Washblog

Here's part of an email from my state committeewoman about the different option she suggests considering, some of which might increase participation:

 Or you might want to say that you are in favor of the Texas plan, that
has both a primary and congressional district caucuses on the same day.

Or Mass.' plan, in a state that does not have party registration (just
like WA) but does have a presidential preference primary  where voters
have to select a D or an R ballot and sign a pledge (just like the
statue reads for WA's pres. primary).

Or  even the new Nevada plan that is calls for caucuses BUT allows for
a "super caucus" sites open to any Democrat (not held in his/her own
precinct area) at different hours so that shift workers, etc. can still
get to a caucus a some point during the day of the caucus to cast their
preference.

________________
I blog here.

by emmettoconnell on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:17:47 AM PST

---

Hi Emmett-

I honestly don't have an opinion on the caucus vs primary debate. I think both sides have compelling arguments.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your entry's title, but I'm stuck on the "lack of participation" bit.

I'll swap my election integrity (private voting, public counting) hat for my election reform (will of the people) hat for a moment.

For many years, pols have been talking about the crisis in legitimacy in many Western democracies. The UK has tinkered with their system the most, trying all manner of quick fixes to boost voter turnout. And yet turnout continues to decline.

My current understanding is that single biggest factor for voter turnout is the perceived competitiveness of the race. When people think their vote matters, they use it.

I also believe, but cannot prove or even argue persuasively, that enfranchising more voters would increase turnout.

I've written about Citizen's Assembly in British Columbia. I haven't tracked their progress. But the two big ideas I liked were a) citizens conducting the redistricting with explicit instruction to maximize competitiveness and b) proportional representation with a single transferable vote.

With the goal of increasing competitiveness, my prescription for Washington State and the United States are pretty modest (not in order):

1. Restore the Fairness Doctrine, which grants candidates equal time on the public airwaves. The operators of the airwaves, the media mega corps, strongly oppose this move, because political advertising is pure profit for them.

2. Publicly financed campaigns. For anyone not in the loop, check out Washington Public Campaigns.

3. Publicly owned candidate debates. They're currently owned by the parties themselves. So they're little more than beauty contests.

4a) Reverse the decision that money equals free speech.

4b) End corporate personhood.

5. Competitive redistricting.

6. Eliminate the electoral college.

In my mind, these steps would restore much of what has been lost during the last 30 years of the so-called "conservative movement". A movement I'd characterize as ever increasing "pay to play" rules embraced by the duopoly at the expense of citizens.

For extra credit, I'd address access to the ballot box and alternatives to the current "winner takes all" voting system.

For extra, extra credit, I'd extend the franchise. The US Constitution says the requirements to voting are "18 years of age and a citizen". It doesn't say anything about being registered to vote.

We already have the means to determine with near absolute certainty who is and who isn't a citizen. Our current voter registration systems are redundant and therefore just introduce errors into the system. So I'd consolidate operations and just use one system, making things more efficient and accurate.

One motivation is the recognition that voter registration has always been an inhibitor to voter participation. These systems sprang up after the Civil War as a way to keep the undesirables from voting. Unfortunately, we're so used to them, that even progressives take this requirement as a given.

Another motivation is to dramatically simplify election administration. Right now, election departments act as large demographic data administrators. This function is already fulfilled by other areas of government. Also, the voter registration rules are complicated and arcane. In my idealized perfect world, election officials would only be the actual election and counting the votes. Stuff like candidate filings, ballot production, ensuring the secret ballot as well as the public vote count.

Well, there, I said it. I usually don't say anything about my voter registration ideas, because it freaks people out, even people on the left. I probably won't bring this up again for a while. There's too many other immediate battles to fight.

Cheers, Jason

by zappini on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:01:19 AM PST

---

I also like the caucas/convention system. My reasons are the discussions of issues with regards to candidate selection. My favorite part of the whole process are the resolutions and platforms.
Having said that, at next weekends state committee meeting, I will support selecting delegated by the primary and moving the primary to Feb 5th.
My reasoning is that we are deluding ourselves if we think we will see any participation after the candidates have been chosen by the rest of the country on Feb. 5th.
I don't really like it because I think primaries are more about personallities than issues, but I believe we need to accept reality and make the best of it.

by Mike on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:41:33 AM PST

---

We voted 25 in favor of a primary. Wasn't that close of a vote, though a good number of people voted against the resolution.

________________
I blog here.

by emmettoconnell on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 10:04:43 AM PST

---