Election reform only way to progress
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/386776_zemek07.html
By MATT ZEMEK
GUEST COLUMNIST
So, the 2008 elections are finally over. At the presidential level, you won't have to endure any hype or news coverage until ... New Year's Day of 2011.
Seriously, though, the human brain wasn't meant to absorb nearly two solid years of campaigning and debating. Human societies aren't supposed to be distracted by nonstop electioneering, while governance fades from public view. Most distressing of all, human beings weren't meant to spend $2 billion on a single election. That's what the 2008 presidential race will wind up costing -- at a minimum -- when you factor in the primary campaigns, the party conventions, independent expenditures, communications costs, PAC dollars, federal matching funds given to the McCain-Palin campaign, and other outlets through which money enters the political process.
The Federal Election Commission won't be able to release the total statistics for a while, but when the final numbers are posted, the $2 billion barrier will have been broken in 2008. The 2004 presidential race was the first to top the $1 billion mark, but this 2008 contest made the 2004 race look like an exercise in restraint.
Do take a break from politics. Spend meaningful holiday time with your loved ones over the next two months. But when a new chapter of U.S. history begins with a new administration in late January, we will need to reflect on the election cycle that just ended. At some point in the not-too-distant future, we will have to think about the ways in which elections should be conducted.
Consider other jarring realities from this past election cycle, so that you can effectively agitate for substantial reform of the 2016 campaign (the 2012 race will arrive too quickly, and will therefore be hard to meaningfully affect):
1. For all the money donated, the winners of the two presidential primaries were ultimately decided not by individual votes, but by the methods through which party delegates were allotted to the candidates.
Had the Democrats used the winner-take-all method of delegate allocation employed by the Republicans (instead of a proportional system), Hillary Clinton would have defeated Barack Obama. On the Republican side, John McCain claimed all 57 Missouri's delegates despite a winning margin of fewer than 4,000 votes over Mike Huckabee. McCain greatly benefited from the Republicans' winner-take-all format.
This point is made not to advocate for a particular method, but to show that overlooked and arbitrary party rules -- not people's votes or donated dollars -- made the difference in the primaries.
2. Flowing from the point above, the winner of the Democratic primary was also influenced by the voting mechanisms employed.
Regardless of the candidate you preferred, it would be terribly difficult to refute the claim that the caucus system favored Obama, while the primary system favored Clinton. Had all 50 states (plus territories) used one universal method, the Democratic race would have acquired a noticeably different trajectory. (Don't forget Florida and Michigan, either.)
3. The calendar -- yet another irregular and underappreciated variable -- strongly influenced the outcome of the Democratic primary.
After Super Tuesday, the next several states were favorable to Obama, while Clinton's strong states -- Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- came later. Different calendar, different probable outcome.
4. After all the money donated to Obama's campaign (his take will exceed $700 million; that alone exceeds the 2000 presidential campaign's entire combined expenditures), the general election outcome was a result of current events -- specifically, the financial meltdown. Before Wall Street collapsed and McCain imploded, polls were dead even.
King County's social services are being cut. The economy is hurting. Wall Street is getting bailed out. And yet, billions (yes, that's now plural) of dollars are spent on one election contest, not including Congress, governorships and countless other state, county and city races, plus initiatives. (That means that a figure approaching $1 billion likely found its way into all political races other than the presidency in the past election cycle.)
The great issues of our time are discussed daily in op-ed pages. Yet, it often feels as though we're just going in circles. It should dawn on us that unless and until we reform the electoral system and reduce the centrality of money in the political process, we won't make real progress on issues such as health care, which could have used the billions just spent on attack ads and worn-out talking points.
Again, do take a mental-health break from politics. But in 2009, start doing something to reform the electoral process while devoting money to far more urgent matters.
