In case you forgot: our current batch of Congressional Republicans shut down the U.S. government for more than two weeks at the start of October 2013, causing hundreds of thousands to temporarily lose their jobs and costing the economy (24) billions of dollars. Remember that when you’re voting Tuesday.
Today (and the past few weeks), millions are casting a ballot for President of the United States, and nearly as many will be asking one simple question: Does my vote count?
For many of us, the answer is probably, “No.” It’s not that our votes won’t be counted—in lieu of hanging chads, malfunctioning voting machines, and good old fashioned election fraud, our vote will tabulated and tallied in precincts across the country—but what we really want to know is, “Does my vote matter?”
Civics lessons across the country proudly push the mantra that every vote counts, that “one person, one vote” is the basis of a democratic society, but from New York to California, Texas to the Dakotas, nearly every state is already classified red or blue, its outcome a “foregone conclusion.” In the electoral college we seemingly have a voting process that is truly Orwellian, where some votes truly“are more equal than others.” (And I won’t even get into the issue of money in politics.)
Though he made some changes based on recent polls, a week ago Nate Silver’s 538 blog (published by the New York Times) classified only 9 states as “competitive”: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These are the “states that matter”, and even the candidates have no qualms about focusing their time and money in the swing states; in fact, according to fairvote.org, of the 252 campaign visits by the presidential and vice presidential candidates since the Democratic National Convention, 251 have taken place in one of these nine states, including 72 in Ohio alone. (The lone outlier was a stop by Congressman Ryan in Michigan.)
This sense of voter disenfranchisement isn’t anything new. While the swing states shift from election to election, many have probably lived their whole lives in states considered a “sure thing” for one political party or the other and felt like they really had no say in who was elected President.
However, examining the effect of the electoral college on the impact of one’s vote in relation to a person’s race leads one to discover a hidden world of voter disenfranchisement of people of color.
One obvious examination would be to look at the racial makeup of the “competitive” states. Based on the 2010 Census, there were approximately 237 million people in the United States 18 and over (the age necessary to vote), approximately 67.2% white. But the population of the 9 competitive states is approximately 71.9% white, a difference of nearly 5%—a significant difference, especially if the race ends up being as close as many predict it will be
However, looking at only these swing states unnecessarily skews the data. This is because, of the 110 electoral votes “in play” in these states, it is predicted President Obama would need only 33 (about a third) of them. So while these are the states in which candidates are still vying for individual votes to win electoral votes, these states will not decide the president in the normal sense of “receiving the greatest number” and thus brings about some mathematical ambiguity.
The true way to see the effect of the electoral college on people of color is to look at the electoral college on a national scale. As noted, the US 18 and over population is approximately 67.2% white; however, based on state populations in relation to their electoral college weight, the electoral college votes are distributed to a population that is the equivalent of 68.1% white. And while this may not seem like a significant difference, it is equivalent to adding 6.6 million whites age 18 and over to the population.
It is not simply the electoral college that cause the voices of people of color to be diluted in elections. Because most states have some form of voting restrictions for convicted felons (a population disproportionately made up of people of color), the number of people of color eligible to vote is reduced, increasing the distribution of white voters.
Also, some ambiguity comes into play because the census counts citizens and non-citizens (green card holds, those here on visas, undocumented residents) alike, with congressional districts and electoral college votes distributed not by the number of citizens but by the population. Thus, the voices of non-citizens—many who pay taxes—are repressed, again disproportionately affecting people of color living in this country.
There is much to be done in regards to election reform in this country to create a system where every vote bears the same weight and every citizen feels they are truly heard. Such reform includes the elimination of the current electoral college structure, a system that continues to disenfranchise millions of people every four years—whether they are aware of it or not.
Visit the National Popular Vote website to see one campaign to end the electoral college.
So the recent British election has been a great time for me (and you, the reader) to look at think about the way democracy works here in the U.S. and possibilities for change to make the system work better. On Monday I wrote a post called “what does it mean to be a democracy?” where I talked about two changes I saw as being beneficial, namely preferential voting and proportional representational.
The recent House of Commons elections in Britain yielded no party with a majority of seats/representatives, and thus a coalition had to be formed to create a parliament and thus bring a new prime minister. The Conservatives elected the MPs (members of parliament), with Labour not too far behind and the Liberal Democrats the “spoilers” with a respectable third place showing — and thus the party of import for the aforementioned coalition. Thus, both top parties courted the LDs, and ultimately a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition was formed (and the bedfellows are just as odd as their names suggest).
Part of what the Liberal Democrats demanded in the final coalition agreement was a referendum to see if the public would desire a voting system similar to the kinds I was proposing (which would almost definitely benefit the numbers of Liberal Democrats in parliament). Thus, some further good information about proportional representation has become available this week I wanted to share.
