our Democracy

The first 100 days of the Obama Presidency have come and gone in a state of crisis. For supporters of democracy reform, however, that could describe the last eight years since Bush v. Gore. If the 2008 election vindicated their work, it was only a first step toward redressing the fundamental flaws of our democracy.

In the words of Miles Rapoport, democracy reform advocate and president of the think tank Demos, "A lot of the focus for Demos and for other organizations over the last ten years has been work on the state level. That was a result of the fact that Washington was so hopelessly gridlocked on these issues, it was almost better not to have Washington take them up. The situation is different now. The possibilities for federal reform are better now than they've ever been before."

As the data-crunchers digest the numbers, it's clear that 2008 had the highest turnout of any presidential election since the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972: 62% of eligible voters. More African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters made it to the polls than ever before, and the electorate on November 4th looked more like America than it ever has in the past (proportionally speaking). However remarkable, this milestone was partly the result of a slightly lower turnout (in relative terms) by white and elderly voters, and it was far short of the record-setting spectacle many had hoped for. Voting rates in the US continue to lag far behind many of the world's other oldest democracies. There's still much to do to make it possible for all Americans to make their voices heard, from enacting election day registration and early voting to making election day a holiday.

As advocates for election reform are quick to observe, the fact that the turnout didn't shatter records may have been a blessing in disguise. The seven-year-old, nonpartisan Election Protection coalition declared in its report: "Election officials nationwide were grossly under-resourced." Election Protection's hotline took nearly a hundred thousand calls on election day alone. As Common Cause's Tova Wang put it shortly after the election: "We must... wonder what kind of system breakdown would ensue should we ever achieve the turnout levels that are routine in most countries around the world, where participation rates are in the 75-94% range."

At 62%, Election Protection reported that "hundreds of thousands" of voters still had to wait for hours to cast their ballots. In Detroit some waited for five hours; in St. Louis, six; in the battleground of Chesapeake, VA, seven.

Just over a third of the problems reported to Election Protection's hotline involved registration. Seemingly unrelated problems -- with absentee ballots or polling places, for example -- were often really issues with registration as well. As Election Protection director Jonah Goldman observes: "Registration was really the big cancer in the whole voting process." An MIT study estimates that 2.2 million voters were turned away from the polls due to problems with their registration, and another 2.2 million due to problems with their identification.

The voter suppression tactics the 2004 election made disconcertingly familiar resurfaced as well. In the weeks running up to the election, the Election Protection hotline received nearly daily calls about deceptive practices. "Traditionally its been targeting minority communities," Goldman says. "This year we saw a couple of really unfortunate developments. One: the tactics have been updated for the 21st century. We saw them on Facebook, we saw them on MySpace. There are text messages and e-mails going out. Now they're often targeting first time voters and young voters." The threat of voter caging and challenges was also brandished yet again; if these practices were held in check, it was thanks to the rapid legal response by national democracy reform groups in Ohio, Montana, and elsewhere.

It's long past time to declare voter suppression a crime, and focus on encouraging voters, not discouraging them. On November 10, 2008, Tova Wang could still write, in reference to deceptive practices: "Currently, the Department of Justice does not believe there is a federal statute that explicitly criminalizes this activity."

Rep. John Conyers is one of several elected officials working to change this. He has resurrected Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Act in the House (it awaits an answer in the Senate), and advocates think the bill would be an important step. Rep. Conyers has also introduced the Caging Prohibition Act – Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has advanced a companion bill in the Senate – which would ban the practice of using undeliverable mail to challenge a voter's registration. Along with these measures, a law restricting the power to challenge a voter's registration to election officials would check the most egregious ways of keeping voters from voting.

Challenges and caging were pioneered by the defenders of Jim Crow and segregation; deceptive practices and registration problems disproportionately impact African-American and Latino voters. Even as these practices persist, both sides in an upcoming Supreme Court case are drawing on Barack Obama's election to argue over the continuing relevance of a major provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the innocuously named Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Gonzales. The VRA requires jurisdictions with a history of discrimination--eight states including Texas, and any number of municipalities and counties--to clear any changes to their electoral procedures with the Justice Department or a federal court. Attorneys for the Texas district are arguing that Obama's election demonstrates the VRA's safeguards are no longer necessary. And the Roberts' court seems to be receptive to the argument, with the Chief Justice declaring rhetorically: "You know I have this whistle to keep away elephant. Well. there are no elephants, so it must work." With Justice Kennedy reportedly leaning in Roberts' direction, there's some chance the court will decide against pre-clearance. If the Court essentially overturns a major provision by which the VRA is enforced, democracy reform advocates and Congress will have to act quickly to ensure the gains of the civil rights movement.

