Electoral and Campaign Finance Reform (archive 2016-07-02)

In the ten years from 1990 to 2000, the average turnout of eligible voters in Presidential election years was 53%, and in non-Presidential elections years it was 43%. This means, in a two-way, winner-take-all race, the winning candidate for a state-level office needed only an average of 27% of the eligible voters to win (53% x 50.1%) in a Presidential election year, and only 22% (43% x 50.1%) in a non-Presidential election year. It is difficult to believe that elections where so few participate or vote for winning candidates can be considered legitimate or representative.

 

Additionally, the effects of the decennial redistricting process and partisan / incumbent gerrymandering produce insidious distortions of democracy. A study by the non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy showed that redistricting turned 80% of congressional districts into non-competitive, one-party bastions where voters had little choice but to ratify the candidate of the major party that controlled that district. This accounts for the large-margin victories we so often see. In California, 42 out of 52 congressional districts are won by 10 point margins or higher; 35 out of 52 by landslides of 20 points or higher. In effect, politicians are choosing the voters before the voters are allowed to choose them.

 

This reality also impacts campaign finance reform. Campaign contributors are simply responding to high incumbent re-election rates, more than causing them. Most big donors seek to buy influence, not elections. Minor parties lose elections not because of inequity in campaign contributions, they lose because they are a minority viewpoint within a majoritarian system. In a general election, the underlying partisan views of a district's voters are far more decisive than campaign spending. "Demography is destiny..."because gerrymandered districts creates such a large majority of a particular viewpoint.

 

Money plays a larger role in primary elections where voters are not choosing between parties, and candidates with more money can distinguish themselves from the pack. Thus, campaign finance reform can be more effective in primary elections, as well as in single-seat state-wide elections and municipal at-large elections.

 

The Green Party therefore proposes basic changes in the electoral system:

 

Public financing of elections and free media access to level the playing field for getting candidates' messages to voters.

 

Reject the notion that money in political campaigns is free speech, as interpreted by the Supreme Court decision in Buckley vs. Vallejo.

 

Hold elections on non-working days. Saturdays and Sundays are the worldwide day of choice. Holidays, such as Veterans Day, should also be considered.

 

Take the redistricting process away from politicians and place it under the control of elected citizen boards that represent the various partisan, civic and minority constituencies. Criteria for drawing the boundaries should be developed to make all legislative districts as competitive as possible.

 

The Green Party will strive to run candidates reflecting the diversity of the larger culture.

 

Combine voluntary campaign spending limits and public campaign funding to reduce money's corrupting influence on our political system.

 

Allow eligible candidates to pay postage rates one quarter of the regular rate, as well as free access to the airwaves.

 

Establish contribution limits for Political Action Committees (PACs) with less than 50 members to prevent wealthy people from using their funds to unduly influence elections.

 

Prohibit political parties from using "soft money" - transfers from other campaigns or party coffers - to pay for any election-related activities.

 

Other electoral reforms deserving our support in varying degrees are:

 

 

IRV is an important reform for single-seat races such as mayor, governor, Congress and state legislatures. IRV allows voters to rank their choices first, second, third, etc., and operates like a series of runoff elections. If a voter's first choice doesn't win, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. IRV allows voters to vote their conscience without "wasting" their vote on a candidate not likely to win, or being forced in to choosing between the "lesser of two evils."

 

 

NOTA can be effective in party primaries. If none of the candidates seeking the party's nomination are satisfactory, party members can vote NOTA. If NOTA wins, no candidate advances to the general election. In a general election NOTA can have mixed results. NOTA would allow voters to express their dissatisfaction with all available candidates. However, a vote for NOTA takes away the "protest votes" that would otherwise go to minor party candidates. This perpetuates the two-party monopoly by increasing their share of the total candidate-votes, further reducing the share received by minor party candidates. Also, NOTA could force a second, expensive election where the party with the most money would likely prevail.

 

 

Under fusion, one party can endorse another party's candidate. That candidate then appears on the ballot of all parties endorsing her or him. In winner-take-all systems, fusion can help smaller parties by allowing them to unite around a single candidate and combine their strength. However, a minor party could lose its independence by fusing with a major party candidate, thus failing to provide an alternative to the major parties.