Voter turnout provides a strong indication of where our own democracy stands. While we seek democracy in other countries, the numbers here are not encouraging. With only a 59.6% turnout in the contentious 2004 U.S. elections compared to an estimated 72% of Iraqis who faced threats of bombings at the ballot box, it would seem that we have a long way to go to catch up with their enthusiasm. This is a direct result of American voters being fed up with our system, seeing it controlled by private interests no matter who they vote for, and being left with a vote for the lesser of two evils. Clean Money Campaign Reform can change that, as will be explained later.
One thing is common among all of these reforms: the politicians don't want them. They like things just as they are.
The best approach is to get all private money out of the public electoral system, but it must pass constitutional muster in the process. A voluntary Clean Money system accomplishes both. There are two proposals ranging from 35% public funding (Ellis-Freese) to 100% Clean Money (Pocan-Risser). If we are to have reform it should be full reform, not a one-third approach that leaves the special interests still in charge. If state campaigns cost $5 per taxpayer per year, that $5 should be paid by the taxpayers and not the special interests, as is now the case. In return the special interests now receive government favors exceeding $1300 per taxpayer. That $1300 worth of giveaways would be mostly eliminated if the taxpayers funded the $5 needed for the campaign expenses up front. See these resources.
There are only two kinds of campaign money, public and private. The difference between them is that private money requires a quid pro quo. Taxpayer assets must be returned to the giver.
In the case of Sen. Mitch McConnell, inserting a $25 million spending provision into a bill following a $53,000 campaign contribution, if the taxpayers picked up the $53,000 we wouldn't have had to pay the $25 million. That's a bargain at 100 times the price.
This allows voters to select their first choice, second choice and third choice. If their first choice fails, their vote moves to their second choice, and so on until one candidate exceeds 50%. Thus you do not have to fear throwing your vote away and you can vote your conscience. See these resources.
NOTA voting essentially means that if None of the Above gets more votes than any other candidate, the election must be held again with all new candidates. This is the only way of allowing voters to affect a complete turnover in a particular district, even if there is only one candidate that people do not support. See these resources.
Wisconsin's 6% rule would disappear under a Clean Money system like that in Arizona and Maine. Today only candidates that receive 6% or more of the primary vote receive a piece of the currently miniscule public funding pot. Eliminate the 6% rule totally and these candidates must still face the moneyed incumbent. Under the Clean Money system any challenger that collects the predetermined amount of signatures gets public funding that kicks in even for the primary races, so the 6% rule does not apply.
Sometimes good and sometimes bad. I'd be happy with term limits that lasted only two sessions or until a Clean Money system were implemented. Or how about this: term limits that apply only to candidates that do not run under the Clean Election system? Yes, the Robert Byrds have to go, but good guys would be thrown out in the process and we'd always be stuck with a lifetime of inexperienced representatives. That puts the congressional staff mostly in charge of running the government, and they are not elected by the people. I would not favor ousting guys like Bill Proxmire (D-WI), who spent a total of $500 on his last two elections and was beholden only to the voters. Political money is the root problem, and with a Clean Money system we would not need term limits.
The other problem with term limits is that politicians always face a "last term" where they cannot be reelected and are not accountable to the electorate. And they can give away the store. If they are funded by private interests, terminating them early is okay, because they really weren't working for the electorate anyway and should indeed leave office. But if they are funded by the taxpayers, forcing them out after two or three terms removes the accountability we worked so hard to achieve. Let the voters do that if they are not performing correctly.
See these resources.
Of course we need full and prompt disclosure, but not to the exclusion of all other reforms. I don't just want to know who is bribing my representative, I don't want him or her bribed in the first place. That's why a Clean Money system is so critical to good government.
First we had the caucus scandals, then six legislators went to jail or federal prison for infractions up to and including bribery and extortion, then we find that our current State Ethics Commission approved a second part-time job for Scott Jensen allowing him to receive $114K per year from a lobbying group while simultaneously taking his $45K state salary. Finally, the Republican assembly voted against an ethics reform bill that would have established an independent ethics commission not funded by the legislature they are to oversee. No, this is not the clean Wisconsin government we were once noted for. See these resources.
In 2007 the legislature created a new ethics commission. Let's see where they take it.
If people can get to the driver's license location or welfare office to collect their food stamps, they can clearly apply for a voter registration card at the same location or at a local bank. Voting is a civic duty and supporting a secure system is not unreasonable. Proof of citizenship should be required and the registration card should be bar-coded and contain a picture of the voter. This will go a long way toward solving the problems at the voting booths the Dems have been hollering about (yet they still oppose this solution).