While a conservative Court considers whether the VRA is still relevant, the 18th century compromise that is the electoral college remains in place, even after effectively overturning the will of the people in 2000. The electoral college succeeded in infiltrating the three-fifths compromise into the election of the President, and long after that shameful deal was overturned, the college has persisted. Slowly, the push for a national popular vote for president is gaining ground across the country. One state legislature after another are passing bills that declare that once states representing a majority of electoral college votes sign on, they will award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. The principle of ‘One person, one vote' will finally be represented at all levels of government.

"These are a series of issues all related by the empowerment of ordinary voters in a democracy," says Nick Nyhart, dedicated campaign finance reformer, Public Campaign CEO, and occasional Nation contributor. With Obama in office and a Democratic congress, "a number of these issues go from existing on the drawing boards to actually existing in practice," Nyhart says. "They go from hopes to actual possibilities."

Campaign finance reform is one of those possibilities. If the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo essentially rules out public financing of campaigns, the Fair Elections Now Act sponsored by Dick Durbin (D-IL) may be the next best thing. The act uses public funds to give leverage to small donors, matching contributions of $100 or less at a 4:1 rate. "We want a public financing system strong enough that Barack Obama would not have opted out," Nyhart says.

In the 2008 election cycle alone, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate industries gave more than $463 million to the duopoly, splitting it almost equally between Democrats (51%) and Republicans (49%). As backroom bailout deals and black site torture tactics slowly continue to come to light, calls for transparency provide another possible rallying point for a democracy reform movement.

The Sunlight Foundation is a two-year-old organization dedicated to "changing the focus in terms of who's a gatekeeper for this information," says Gabriela Schneider, a spokesperson for the nonprofit. The Foundation works to achieve this goal both by supporting the work of other organizations, like the Center for Responsive Politics (a recent grant for more than $1 million required the Center make its data available under a Creative Commons license), and through the work of Sunlight Labs, their open source development team. Their first annual ‘open source application' contest generated dozens of new tools for keeping track of the sort of things elected officials would often rather no one kept track of, like Filibusted, which lets anyone track of just which Senators are refusing to vote for cloture.

"This is the next generation of civic engagement," Schneider says. "There's increased apathy and mistrust of government. We think that the solution to that is greater transparency. It's a way to empower people--the more they know, the more they feel part of the process. We see it as a way to revitalize democracy. The transparency work is a catalyst for the greater democracy reform movement."

Another potential catalyst is the creation of an Office of Civic Engagement within the executive branch. "There needs to be a place in the White House whose job it is day in and day out, to figure out how, in all the welter of issues, what role citizens have in this," says Miles Rapoport. "How can we do this in a way that encourages people to think of government not as this kind of other, but that gives people a larger stake in the decisions that are made. And we'll get better decisions that way. It's easy in the crisis mentality that can often pervade for civic engagement to be lost. So having someone or some group in the White House that's really thinking about this is a good thing." On the second day of his administration, President Obama issued an executive order calling for "a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration." The Obama administration has since opened an Office of Social Innovation within the White House, placing the emphasis on new forms of technological innovation. An Office of Civic Engagement would still be invaluable for achieving those goals.

Over the coming weeks, I'll be writing a series of blog posts delving into these issues in greater detail and examining the possibilities for democracy reform. Our democracy still needs defending. But the best defense is a good offense.

With reporting by freelance Reporter/Researcher Nicholas Jahr.

Comments (25)

1. For starters, Buckley v. Valeo didn't "[rule] out public financing of campaigns," it simply said you couldn't force it on candidates that don't want it.

   Second, the so-called Fair Elections Now Act is little more than incumbent and establishment protection, shoveling taxpayer dollars into the campaign coffers of those already in office or favored by the political establishment. Or perhaps you believe challengers will have no trouble raising 1,500 contributions (or more for the Senate) in a 4-month period is a breeze?

   Sean Parnell President Center for Competitive Politics http://www.campaignfreedom.org sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

   Posted by seanparnell at 05/04/2009 @ 09:56am

2. 2 hours before the first comment, and it's by a spammer.

   great.

   Posted by Benchrest at 05/04/2009 @ 10:02am

3. Perhaps we should send a delegation to Finland. Maybe Bernie Sanders should go and prepare a report for us.

   Posted by sntauri at 05/04/2009 @ 10:24am

4. Until we have election reform with publically funded elections there will be very little we can do about all the bought and paid for politcians in Washington. And they will continue to vote and sponsor legislation in favor of their masters. And as a result of this no real meaningful reform will ever come out of the house or senate. Period.

   So election reform is actually the most important first step in assuring that the wishes of the electorate are not only heard but acted upon. IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) would also be a great step forward. The Green Party has been sponsoring this at the local level with great success.

