LECTURE VII: REFORMING THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Dr. Christopher Malone Associate Professor of Political Science Pace University

I. The Need for Electoral Reform?

We have looked at several parts of the nomination and election process for presidency: the creation and development of the electoral college; changes in the nomination process; campaign financing for presidential elections; and the political environment, or voter turnout in elections. This puts us in a good position to make some comments about reforms in all of these areas of the presidential elections.

II. Changing Rules in the Primary Process

Recall that the national parties made major changes in the way that states chose their delegates in the late 1960s and early 1970s. An overwhelming majority of states now hold primaries to decide delegates from each state. But the effect of these changes has been to extend the presidential election season by as much as an entire year. Before the early 1970s, presidential elections began in earnest in the summer prior to the election, when the parties chose their candidates at the conventions. With the primary season now beginning the first week of January, candidates begin campaigning (i.e., issuing position papers and raising money) a full year to two years before the convention is held. Several proposals have been offered:

Compression

One solution would be to limit the period when primaries could be held. States could not hold their primaries either before or after a certain date determined by the parties. Positive side: voter attention would be focused for a shorter period, and candidates would have more time between the primaries and the general election to prepare. Negative side: having so many primaries in such a

Regional Primaries

A second reform involves having regions of the country hold primaries on the same day. This would solve the problem of states exercising a disproportionate amount of influence - in other words, states like New Hampshire and Iowa which are small demographically unrepresentative of the U.S. would be grouped in with other states in their region.

National Primary

A third approach would be to create one national primary for each of the parties. Proposals would place the primary some time in the summer before the party convention. Such a system would be more consistent with "one person one vote" since every state would participate on the same day. It may also increase voter turnout in the primaries. Downsides?

III. Campaign Finance Laws

Campaign finance has emerged as one of the major issues in election politics. We have looked at the way the system is financed, along with some of the proposed reforms. Some general alternatives to consider. A. Full Public Financing: sometimes called the Clean Money Option, this campaign finance reform idea seeks to provide full public financing for campaigns for any candidate who agrees to abide by the rules through public grants. The Clean Money Option has been adopted by many states Maine, Vermont, Arizona and Massachusetts. Candidates would receive public funds after raising the requisite number of small contributions for instance, $5.00 per donor. The question is: is the public ready for full public financing? Second, is the barring of private funds (corporate and union donors,

Campaign Finance Laws

B. Deregulation: A second alternative would be to deregulate the campaign finance system altogether: that is, do away with all spending limits and regulations, abolish the system of public financing for presidential candidates, and let the doors to the free market swing wide open. Deregulate and disclose is the mantra here: let anyone and everyone donate, but disclose it through the FEC.

Campaign Finance Laws

C. Alternatives to Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United: Any attempt at campaign finance reform would have to consider the Supreme Courts decision in 1976 and 2010. One would be to offer a constitutional amendment on campaign financing, though that is highly unlikely. Another would be for the existing Supreme Court to overturn these decisions and restore constraints on campaign finance. Such a move might prove equally unlikely, given the conservative makeup of the Court. It would take years of retirements and Democratic presidents

Campaign Finance Laws

D. Super PAC Money: With the Citizens United decision, unlimited amount of money from undisclosed donors is pouring into the system to do issue advocacy by "independent expenditure-only committees." Issue advocacy refers to the advertising parties and other groups conduct during campaigns around issues, not candidates. There are no limits on the amount of money spent on issue advocacy - at least not yet. At some point this will have to be addressed.

IV. Media Coverage

Weve discussed the way that the media covers the modern campaign. A few general points can to be made and possible reforms to be enacted when it comes to the media. A. Deliberation: Elections are supposed to be a deliberation about issues affecting citizens and about the nature of civic life in general. In a mass democracy, we receive information through the mass (television) media commercials, news shows, etc. But the question becomes: how much deliberation can take place in the system as it now stands? B. "The incredible shrinking sound bite": Consider what we learned about sound bite politics. The result is that candidates are forced to cater their message to the amount of time given to them. The effect is a debate based not on deliberation but on exaggerated rhetoric.

