A 50 year plan: Election reform

I don’t remember this sort of attention the last time that we had an “open” seat for the Presidential race but for whatever reason the 2008 campaign has gotten off to a really early start and the trend is accelerating as California recently moved its 2008 primary up to a February date. This instantly makes the Golden State a disproportionate player in the Presidential sweepstakes and all but dooms states that even have primaries as early as March to second-tier staus.

As part of my 50 year plan for election reform, I’m going to address this piece of the electoral pie, but there are other slices that I think merit attention first.

The very first thing which needs to occur is to require a photo ID to vote at the ballot box, or have one on file with a signature card for absentee ballots. It just makes sense to me that, in a society where I’m asked for my ID in order to place money into my own bank account, some form of photo identification needs to be required to exercise one of our most precious rights.

Normally the Democrats scream about this point that requiring ID disenfranchises the poor. (It’s probably why a bill dealing with this died in committee here in Maryland.) I believe Georgia was going to require something similar to this and was willing to pony up a few hundred thousand dollars to allow anyone who could get to the DMV their own photo identity card, but that still wasn’t good enough for the Democrats. I guess then I have to ask what they’re so afraid of? Are they worried that their ideas aren’t good enough to appeal to a majority of those who vote? (I know if I were them I would be.)

So if we adopt part number one above we’ll have voter ID. The next step is to use the electronic machines, but have a backup paper trail set up as a double-check. Conspiracy theories about the 2000 and 2004 elections aside, and using my bank as an example again, every time I put in or take out money I get a receipt. Something tells me that voting can easily be the same way, and with the backup no one in the tinfoil hat brigade can claim a Diebold conspiracy.

Thus, I’ve taken care of making sure the people who are eligible to vote can do so (once) and that their votes would be accounted for properly. But there are two other items that Maryland does (or may do) which, in my opinion, need to be rolled back.

First of all, in 2008 we may have a Constitutional amendment placed on the ballot that allows for early voting but insofar as I can tell doesn’t have a provision to pay for securing the ballots for the extra days necessary nor a common-sense identification check on it. (This has passed the Maryland Senate but is pending in the House of Delegates.)

I believe that we have adequate means of voting between the polling places being open on the days already designated by the state Constitution and absentee balloting (even with some limitations I’d place on it) that the number of voters who actually wish to participate in the process has a chance of doing so. There’s no need to extend the opportunities for voter fraud and tampering by adding several days to the process. For me, I’ve made the time to be there on Election Day, in fact last year I worked the polls for Bonnie Luna’s campaign as well. Voting and then working the polls is something I’ve done for a number of years.

Now, as far as absentee balloting goes, I believe there should be some restrictions placed back on it. I don’t really care for the “shall-issue” rules Maryland has because it leaves some openings for a lack of accountability. A more common-sense approach would be one where certain classes of people remain eligible (such as those over 60 years of age or serving in the military and stationed out of the state), but a qualified excuse has to be provided for others. I’ve voted absentee only about a half-dozen times in my life – mostly while in college but in 2004 I voted absentee for Ohio because I found out I’d move to Maryland too late to be registered here for the November election. Those are legitimate reasons to get an absentee ballot, whereas just because you don’t want to drive to the polling place is not. Hell, the weekend before the 1996 election I was laid up in the hospital with pneumonia but I’ll have been damned if I wasn’t going to be out for Election Day to at least vote for Dole, if I couldn’t work the polls. (Fortunately I recovered enough to be let out on the Sunday before.)

In both state and national election law, there are restrictions on candidate financing. When the McCain-Feingold reforms were passed in 2003, it was supposed to take the money out of politics – but estimates are now coming in for the 2008 Presidential election that suggest the spending total may reach $1 billion. Other changes made by McCain-Feingold gave it a billing as an “incumbent protection act” as regulations were placed on advertising within 60 days of an election.

Personally I think any and all contribution limits should be abolished. But with that carrot comes the stick of daily and accessibly reporting any and all contributions to a particular campaign. So if AFSCME gives $50 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, within 24 hours anyone in the pajamas media can say, hey, AFSCME members, look what your union dues are paying for. If the trial lawyers’ associations give $20 million to John Edwards, we can immediately follow the money and ask him what’s the quid pro quo here? Obviously the situation holds true as well if the national Chamber of Commerce gives $15 million to Rudy Giuliani.

But, one may argue, wouldn’t that make the little guy’s $25 contribution to Giuliani meaningless? After all, it’s said that money talks and more money talks louder. Well, this is true, but the people still hold the absolute power of the vote. And if I’ve found out that someone or something donated to a candidate I don’t like, I can choose to act accordingly. For example, when I get the annual reports from companies I invest in, I check and see who their board members make political donations to and withhold share votes from those candidates who support people I don’t feel are friendly to the goals of the business as I see them. If more people did that, it will police the situation.

After all, George Soros donated many of his millions to defeat President Bush, but he only had one actual vote in the matter. I’ll grant he influenced many to follow him and vote against Bush, but others worked and donated to the Bush side and the President prevailed because he and his supporters convinced 59 million people to vote for him.

Now to the California question. To me, it’s insane that we’ve dragged this election process out so long. Here Maryland has plenty of common sense in the way it runs state elections. Last year our primary was September 12, a date that was 8 weeks before the general election. This gives candidates and the public the maximum amount of time to get together and interact so the public can make an informed choice with as many candidates in the running as possible.

However, in the decision for the 2008 Presidential election, by all indications we’ll know who the two leading candidates are a full nine months beforehand. (Even though Maryland has a March primary, we’ll have little say.) In 2004 there was some case of “buyer’s regret” among Democrats that summer when John Kerry didn’t turn out to quite be the candidate they thought they’d get in March when the race was essentially decided. So it looks like most of 2008 will be consigned to mudslinging and negative campaigning between the Republicans and Democrats and nothing will get done in Congress either because no one will want to hurt their candidate or help the opposition.

I think I have a better idea then this. Of course, Presidential politics are dictated by the party conventions that generally take place in July and August. The first step is to move those to a mid-September timeframe, right after Labor Day when people begin to pay attention to the campaigns anyway. One can start the Monday after Labor Day and the other the following Monday, alternating between cycles.

(It might mess up Newt Gingrich’s idea a little bit, but there’s still time for several weekly debates.)

So now we work backwards from that point. What I’ve always thought would be a good idea would be to have a series of regional primaries held on consecutive weeks. Six regions of eight states each (more or less, depending on population) would hold primaries, starting the Tuesday after July 4th and ending in August. And to assure each area would get the “prime” first spot once every six cycles, the regions would run elections in a particular order, the first one in a cycle sliding back to last in the next cycle. Thus, the idea Maryland was trying to promote of having a “regional” primary date with Delaware and Virginia would be realized, only on a slightly larger scale. For example, we could be teamed up with Delaware, Virginia, DC, West Virginia, the Carolinas, and Pennsylvania with our regional primary. Iowa and New Hampshire would be exempt and continue with their influential first caucus and primary, but could be moved back into June.

So instead of having this process last almost a year, I’m compressing it into five months. It gives the American people, who are getting less and less of an attention span, a short and focused campaign for our highest office and it also means Congress can get more done because they don’t have to worry quite as much about influencing the Presidential race.

Voting is the most important civic duty most of us do over the course of the year. I believe that these reforms would go a long way to increasing the percentage of people who actually exercise their right as citizens to do so.