First, here is an great display of different voting systems and how they can skew the representation for particular parties. The current U.S. system obvious benefits the main two parties, as it similarly does in the U.K., and thus why it takes the third party getting involved to make any change happen. Voting Reform: what are the options?
Also, in the mid-80s, John Cleese of Monty Python fame did an interesting 10 minute spot on the benefits of proportional representation, and it can be found embedded here: Clegg’s Prize May Be New Voting System
A few notes: first, the sizes of population and parliament in the U.K. and U.S. must be noted.
|Total population||# in Lower Legislature House|
|U.K.||62 million||650 (House of Commons)|
|U.S.||309 million||435 (House of Representatives)|
You’ll notice that the U.K. has a much smaller population, but over 200 more representatives. Thus, each district in the U.K. has about 95,500 people per rep, while the U.S. has a staggering 711,000 people per district — over 7 times the number of the U.K.! Thus, for equal proportion, the U.S. would need about 3240 members in the House of Representatives! — Obviously our districts have gotten too big, and proportional representation would better represent the views of the electorate without growing the size of our legislature.
Comments to my last blog (by my brother!) mentioned the need for regional representation, and I think distributing House seats to states based on their size, and then having proportional representation in those states would be the best way for this to happen. And as far as I can tell, each state is on their own in determining how their state representatives are allotted, so states could make these changes individually. And I’m sure in larger states, you’d get people from different areas in those states running, and thus still have even more locally diverse representation.
What does it mean to you to live in a democracy? I’m guessing most (or all) who will end up reading this live in a democracy; the majority of you probably in the U.S. But if you look around the world, not every democracy looks the same. In fact, many democracies look pretty different than the U.S.
This post is a response to two things I experienced lately. First, I went to see a new (still in film festivals) documentary about and called Gerrymandering. While the movie was only OK in my mind, it made me think more deeply about the process of gerrymandering, or simply the process of drawing district, where a certain person represents a certain area, and where many people in that area may not feel repented at all.
Second, just before the results of the latest election in Britain were known, I read an article with this funny sentence: “But polls suggested there was a good chance no party would win an absolute majority needed to govern effectively.” My first thought/response was “an absolute majority sure doesn’t help the Democrats in the U.S…” But also the fact that there are more than two parties with multiple members in parliament is quite something for a U.S. voter to consider. ( The results did end up showing that no one party got an absolute majority, which will thus mean a “coalition” must be formed.)
I guess my main concern and thought is that we need some reform in the U.S. system. I may be socialist, but I still believe representative democracy is the best way for a country to be run. Many large elections often turn out less than half of registered voters (and certainly less than half of eligible voters — and horribly small numbers for primaries and “off” elections), so people obviously feel their voice isn’t heard. Let me share some thoughts that would improve the system immensely.
First, I think we need to install preferential voting. In this system, people rank their choices to allow for greater flexibility when voting. This allows for people to avoid feeling like their vote is “wasted” when they prefer someone who is not necessarily in the top two, allowing for greater variety of candidates and more likelihood that people can vote for who they truly believe in and still know their vote will matter in the end.
Here is a simple example of how this works: Let’s say in an election, the candidates are Dana, Peg, and Adam. Voters rank them by preference 1 -3. When only the #1 choices are looked at, Dana has 35, Peg has 30, and Adam has 25. No one has a majority, but we know Adam is liked least, so we take those voters who voted for him and see who their second choice is. Of those who voted for Adam, 18 put Peg as a second choice and 7 put Dana, so now we see Peg has 48 and Dana has 42. Peg wins. This scenario might exist if Peg is a well-liked candidate but from a minor party who voters might otherwise be scared to vote for because “she can’t win” as a third-party candidate. However, this option allows her supporters to put her as a first choice and not be afraid their vote is “wasted” because they know their vote would go to their second choice if she can’t win.
This could be particularly useful in primaries, where you might have two people (say B. Obama and H. Clinton) considered “front runners” but multiple other candidates who people support. Even if I prefer D. Kucinich, I might still vote for B. Obama out of fear that H. Clinton (who I very much don’t like) would win if I didn’t. Or similarly, what if a B. Obama and J. McCain face off, but I really like this third guy R. Paul, who many don’t give a chance. Do I “waste” my vote and vote for the guy I truly believe in or vote for the two “top dogs” who people say actually have a chance of winning? With preferential voting, you don’t have to choose! This allows more people to get in the action without them being termed “spoilers” for taking away votes that might to to others, because if their candidate does not get enough support, they can then support another candidate (those familiar with caucusing will understand much better than others how this might work).