Media Coverage
C. "Horse Race": one study found that only 17% of news coverage during campaigns was devoted to policy and the issues. The rest focused campaign strategy and tactics or the "horse race". Who is ahead? Who is behind? Part of this stems from the fact that complex issues take a long time to explain, something that voters are either unwilling or unable to give, and something that commercial television finds unprofitable.

Media Coverage
D. Politics as a Spectator Sport - So the trick for news organizations is to make politics entertaining at the same time the news broadcast appears to be informative, much like sports. We watch; the politicians/candidates are the players; the journalists become the commentators.. We become spectators to this game that we have an interest in much the sense that we are interested in a football or basketball game. But the difference is that the decisions made in politics affect the welfare of our

V. The Electoral College

We have seen that the electoral college still plays an important role in the election of the president. Any presidential contender has to win 270 electoral votes in order to win the office regardless of the popular vote count. Theoretically, this means that a candidate can win as few as 11 states and win the office. Hence, candidates decide which are the battleground states and which are the states out of play. In other words, candidates make a calculated decision as to which states they will spend time and money in, and which states they have no chance of winning. Some possible reforms to consider:

The Electoral College

A. Proportional plan: Currently, the electoral college in most states is a winner-take-all institution. That is, you win the popular vote of a state, you win all the electoral votes of that state (only a couple of states do not allocate electoral votes in this manner). Perhaps an alternative would be some type of proportional system where the losers in the states popular vote nonetheless received electoral votes. But the question becomes: what happens if time and again candidates do not receive the necessary 270 electoral votes to win? This would be especially true if third party candidates ran for president. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives decides the winner in this scenario. Then we would be forever beholden to the Legislative Branch of government in the choosing of the Executive the very things the Framers sought protections against.

The Electoral College

B. Direct Election vote: The other alternative is to abolish the electoral college altogether and make the presidency an office decided solely by popular vote. This would mean a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Such a move is highly unlikely, whether it is desirable or not. It would also essentially change the way candidates run for the presidency. In other words, candidates would go where the votes are, which would mean urban and suburban campaigning versus rural campaigning. The Electoral College forces candidates to focus on big states versus small states. Many rural states would be neglected with the abolition of the Electoral College, and by contrast urban and suburban areas would be inundated.

VI. Voter Turnout

With the exception of the 2008 election (the highest voter turnout since 1968), voter turnout has been declining in the twentieth century. While there are many explanations for this phenomenon, solutions have focused on legal, institutional, and political obstacles standing in the way to higher voter turnout. Most people assume that the anemic voter turnout in the United States is something of an embarrassment. Hence, possible solutions have been put forth. Some to consider:

Voter Turnout
A. Automatic Registration: Statistics show that about 80% of all those registered to vote actually vote. Should we have automatic registration, thus lowering the barrier to voting? B. Election Day a National Holiday: Federal elections in America are held on a Tuesday. Should it be a national holiday? Should we move it to a weekend day?

C. Mail in Balloting/E-Voting: Some states such as Oregon have moved to a mail in ballot which stipulates a period of voting up to 21 days prior to the election. Should it be a national requirement? Or how about voting on the internet? Is there bias in this method? The possibility of fraud?
D. Compulsory Voting: Some European countries and others around the globe compel their citizens to vote should we do the same in the United States?

Voter Turnout
E. Proportional Representative System: We have a winner-take-all system in the United States for most elections, meaning that the one who gets the most votes wins the seat or office. Losers get nothing. In some countries, proportional representation is the norm, meaning that the losers will get a percentage of representation in office (e.g., a party that gets 30% of the vote will gain 30% of the seats in the national Parliament). Many argue that more voters will turnout if they are guaranteed some type of representation. Should we move to this type of system?

Voter Turnout
F. Increasing Access to the Media for Candidates: Free airtime for candidates may make voters more aware of the issues rather than of the sound bites of the candidates, hence more interested in the election and more likely to vote. Negative campaigning, goes this line of thinking, would be transformed because candidates would spend more time on what they would like to accomplish in office. A good idea?