First published, November, 2002 (some items updated in 2020)

Our federal election fiasco in 2000 exposed numerous critical flaws in our electoral process and spurred a new flurry of reform efforts, but despite all the attention generated, the actual changes have been little more than band-aids.

Why? One reason may be the approach taken by most reform proponents that essentially asks “what can we do to make this deeply flawed system less corrupt?” What might change if the approach was to ask “what conditions are necessary for a truly representative democracy?” and “how do we get there?”

It’s a fundamental difference in approach. We view as a fundamental requirement for democracy that each person’s political influence result directly from the quality of one’s ideas and the energy put into promoting them — independent of a person’s wealth to the greatest degree possible.

The excessive power assigned to money, especially in federal elections, is glaring. In the 2002 Congressional races (in which money was less dominant than in 2000), 95% of all House seats and 75% of Senate seats were won by the higher-spending candidate. Incumbents won 97% of races in which they ran.

And money is a conclusive determinant of who can compete. One-third of all those running for the House (157 candidates) — effectively ran unopposed. Thirty-five had no opponent at all, while another 122 faced challengers who spent less than $5,000. No wonder only 75 of the 435 House races were even marginally competitive (margin of victory less than 20 points).

The depth of our problems in some specific realms such as campaign financing is explored in detail in other articles. Here, we aim briefly to explore an overview of some of our most vitally needed electoral reforms.

1. Abolish the “Money Equals Speech” Doctrine

2. Revoke the Precedent of Granting Bill of Rights Protections to Corporations
These two destructive Supreme Court creations both lack Constitutional basis. The first precedent dates to the late 1800s when the Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment and “due process” guarantees–designed to protect the rights of freed slaves–to corporations, an entity mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

The 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision authorized some limits on political donations, but equated campaign spending with speech and legalize political donations at levels beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest Americans. Just one tenth of one percent of Americans gave a $1000 contribution in the 2000 election–one-quarter the present $4000 limit for investments in an individual candidate per election cycle.

While we fully support public campaign financing, we must also confront those two root problems. While banning “soft money” may prevent direct corporate funding of parties, it doesn’t touch corporate interference in democracy via advertising, lobbying, and many other activities.

Consider the combined effect of these two premises: give an institution (the corporation) with an unlimited ability to amass wealth many key rights of citizens, then allow money to translate freely to political power. Now ask yourself if we can possibly realize the ideal of one person, one vote with these two perversions of our Constitution intact. These issues are at the heart of our diseased democracy.

See “When Money Is Speech, Speech Cannot Be Free” and Corporate Personhood.

3. Establish a Constitutional Right to Vote
Voting is one of the fundamental elements of citizenship and democracy, and most Americans assume universal suffrage to be a struggle already won–but we lack any Constitutional right to vote! Yes, the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments outlaw voting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or age, but those protections are hollow because all citizens may be disenfranchised so long as it is done without bias. The Supreme Court on at least three occasions has affirmed that voting is a privilege granted at the discretion of those who hold power in state governments.

Our lack of Constitutional voting rights enabled many of the worst abuses in the 2000 elections (such as the mass disenfranchisement in Florida) and continues to invite gross injustice in elections. The deliberate suppression of targeted voting blocks that occurred in 2000 will only worsen in years ahead now that its effectiveness is proven and public opposition was muted.

Our lack of voting rights also allows the United States government to deny residents of Washington D.C. any voting representation in Congress whatsoever. A constitutional amendment is needed to rectify this problem.

Read more on the missing right to vote or see our proposed Right to Vote Amendment.

4. Institute Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
The unhealthy dilemma of voting one’s conscience versus voting for the “realistic” contender should be eliminated. IRV offers a neutral and proven method for correcting this problem. Voters simply rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, she/he wins. If no candidate receives a majority of first place votes, the candidate with the fewest first choices is eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are counted for one of the remaining candidates according to those ballots’ second choices.

IRV ensures a majority winner, frees minor-party candidates from a “spoiler” role, and allows voters to express their true preferences rather than voting out of fear. It also spurs cleaner campaigns, as candidates have an incentive to avoid mud-slinging when they compete for second-choice votes. IRV can work at any level of government, and states are free to implement it for federal elections.

Visit the FairVote for much more on this issue. 

5. Adopt Public Campaign Financing at Local and State Levels
Taxpayer-funded campaigns are the greatest bargain on Earth when one compares the cost of a few dollars per person for public funding to the cost of paybacks by elected officials to major campaign donors. The results in Maine and Arizona, two states that have led the way in public campaign financing, are impressive: increased participation, more competitive elections, and greater public trust in government. 