   The problem is that the "Business as Usual Crowd" in Washington are afraid to sponsor any legislation concerning election reform.

   So my question is, how do we get this kind of legislation passed? It seems impossible..

   Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 10:28am

5. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

   Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

   The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

   The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

   The bill is currently endorsed by 1,659 state legislators -- 763 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 896 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

   The National Popular Vote bill has passed 27 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

   See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

   Posted by mvy at 05/04/2009 @ 11:20am

6. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

   See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

   Posted by mvy at 05/04/2009 @ 11:22am

7. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090503_buying_brand_obama/

   Posted by I-Prinze at 05/04/2009 @ 11:41am

8. Posted by mvy at 05/04/2009 @ 11:20am

   Which Bill is that? Or is it only statewide? With separate bills in each state. Can states adopt this on their own? I have never been sure how the enacting of such legislation would work. It doesn't seem to take the traditional route to bring it into effect. In any case it seems to have wide popular appeal.

   I have often thought that a Constitutional Amendment to adopt a Parlimentary system in this country would lead to representation in government of numerous parties. But this doesn't really seem to address exactly that but does seem to make the current two party system much more fair. And one thing could lead to another and eventually lead to a Parlimentary system of government if the people so chose.

   I think it was probably the only big mistake the founding fathers made, in not establishing a Parlimentary system of Government. Probably because it was to similar to the system of the mother country.

   Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 12:29pm

9. I wanted to add that in a Pariamentary System we could avoid the problems associated with adopting a Fair Vote.

   Population dense areas of the country could have an unfair advantage in influencing the outcome of elections. Under the current two party system.

   Some states have a low population density and would likely be under represented in elections, and as a result we would have an undermining of States Rights.

   With a Parliamentary system low population dense States would likely still be adequately represented in Congress. So there would be less animosity between low population dense States and high population dense States.

   But none of this would work at all without Publicly Funded Elections.

   We need to revamp our system of government to fit the needs of the 21st century. We are no longer the same Democratic Republic we were over 200 years ago.

   America's strength has never been it's ability to plan for the long term. We are an impatient people. Our strength has always been our ability to adapt to a new situation quickly and turn on a dime.

   Let's use that rare talent to our advantage..

   Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 1:09pm

10. 2 hours before the first comment, and it's by a spammer.

    great.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/04/2009 @ 10:02am

    I plead guilty! I read this (too long) KvH piece halfway down and `left'.....could've posted the first comment.

    I think the Left has its tongues tied by Magic-In-Chief.......after all, how much interest can there be with articles about the GOP dying (so every MSM source says).

    Think he's being black has something to do with it? Nah, never!

    Michael Ramirez & Paul Shanklin are the shrewd ones who `get it' and are profiting from Magic....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 05/04/2009 @ 1:20pm

11. Posted by Happy at 05/04/2009 @ 1:20pm

    It IS a little tedious, isn't it? Almost breathless. Unwarranted anxiety on KVH's part I believe.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/04/2009 @ 1:30pm

12. Posted by Happy at 05/04/2009 @ 1:20pm

    What a Tool. Let's see.. As usual you reveal yourself as a bigot. No surprise there, is there?

    Obfuscation. Another well worn and tattered tactic. Mentioning Michael Ramirez & Paul Shanklin. One a cartoonist and the other a voice actor.

    Is that all you have HAPP? How do you manage to look in the mirror every morning? Astounding..

    Are you one of the "Lizard People"? Or just a lackey? I really can't tell unless I could see a video.

    By the way, if anyone wants to see the current batch of "Lizard People" just watch Fox News. Or even CNN. Thet have a batch of them there.

    You can always tell who they are. They have misshapen heads and wide set almond shaped and strange eyes. They blink their eyes at about 5 times the rate of a normal human being. That is because of the contacts they need to wear in order to conceal the typical reptile pupil.

    Check it out. They are abundant lately. They look like they could unzip their skin and remove the human facade to reveal the talking lizard head underneath.

    If I end up dead, it is only because I have revealed their terrible secret! :)

    Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 1:47pm

13. Democracy will only be as healthy as we make it. I think we all need to utilize our incredible luxury and vote. We take these luxuries for granted although there are so many people in the world who cannot vote and whose basic rights are ignored. The U.S. should do more to help the poor around the world for strategic and humanitarian purposes. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

    $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

    Posted by davidwaters at 05/04/2009 @ 2:32pm

14. I applaud any effort to make participation in government easier and friendlier for voters. The task is daunting. Once elections are over interest fades fast and people spend most of their time working 8 – 5 jobs, fixing dinner, and taking care of children. What can be more important than spending time with your children?

