 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 9, 2008 at 07:15:31
Real Change Means Changing Our Elections to Office by bhwhite Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
I suggest making a single procedural change to our elections, which now often decide little beyond the fate of the candidates’ personal ambitions, by adding a simple yet power ballot option to all elections to office. The change is based on a fundamental legal principle: All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent. The change I suggest is adding a binding “None of the Above” voter consent ballot option to all elections to office, giving voters the ballot option to withhold their consent in elections to office, just as they can on ballot questions. When voting on ballot questions, voters have the ability to withhold their consent by voting “NO”, which the courts have consistently upheld, setting aside countless attempts to present voters with such choices as “Plan A or Plan B”. For example, on a ballot question in December 1998 in Puerto Rico, voters originally could choose either current commonwealth status, independence, or statehood. A federal judge ruled voters needed to be able to withhold their consent to any plan and ordered "None of the Above" be place on the ballot. In the election, 50.2 percent of Puerto Rican voters chose "None of the Above", withholding their consent to all the plans offered. 
However, in elections to office, voters are presented with choices of “Candidate A or Candidate B” and all too often just “Candidate A” but they are unable to withhold their consent when they consider all candidates for an office unacceptable. These “must-hire”, lesser evil elections are the foundation of a system whereby two major parties, through ballot access restrictions, control voters’ choices. In effect, except for ballot questions and local non partisan contests for office, all our elections are rigged.
While it is extremely unlikely our state legislatures, all controlled by the two major parties, would enact such a Voter Consent Law giving voters a "None of the Above" ballot option, a Voter Consent Law was introduced in Massacusettes in 2007. It was tabled without further action after one hearing. However, over 20 states have Initiative Petition in one form or another, whereby voters could enact a Voter Consent Law themselves. In addition, some courts may be open to the argument that our democracy depends on the consent of the governed and that all legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent, and be persuaded to order a binding “None of the Above” on the ballot for elections to office.
This may be a long shot, but I believe it can be done and plausibly answers the reader’s question: “So what is your recommendation for proper action?” Surely, we should make our elections more democratic before we can seriously expect elections to office to bring about changes voters want.
Among the reasons listed by Voters for None of the Above why having a binding “None of the Above” ballot option are:
· All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent; "None of the Above" gives the voter the ballot option to withhold consent from an election to office, just as voters can cast a "No" vote on a ballot question.
· Would end the "must hire" elections where voters are often forced to vote for the least unacceptable candidate, the all too familiar "lesser evil."
· A candidate must obtain voter consent to be elected, even if running unopposed.
· Voters would decide the fate of the political parties' choices, instead of the parties deciding the voters' choices.
· It should reduce negative campaigning by encouraging candidates to campaign for their own candidacy rather than against their opponent's candidacy.
· Many voters and non voters, who now register their disapproval of all candidates for an office by not voting, could cast a meaningful vote.
· Provides an effective alternative to the increasing voter practice of writing-in frivolous names, the so-called “Mickey Mouse” option.
· The meaning of elections should become more clear, since voters would no longer be tempted to vote for a presumed losing candidate, with whom they really do not agree, as a protest vote.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 2 comments |
|
How does that bring change?
I'm not sure how having a "None of the Above" option brings change. If "None of the Above" won, who gets in office? Even if no one, the government would still be administered by the establishment. Such a vote would not indicate the reason for dissatisfaction. It could be a merely personal dislike for the candidates on the ballot. It could be on policy grounds, but what policy grounds would be totally unknown. It does not communicate effectively. We do need real electoral reform, but I'm not sure this is it. We need to prohibit election by a minority vote, make it much easier to get parties and candidates on the ballot, control private funding of elections, etc. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:07:05 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Meaning of Elections and Voter Consent Laws
Dear Mr. Samuel, You raise difficult questions about the meaning of elections, which I really can not answer. But I think I can address some of the issues you raise, and ask that you consider for the moment, not the “meaning” of election outcomes, but rather the election process itself. For example, if a candidate runs unopposed or against nominal opposition, the most common Congressional election profile, then voters’ votes rarely affect the outcome. If voters’ votes do not matter to the outcome, the issue is not the “meaning” of the outcome but the legitimacy of the process itself. In effect, the parties decided the election, not the voters. Taking this same example, let us consider the effect on the election process if a Voter Consent Law gave voters a binding “None of the Above” ballot option. Most fundamentally, voters would have the power to reject all candidates for an office and call for a new election, with new candidates, by casting more votes for “None of the Above” than for any of the candidates, even if a candidate ran unopposed. The voters’ votes would now clearly matter to the outcome. Another common election process is the classic “lesser evil” contest, in which two candidates attack each other, leaving voters to chose the least unacceptable candidate or not voting. Here also we can consider the likely effect of a binding “None of the Above” ballot option: it removes the underlying assumption that voters must vote for one of the candidates. When voters can decide to reject both candidates, it reduces the utility of negative campaigning and increases the incentive for candidates to address why voters should vote for them instead of the other candidate OR “None of the Above”. Finally, consider the issue of money and its effects on the two prior examples: In the first example of the unopposed candidate, money is often the critical element in that incumbents spend a good deal of time raising money during their term, primarily to build war chests to discourage meaningful opposition, which clearly affects office holder official behavior. I believe the impact of a binding “None of the Above” ballot option is clear: not matter how big the war chest or how little the opposition, candidates serve knowing they must run with “None of the Above” on the ballot. So the office holder must now not only satisfy his contributors but also now consider empowered voters’ wishes while serving in office. In “lesser evil” contested races, the affect of money is felt most clearly in the volume of advertizing used to demonize the opponent. The effect of a binding “None of the Above” ballot option is manifest: no matter how much is spent, attacks on the other candidate do not translate into votes needed to win. Can you think of anything that would help reduce the influence of money in our elections more than say a senate race in which each candidate spent tens of millions of dollars and neither was elected? Whatever else it may do, a binding “None of the Above” ballot option makes buying elections are far more uncertain enterprise. I do not mean to suggest that a Voter Consent Law giving voters a binding “None of the Above” ballot option would solve all of our problems or answer all of your questions, but I believe it addresses a critical, systemic problem: voters can not withhold their consent in elections to office, making the current election process far less responsive and meaningful than it could and should be. All legitimate consent requires the ability to withhold consent. Clearly, to the extent that we govern without the consent of the governed, we are not a democracy. And, what I think you will agree is just as important, it is a change we can realistically hope to implement. I would be very interested in your opinion of the Massachusetts Voter Consent Law because it addresses many of the issues about how a binding “None of the Above” ballot option would actually work, including issues you raise about what happens if “None of the Above” wins. Thanking you for your very thoughtful and admittedly difficult questions. Sincerely, William H. White by William White (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 78 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:41:03 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
