William J. Kelleher: Voting - An Essential, But Not Sufficient, Requirement for Democracy

Congrats to my colleague and co-blogger from the West Coast William J. Kelleher, PhD on the publication of his new Internet Voting Now! Here's How. Here's Why -- So You Can Kiss Citizens United Goodbye!

Internet Voting Now! is a thoughtful and compelling defense of moving beyond partisan machine politics in America into the current age of technology, bringing our original revolutionary founding principals and intentions with us.

Dedicated "to the men and women of our Founding Generation, who were willing to sacrifice everything for the Original American Dream -- Liberty through Self-Government," Internet Voting Now! begins:

Like the horseless carriage 100 years ago, Internet voting is coming to the USA.

And to get you started on his blog, here's a snipit from his latest post on Internet Voting For All, which rang a serious bell for me:

Voting, of course, is a very serious matter. It is an essential, albeit not sufficient, requirement for democracy. Voting is one of the principle ways by which the people of a nation are empowered to have a voice in their own destinies. The process of voting, that is, the means by which a vote is conducted, must be one that commands the trust of the voters, or the results will not be legitimate. Illegitimate governments can only cause political unhappiness, and possibly political unrest and turmoil. Hence, the right to cast a vote is meaningless unless the means by which the vote is counted is trustworthy.

- NH

Mandatory Voting vs. Opening Up the Political Process

MANDATORY VOTING
Mandatory Voting Isn’t a Solution to Polarization (John Sides, The American Prospect) First, the period of the highest voter turnout (of those eligible)—the mid- to late- 1800s—coincided with a lot of party polarization.  And the decline in turnout in the first half of the twentieth century occurred during a decline in polarization.  Compare turnout in presidential elections and polarization.  And the increasing turnout in presidential elections during the past decade has coincided with increasing polarization. Second, although states vary in whether they allow independents to vote in party primaries, more “open” primaries do not tend to produce more moderate members of Congress or less polarized state legislatures.

ALSO SEE:

Should Americans be Forced to Vote?

by  William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Some guy who is paid a fat salary by a rich think tank says that the best way to raise voter turnout is to force folks to vote. The New York Times gave him lots of space

This guy fails to see the cause of low interest and low turnout – political powerlessness. Turnout largely follows the power/wealth scale in the US. Turnout increases as you go up the scale, and decreases as you go down it. The wealthiest have the highest turnout, and the most power to get what they want from government... [continue reading]

Can People Determine the American Election Process?

ELECTION REFORM

• Should Voting Be Mandatory? Or are there already too many people casting ballots? Choice and Competition (Richard H. Pildes, NY Times) Citizen-led redistricting, open primaries and public financing of elections would bring out more voters. NOTE: Please see William Kelleher's post on The Hankster from earlier today Should Americans Be Forced To Vote?
• People’s Veto is move in right direction (By Doug Rooks, Sun Journal - Lewiston Maine) Hearings on LD 1376 yielded no evidence that the 38-year practice of Election Day registration, or EDR, caused any problems. Yet the bill’s pedigree, sponsored by House Speaker Robert Nutting, with Senate President Kevin Raye co-sponsoring, suggested Republicans were serious about eliminating an option used by 45,000 voters in 2008 alone.

Building the Arsenal of Political Reform: Proportional Representation and Internet Voting

POLITICAL REFORM

• The best way to fight the two-party monopoly (By Michael Lind, SALON) Most of the world’s democracies have adopted one or another version of proportional representation (PR), an electoral system that more or less accurately reflects the diversity of political views among the country’s citizens. Unfortunately, from 18th century Britain the U.S. inherited the older, less representative system called plurality voting or "first past the post" voting.
• Natalie Tennant: Internet Voting Profile in Courage (by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D., The Hankster) Just as in the military, a Secretary of State, or any public official, deserves praise whenever they show courage under fire. Tennant showed this courage when she went ahead with her Internet voting trial for overseas military voters. As she stated on the WV SOS website. "The members of our military are putting their lives on the line every day … I thought it was extremely important to make sure they had secure access to an online ballot. We had to make sure their voice was heard."

Debate on Top Two Open Primary Continues

Ken Beingenheimer has been running a series on Top Two. The debate continues here:

H. Sol: [Opposes Top Two because it] “puts more power into the hands of party insiders.”

Bill: Actually, the exact opposite is true. As I wrote in The Hankster, the California GOP is in a panic precisely because they have just realized that Prop 14 takes away some of the special privileges it once had as a so-called “qualified” party. Party elites and insiders can’t control who gets on the ballot or who uses the label “Republican.” Anybody who registered to vote as a “Republican” can use that label on the ballot.

This reduces the significance of the Party’s precious label. So now, they are no more than one private organization among many. They realize that if they are to have any chance of their official “Republican” candidate standing out among all the other “Republicans,” they have to agree in the primary stage on one candidate per office and back him or her to the hilt.

This is their response to their loss of power, and it does not make up that loss. The Republican Party is a wounded lion in California, and desperately struggling to survive. Prop 14 is working extremely well!

California Prop 14 is a Good Thing Because Political Parties Are Un-American

by William J. Kelleher, PhD

from OpEd News

California's Proposition 14  provides a new way for the people of California to pursue the American Dream of Liberty through self-government.    Prior to the enactment of Prop 14, only officially recognized "qualified" parties could conveniently run candidates in the primary election.   "Unqualified" outsiders had prohibitive barriers, such as costly fees and high numbers of signatures on petitions to be placed on the ballot.   Candidates in the qualified parties didn't have to suffer these restrictions.  