Although controversial, a national bar-coded and electronic I.D. card that includes picture, proof of citizenship, fingerprints and even iris scans and other biometric information for the individual (but not RFID that be read externally) is supported. Such cards might include DNA as well, given the needed safety for our children and women. These cards would be incredibly useful when cashing checks, boarding aircraft, crossing borders, applying for credit, collecting welfare checks and food stamps, applying for employment and even eliminating voter fraud. When used for voting, I.D. cards can be scanned and immediately validated with an online connection. Civil libertarians will choke on this, but I am not willing to give up national security and family security to satisfy the qualms of the purists.
The best system is optical card readers that are both understandable and provide a paper trail. Touch screen computers can be rigged and should not be used. Optically-read cards can be put in piles, counted and even weighed to see who got the most votes. When used with IRV they can automatically reject an improperly coded card.
Oregon has had great success with this, though its plusses and minuses must be thoroughly reviewed. They mail the ballots three weeks prior to the election and match signatures against the voter's registration card. They have significantly reduced their electoral costs and have increased voter participation by over 10%.
Because the League of Women Voters refused to agree to unfair debate rules, the Duopoly decided to bypass them and control their own debates. But that automatically leaves out third-party candidates unless they have win 15% of the primary votes. The debates must be returned to an independent nonpartisan group.
Redistricting is now controlled by the two major parties to the detriment of third parties and challengers. This allows them to stack the deck by selecting the voters rather than the other way around. In lockstep they give the Republicans the districts with the highest percentage of Republicans, and the Democrats districts with the highest number of Democrats. That locks out challengers, helps preserve their 95% re-election rate, and reduces the (badly needed) political turnover. See these resources.
The public airwaves are owned by the public, not by the political parties and not by the broadcast companies. All broadcast companies should be required to provide a certain amount of free air time to all candidates that have acquired the requisite number of nomination signatures and who have agreed to the Clean Money rules. This would greatly reduce the need to pay for such advertising with private money. It would also help level the playing field for public candidates who must go against a privately-funded candidate.
It's easy to vacillate on this because there are legitimate reasons to both support a change and to keep it just as it is. But generally the country would be best served without the electoral system.
Since we are all paying for the health care system anyway, either by premiums or in product prices, we support full public funding of a system that would cover 100% of the population at the same costs we are paying to reach 85% of the population today. Ours is essentially a Medicare-for-all system but without Canada's wait times. It would be funded by a drastic savings in unnecessary overhead (i.e. insurance bureaucracy and profits). See all of the health care resources here.
These are good because they let the people intervene when politicians become tainted by industry. Rules should be adjusted for a fair threshold of signatures so frivolous recalls are discouraged without blocking fair citizen efforts. New rules in Wisconsin will make it easier than in the past, making city officials more accountable but also potentially introducing more chaos. Recalls will require signatures equaling 25% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election and must be collected in a 60 day period.
The filibuster is very useful at the federal level because it forces an approval by 60% of the senate on contentious issues, and it prevents one party from running roughshod over the other party. Bush's plea for an "up or down vote" is a blatant attempt to bypass this safety net, and not one he would accept if the tables were turned. The filibuster should be expanded to the state senate.
These are issues that are put to the people for a vote, but they require an unbiased legislature to even get referendums to the ballot. They give power to the voters and politicians do not like to do that (even though referendums are not binding in Wisconsin). Initiatives are (perhaps/sometimes) better because they allow the voters to gather signatures to force an issue to the ballot to override the state government, and the results at the polls are binding. The problem with initiatives is that they can be bought and paid for by industries seeking favors, and lying to the public to get them. That happened in California when the tobacco industry tried an end-around to get voters to remove that state's smoking ban. And when Governor Schwarzenegger tried to cut the budget with an Initiative all hell broke loose. And the California experience with initiatives justifies a "be careful of what you ask for because you might get it" fear. That state is in chaos, much due to the initiative process. Clearly a Clean Money system would be a better solution, as it would get politicians voting on behalf of the people without either the driving forces of industry or the compelling need for an initiative. See these resources.
Politicians who were convicted of violating state ethics or campaign rules should be prohibited from lobbying state officials for life. Let them work like the rest of us.
The state legislature allows voice votes when they want to pass a special interest bill and do not want their constituents to know how they voted. The Republicans did this when they passed a "Monsanto" bill prohibiting farmers from labeling their milk "BGH Free." How's that for "free market" and disclosure?
Campaign Finance Reform Resources
Search Google
Instant Runoff Voting Resources
www.DemoChoice.org (Demo)
Search Google
None of the Above ballot choice
Search Google
Search Google