The second big change I think needs to happen is proportional representation. This system attempts to have the representatives in government more closely mirror the proportions found in the population. Let’s say the great state of Ohio has these proportions of ideologies across the whole state:
5% Far Left
10% Far Right
However, because how districts are arranged, winner take all elections, and the general two-party system, the make-up of representatives to congress looks like this:
0% Far Left
5% Far Right
In this (fictitious) example, you notice that the “Left” representation is skewed to the middle, and the “Right” representation is skewed to the Right. Those in the Far Left, who make up 1 in 10 voters, feel no one is speaking for them, and many in the Middle/Right feel under-represented and unheard.
Instead of looking at small units and only having one representative, if you look at a larger area and have the representation be proportional to the numbers found in the region as a whole, more (or all) people feel like they have a voice and that their vote and voice matter to the decision making process.
Let’s use the numbers above and give Ohio 20 reps in the House after the next census — as it stands, if you live in Fulton county Ohio, you have one certain representative who may or may not be sympathetic to your views, and you may think “they don’t represent ME!” However, if the 20 reps of Ohio instead represented the spectrum of ideologies, everyone should know that there is someone (or many people, if your ideology is a common one) who represents my feelings on the decisions that have to be made. No one (or far, far fewer) should feel like their vote made no different.
As gerrymandering and district drawing go, many districts are “foregone conclusions,” where people expect the Democrat or Republican to win because of the sheer numbers of “those voters” in that area, and thus feel un-compelled to vote (if the election is even contested in the first place). Ohio’s 5th Congressional District (located in rural NW Ohio) has sent a Republican to Washington since 1939 (not to mention the fact that it was only 3 different people from 1939 to 2007). If I’m a non-Republican living there, why should I vote? Who represents me in Congress? Proportional representation gives a voice and representation to those who feel voiceless under the current system.
(The electoral college is also flawed, but we won’t get into that much here. Basically, large elections should be based on the popular vote numbers using preferential voting.)
Preferential voting and proportional representation will help rid the U.S. of the horrible monopoly operating as the two-party system. These systems would allow more and varied voices to be heard, not just on TV and the Internet, but in the legislative process as well. With more parties in the mix, it will force an end to the “us vs. them” mentality of Democrats vs. Republicans, Conservatives vs. Liberals, and on and on. Coalitions will emerge to get things done, and groups will cease to be the monolithical, unmovable blocks who refuse to talk about compromise because no one group alone has enough power to sway things without the help of others.
Thoughts? Comments? Agree/Disagree? Please comment and pass on to others.
I was up at 4AM last night (I had good reason), and maybe it was the hour or just the time to really do some thinking, but I found myself thinking, “I should run for Congress this fall.”
I was preparing to write my mom an e-mail and ask her if this was viable (logistically, not if she thought it would be a good idea, though it would be a good question, maybe, too), and if so what I would have to do to get my name on the ballot, but instead I found a little bit of time to surf the Internet and find out for myself. And actually once I found the right combination of words to use in my search engine of choice, I soon arrived at the answer that my name, in fact, could not appear on the ballot.
Even though I met all the basic requirements, according to the Ohio Election Calendar 2008 (because I would certainly be running, at this point, at least, in the Ohio 5th Congressional District), to be considered for one of the “major” parties, i would have had to have had my petition in 60 days prior to the primary, which was held on 4 March, so I had obviously missed that. Since I did vote in the Democrat primary in Ohio, I am thus currently affiliated with that party, so I couldn’t run as an independent candidate — to run as an independent (and if I run in 2010, I’d maybe go independent in the 5th District), one need only have the paperwork in a day prior to the primary, but that, too, is already passed. — But as history seems to show, a non-Republican seems to fare a bit better in the 5th District when people aren’t voting for president, but this year, you never know.
You’d think that 6 months in advance to get your name on a ballot for elected office would be enough, but I guess that isn’t the case. I guess I’ll have to table all the slogans and platforms I was dreaming up for another two years or so. And maybe by that time I might be what they actually call a “viable candidate.” (I’ll probably at least have hair that doesn’t touch my shoulders at that point, but you never know.)
I suppose this could have maybe been more effective before the polls closed in Ohio, where I voted by absentee ballot this year, but I thought it would be apt to post today, too. I sent my ballot through the mail about 3 weeks ago, and if what I think I know about absentee balloting in Ohio is true, my vote probably won’t show up on the Internet or television tonight, but it will still be counted. And in the end, my singular vote probably won’t directly change the number of delegates who go to one Democratic candidate over the other (I pulled a Democratic ballot this year), it is important nonetheless. And while it’s obviously a race between Barack and Hilary, when I filled in the oval with my #2 pencil, it was next to neither of their names. Am I foolish? You might think so. But here’s why I voted for Dennis Kuchinich.