Matt Zemek is the author of "Liberalism The Right Way." He welcomes feedback on issues pertaining to electoral reform. E-mail: mzemek@hotmail.com.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/386776_zemek07.html
By MATT ZEMEK
GUEST COLUMNIST
So, the 2008 elections are finally over. At the presidential level, you won't have to endure any hype or news coverage until ... New Year's Day of 2011.
Seriously, though, the human brain wasn't meant to absorb nearly two solid years of campaigning and debating. Human societies aren't supposed to be distracted by nonstop electioneering, while governance fades from public view. Most distressing of all, human beings weren't meant to spend $2 billion on a single election. That's what the 2008 presidential race will wind up costing -- at a minimum -- when you factor in the primary campaigns, the party conventions, independent expenditures, communications costs, PAC dollars, federal matching funds given to the McCain-Palin campaign, and other outlets through which money enters the political process.
The Federal Election Commission won't be able to release the total statistics for a while, but when the final numbers are posted, the $2 billion barrier will have been broken in 2008. The 2004 presidential race was the first to top the $1 billion mark, but this 2008 contest made the 2004 race look like an exercise in restraint.
Do take a break from politics. Spend meaningful holiday time with your loved ones over the next two months. But when a new chapter of U.S. history begins with a new administration in late January, we will need to reflect on the election cycle that just ended. At some point in the not-too-distant future, we will have to think about the ways in which elections should be conducted.
Consider other jarring realities from this past election cycle, so that you can effectively agitate for substantial reform of the 2016 campaign (the 2012 race will arrive too quickly, and will therefore be hard to meaningfully affect):
1. For all the money donated, the winners of the two presidential primaries were ultimately decided not by individual votes, but by the methods through which party delegates were allotted to the candidates.
Had the Democrats used the winner-take-all method of delegate allocation employed by the Republicans (instead of a proportional system), Hillary Clinton would have defeated Barack Obama. On the Republican side, John McCain claimed all 57 Missouri's delegates despite a winning margin of fewer than 4,000 votes over Mike Huckabee. McCain greatly benefited from the Republicans' winner-take-all format.
This point is made not to advocate for a particular method, but to show that overlooked and arbitrary party rules -- not people's votes or donated dollars -- made the difference in the primaries.
2. Flowing from the point above, the winner of the Democratic primary was also influenced by the voting mechanisms employed.
Regardless of the candidate you preferred, it would be terribly difficult to refute the claim that the caucus system favored Obama, while the primary system favored Clinton. Had all 50 states (plus territories) used one universal method, the Democratic race would have acquired a noticeably different trajectory. (Don't forget Florida and Michigan, either.)
3. The calendar -- yet another irregular and underappreciated variable -- strongly influenced the outcome of the Democratic primary.
After Super Tuesday, the next several states were favorable to Obama, while Clinton's strong states -- Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- came later. Different calendar, different probable outcome.
4. After all the money donated to Obama's campaign (his take will exceed $700 million; that alone exceeds the 2000 presidential campaign's entire combined expenditures), the general election outcome was a result of current events -- specifically, the financial meltdown. Before Wall Street collapsed and McCain imploded, polls were dead even.
King County's social services are being cut. The economy is hurting. Wall Street is getting bailed out. And yet, billions (yes, that's now plural) of dollars are spent on one election contest, not including Congress, governorships and countless other state, county and city races, plus initiatives. (That means that a figure approaching $1 billion likely found its way into all political races other than the presidency in the past election cycle.)
The great issues of our time are discussed daily in op-ed pages. Yet, it often feels as though we're just going in circles. It should dawn on us that unless and until we reform the electoral system and reduce the centrality of money in the political process, we won't make real progress on issues such as health care, which could have used the billions just spent on attack ads and worn-out talking points.
Again, do take a mental-health break from politics. But in 2009, start doing something to reform the electoral process while devoting money to far more urgent matters.
Matt Zemek is the author of "Liberalism The Right Way." He welcomes feedback on issues pertaining to electoral reform. E-mail: mzemek@hotmail.com.