More than three million Californians were effectively barred from voting in the primary election simply because they declined to register to vote as a member of any of the half dozen qualified parties.   They could have lied about identifying with one of the qualified parties at the time of registering to vote, so that they could cast a primary vote; but because of their personal integrity they were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to vote in the primary election.   They could only vote in the general election for the "left overs."

Thus, an oligarchy of a half dozen qualified parties reigned in the state primary election process.   But there was an oligarchy of two parties within that oligarchy.   So-called "third parties," like Peace and Freedom, Greens, Libertarians, etc had the status of being "qualified," however, in practice they held very little power.   With over 125 elective offices in the CA government, third parties rarely held more than a few lesser positions.   Dems and Repubs held the vast majority of CA offices.   Allowing third parties the status of being qualified has never been more than a device for fooling them into thinking that the two-party system was open and democratic.   Even within the CA two-party system, one party dominates the legislative branch -" the Dems.  

This one-party legislature is the nightmare come true for our Founding Generation. Because they had just fought a revolution against a king, they put their faith in the legislature, rather than the executive, to represent the people.   They shared Madison's understanding that in "republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." (Fed 51)   Hence, the first Article of the Constitution defines the legislative branch. 

Full article at OpEd News  

Understanding Prop 14: It's Not About Ballot Access

By Harry Kresky

In a December 30, 2010 post on his Ballot Access News, Libertarian Richard Winger attacks “leaders of the former New Alliance Party,” for abandoning their commitment to ballot access reform . The “former leaders” are Jacqueline Salit, Lenora Fulani, Cathy Stewart and I, who have been in the forefront of the effort to bring nonpartisan elections, commonly called “Top Two,” to states and municipalities around the country.

Top Two eliminates party primaries in favor of a system where there is a first round of voting in which all candidates appear on one ballot and all voters participate on an equal footing, with the top two vote getters going on to the general election.  This past June California voters adopted a Top Two system by referendum over the vehement opposition of the major and minor parties. Mr. Winger played a leading role in the opposition.

Prop 14 Victory Coalition

While we disagree with Richard, and still do, on the merits of Top Two, throughout the process we have been and remain willing to work with him on insuring that ballot access and ballot status rules under Top Two were friendly to minor parties.   In a December 21, 2010 article on Huffington Post, I wrote:

With the litigation winding down, and special elections run under top two just around the corner, it is time for the minor parties to reconsider their relationship to this important reform. The new electoral terrain opening up in our country's most populous state creates possibilities for independents and minor party members to work together to achieve a fairer and more inclusive electoral process.

*        *       *

In this moment of possibility, it is important to remember what independents and minor party members have in common: a recognition that the major parties have too long placed partisan interests over the national interest; a belief that the existing two party arrangement keeps the policy dialogue within too narrow a framework; and a commitment to leveling the electoral playing field.

    The simple fact is this. Top Two is not a ballot access issue. Ballot access is about the opportunity to participate as a candidate in the nominating process. We have and continue to work for ballot access reform, Richard knows this. In fact, in the August 3, 2010 online edition of Ballot Access News he wrote favorably about a reform proposal that I authored being adopted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in support of a filing fee alternative to New York’s onerous ballot access laws.

    A Top Two system can have lenient ballot access requirements –making it easer for candidates to participate – or stringent ones. However, the general election run off in which the top two primary vote getters compete to determine who is elected to public office, means that the parties lose the right to be sure that their candidates are on the ballot in the second round of voting. This goes to the structure of our electoral process, not the rules for ballot access. It is an issue of how our elections are conducted. We favor easy access to the ballot in round one. We do not, however, favor giving special rights to political parties so that their candidates make it to round two no matter the level of support they have from voters.

    The December 30 post provoked a lively dialogue. There are 68 comments so far, more than the usual 0 to 5. Among those is this thoughtful statement by William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.:

“Out of respect for your knowledge, I won’t dispute what you say about the experiences in other states, such as LA and WA. But I will say this: the only thing that can prevent CA activists from realizing the possibilities given them by Prop 14 is their own concepts and attitudes. If all the activists read this blog and say “Oh shit! Look what we have lost. Nothing can be done,” then guess what? Nothing will be done.

“In your third paragraph you seem to set up this argument: because 3d party candidates now have to pay a [nominal ($950)] filing fee, participation in elections is “far more difficult;” indeed, primaries for them have been “shut down.”

“My message to activists is very different from yours. In my view, Prop 14 has delivered us to Libertarian Heaven.

“From my POV, understanding the gift of Prop 14 requires a re-conceptualization of the old idea of “party.” Putting presidential elections and state wide elections aside, most CA elections are for state Senate and Assembly. Therefore, for these elections, the idea of “party” should be the party-in-the-district (P/D), and not the party-in-the-state (P/S). Every P/D can have its own candidate, because ballot access is open to all. Activists in each district can evaluate what is possible for them. They can do the traditional political activities of organizing and selecting their candidate in their district. There are many tactical possibilities for combining forces and beating major party candidates. The competition is open to all. These activities can be free of control by the central P/S organization; but that does not make the activities “whimsical.”

“The party-in-the-state can still exist for such things as fundraising and defining their ideal agenda. The P/S can allocate resources and volunteers to districts with winning potential. They can abandon districts with little or no potential.”

Harry Kresky is Counsel to IndependentVoting.org