    Commuters always have the option of podcasts but local radio stations are often just jammed with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and laura Ingram. Some effort should be made to demand equal time for left wing equal stations and equal access. Rush, Sean, and Laura, are not the news. If I could get "The Nation" on Radio I would listen. It may take a lawsuit.

    Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 05/04/2009 @ 2:37pm

15. Left wingers can buy time just like right wingers. Money talks, just outbid the right wingers.

    Posted by jsens at 05/04/2009 @ 3:01pm

16. <i>Posted by jsens at 05/04/2009 @ 3:01pm</i>

    Right; this is why a system of forced equal time is stupid no matter which political ideology you belong to.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 3:04pm

17. I think the Left has its tongues tied by Magic-In-Chief.......

    Posted by Happy at 05/04/2009 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    And if this Prez is still "Magic" to you, GWB will ALWAYS be "Chimpy" to me.

    So there.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/04/2009 @ 3:07pm

18. Okay Katrina -

    2006 Democrats ran a platform of ending the war in Iraq, cleaning up the cesspool, restoring accountability, prosecuting Bush criminals, restoring fiscal responsibility to government, blah blah blah, etc. Still waiting.

    Take pols like Wasserman Schultz, who as a ThirtySomething Dem on CSPAN weekly railed against the war, the Republican cesspool, prosecuting Bush crime, and restoring fiscal responsibility. Once elections are over - "oh, the American people really don't want that."

    The only way we are going to get democracy in the country is to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and institute strict campaign finance guidelines that do not favor the wealthy. Equal time for all candidates should be provided without cost from the media. We need to get rid of the two party monopoly who uses money politic to maintain their hegemony over American politics.

    Doesn't matter a rat's ass about voter turnout until you turnout candidates from a reformed electoral system and a reformed democracy.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 5:50pm

19. "...Doesn't matter a rat's ass about voter turnout until you turnout candidates from a reformed electoral system and a reformed democracy."

    ~OneVote

    I'll second that emotion.

    :D

    P.S. A "palate cleanser" for the above Ear Worm:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ej3BdMpgZw

    Many thanks to Snowball for the inspiration recently. Have another "Becks" on me, dude.

    --Porkpie Hat from an old favorite of mine, "Wired".

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/04/2009 @ 6:13pm

20. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/04/2009 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    SB is pretty straight up with a good moral compass far as I can tell. Keep up the good work guys. I may even change my handle to include a 6 or two:

    OneVote66 -

    Seems to be a good cosmic kharmic number.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 6:42pm

21. Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 05/04/2009 @ 2:37pm

    One reason liberals aren't on the radio stations is because they totally stink at it. You have no good radio talent. The best ya'll could come up with was Al Franken and Rachel Maddow.

    Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 8:56pm

22. "Perhaps it's because liberals read books and use the net instead of listening to the radio (talk about sacrificing your freedom to the hivemind)?"

    "Not as big a market for anger, hyperactive tourette's, and ignorant blather over here, I guess."

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/04/2009 @ 9:12pm

    Oh please!! What a load of crap? Most libs I know don't read at all. Can't tell any names of any authors. My siblings and their children are prime examples.

    And you're mistaken if you think libs don't want a piece of that lucrative radio market. I guess you forgot about the "fairness doctrine", huh?

    "Liberals read more books", that's too funny!!

    Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 10:22pm

23. Yeah, these generalizations are silly.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 10:34pm

24. Frankly, the /last/ thing this country needs is more empty-headed dolts voting.

    How can a functional illiterate possibly learn enough, or understand enough, about the issues or candidates positions on those issues to form a rational opinion and cast a reasoned vote?

    The answer is, of course, that they can't. Instead they vote for, or against, the guy with the best hair, or whoever their friends vote for, or, most often, the demagogue who offers them the most goodies.

    The average American imbecile--and that includes a lot of the people running for office--doesn't know or care about the economic or social consequences of having government actually provide those goodies The economic disaster-in-waiting of a truly astounding Federal debt isn't their concern. The social divisiveness of compelling one segment of the population to subsidise the rest is a matter of indifference.

    Democracy is predicated on the existence of a responsible electorate--something the US hasn't had in a very long time.

    Posted by HenryMiller at 05/05/2009 @ 10:05am

25. I would change the 1040 form so that at the end of your return you can select where your tax dollars are going. If I wanted to contribute more to health care than defense I would have the choice of doing so.

    Next, I would have congress print money and loan it to the Federal Reserve instead of the Federal Reserve loaning money to the government like it does now. This way the interest would go directly to the government which could be used to pay down the debt and fund public works programs, health care, green economy, education, etc.

    Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 05/05/2009 @ 1:48pm