There are probably lots of reasons one could argue I shouldn’t have voted for Dennis: he “isn’t electable” (based on some poll figures and such), he stopped actively campaigning over a month ago (he was fighting to hold on to his place in the House tonight), he could never “beat McCain.” The list could go on, I’m sure. And those might be reasons you wouldn’t or didn’t vote for Mr. Kuchinich (as the NY Times would call him), but for me, those aren’t good enough any more. I’m tired of voting for whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being in November because she or he is surely “better than a Republican” and we know it’s really only a two person race anyway, no matter how many names are on the ballot (and who those other candidates would “take votes from,” leading to such a situation that occurred in 2000).
But that’s my problem: we too easily “settle.” Am I not to select the candidate who I feel would be the best person for the job? And if I don’t, why would the candidate I end up voting for have any incentive the change their ways to what I wished they were like? I mean, they got my vote the way they were, right? It’s not that I dislike Clinton or Obama — in fact, I would rather have either of them than that man from Arizona; it’s just that I like Kucinich better (much better, I might say). I don’t consider it throwing my vote away at all — I need to let me voice be heard, that I’m tired of “business as usual,” of playing games with corporations and “special interests” and all that jazz — and that I want our president and government to do what is truly best for all the people of this country and this world, not what’s best for those who will later help them fund their re-election campaign.
I’m sure there are some of you I still haven’t convinced, who will still vote for “the best of the rest,” but if you think it’s at least a worthy thing to vote for someone who stopped putting money into his presidential campaign in January, I probably should tell you why I marked Kucinich instead of one of the others promising “change.”
For one thing, Kucinich is a peace candidate. His main slogan was “Strength Through Peace.” We’ve heard promises of pulling out of Iraq (with certain conditions and time lines) from other candidates, but it’s more than just how you deal with one situation; it’s about an ideology. It’s about dealing through diplomacy and refusing to support militarism, handling misunderstandings and conflicts with conversation and discussion instead of bombs and bullets. Kucinich doesn’t believe “the best defense is a good offense,” as some do, but knows that the best possible situation is to not have to worry about defending from anyone at all.
Another issue is health care. Most people think providing everyone with adequate health care is a basic human right — especially in “the richest nation on the planet” — but people disagree on how to get there. Kucinich’s plan doesn’t perpetuate the current “for-profit” corporate business model of insurance companies and HMOs which causes some companies to seek out ways to get out of paying claims. It isn’t a plan that seeks to insure everyone by requiring them to have insurance or subsidizing them so they can afford it, a plan which creates an even greater profit for those making money off of health care. Kucinich wants a plan (which was offered by Ms. Clinton back in the 90s, actually) that rids us of the bane that are insurance companies and creates a single payer system — and if you think it would reduce our care or just don’t think it can work, watch Sicko.
I could go on about issues like trade and corporations and such (read “marijuana“), but you can look at his website if you’d like to know if you agree with him about other things. But really the point remains: “Why shouldn’t I vote for the candidate who I agree with the most?” (Take the test — for me Kucinich was an 83, Gravel an 82, and everyone else 38 or less.)
Editor’s note: after a short conversation with my Mom and Dad, I’d like to note that one could probably make a similar type of argument for voting for someone like Ron Paul, who my Dad voted for (Mom is an Obama-girl).
I’m sure most of you reading this blog right now have some idea about the outcomes of the various primary elections and caucuses held across the country on “Super Tuesday.” There are so many stories out there, I won’t even link to any of them. But another interesting story caught my eye as I was checking my e-mail on this Tuesday evening: U.S. Acknowledges Use of Waterboarding. I first saw the headline on a Yahoo! link, and it was actually the same AP story as the NY Times had on their website — but that was once I found the article on the Times website. I hunted all over, in every section I thought possible, and I finally found it when I actually searched under “waterboarding.”
Now I really hope I’m not the one to break this story to you — especially if it’s already a few days past my writing of this — but I wouldn’t really be that surprised if I was. Why? Well, what better day to let your CIA Director (who is also a General in the Air Force, by the way) spill the beans on such a volatile subject as waterboarding than on the day when most of the country and the world — including and especially the media. I’m not saying the election isn’t big news — it will decided some of our fate for the years 2009-2012 — but how about this waterboarding thing?
And you can’t tell me this isn’t very coordinated and strategic planning to let this “slip” when it did, can you? As the blog title alludes to, I’m sure this story will be slipped somewhere inside the pages of the news that many may not have time to get to as they look at all the data and numbers from Tuesdays voting and caucusing. I hope it will be there at all!
I’m sure you’ll hear about it later — things like, “In early February, the CIA admitted to the waterboarding of three ‘terror suspects’ during 2002 and 2003” — but there will be no front page news, no shock to the system.
I don’t know about you, but how can something like that not disenfranchise you from our government and military at work? Something needs to give.