6. Establish Democratic Presidential Debates
The nationally-televised presidential debates are the single most influential forum for most Americans to decide whether they should vote in the race and for whom. They offer a rare opportunity to hear candidates’ ideas unedited and in context.

Since 1988, these debates have been controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), a private corporation created and controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. The CPD operates with no public oversight and exists primarily to further the interests of those two parties–to the detriment of democracy. The greatest harms to democracy are the exclusion of legitimate candidates outside of the CPD owners’ parties and the exclusion of many vital issues from introduction into the debates. Learn more about democratizing the debates.

7. Reduce Ballot Access Barriers
State laws often raise absurd barriers to political competition that enshrines a two-party duopoly. National standards must be enacted for all federal offices to prevent this discrimination. Non-partisan election officials also are essential to correcting these problems. Ballot Access News is the definitive resource on ballot access issues.

8. Abolish the Electoral College
Voters outside of the few true “swing states” are effectively disenfranchised in each presidential election. The argument that the Electoral College could prevent a dangerous or unfit person from taking power — while credible in the 1700s — led to the opposite in 2016. Moving to a pure popular vote requires Amending the Constitution, but Reclaim Democracy also supports the National Popular Vote alternative.

9. Independent Redistricting Commissions and Election Administration
Democracy is hollow when elected officials choose their constituents, rather than constituents choosing them, yet that’s our reality in elections for the U.S. House of Representatives today. The combination of partisan gerrymandering (drawing district boundaries to benefit particular candidates or party) of House districts with winner-take-all elections and the huge monetary advantages of incumbency means few citizens have the opportunity to vote in a competitive House election. Indeed, 98% of House members running for re-election retained their seats between 1996 and 2002.

The gerrymandering component of this problem should be addressed by citizens in every state demanding nonpartisan commissions to draw redistricting maps, as Iowa and Arizona already have done, while building a movement for national reform.

Similarly, allowing state elections to be overseen by partisan officials is absurd. All election administration officials should be non-partisan appointments. Additionally, we need federal standards for fair and consistent registration, ballot and voting procedures.

10. Expand Election Day to an Election Month
Too many citizens are impeded from voting because of limited voting hours and work obligations and sing;le-day elections invite sabotage to delay and deter voters in minority communities. All citizens should enjoy at least a two-week window to vote at their local election office.

11. Mandate Open-Source Code and a Paper Trail for Computer Voting Machines
We wince at the idea that this even needs to be said. Corporations must not enjoy total control over the counting of votes. Paper ballots and open- source codes are needed for transparency and confidence in fair results.

12. Reduce Barriers to Voting
Eliminate pre-registration requirements. Such laws are economically and racially discriminatory and a senseless deterrent to voting.

13. Stop Permanent Disenfranchisement
In Florida, over 400,000 citizens, including a whopping 30% of all black men, were prohibited from voting in 2000. Some did not even have actual felony convictions–the official justification–but were purged illegally from the rolls by a private corporation (Choicepoint Inc.) contracted by the state. While the choice of whether to disenfranchise those in prison is appropriately left to states, lifetime voting prohibitions for ex-felons, enacted by several states, are racist and violate the constitutional promise of equal protection of law. Disenfranchisement of those who have served their sentences must be banished.

Of course, this list is incomplete and many other ideas deserve consideration, but key to all truly fundamental reform efforts is to begin with the end goal in mind and to be aware of, but not controlled by, current leanings of the Supreme Court or “political reality.” Government of, by, and for the people only will result if the people repossess it.

Please see our Transforming Politics page for more detailed analysis of some issues summarized here and additional links to organizations focusing on these issues.

 

by Jennifer Rockne 
March 2001

Sexism and extremism steamrolled tradition when women who were in line for House committee chairs this session were slighted because their male counterparts were deemed “more qualified” (read: more conservative).  The majority party normally chooses committee chairs based on seniority, but another norm was maintained instead–the 107^th House now boasts committees all chaired by white men.

Nearly as dismal, this Congress also includes a record number of women, but they still occupy a mere 13 percent of seats in both the House and Senate.

With the overall progress women have made to dispel social stigma and sex discrimination, why is their representation in Congress so minimal?

The greatest factor in getting and keeping Congressional seats is money.  As long as we accept the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision that equates spending money to influence elections with free speech, the majority of Americans will continue to be underrepresented.

The Buckley decision stated political campaign spending could not be regulated, and contributions could be limited only in certain narrow ways.  It legitimized the practice of corporations and political action committees funding politicians, political parties, and campaigns of their choosing, and reaping legislative favors.

The problem is not that women are unable to fund their campaigns.  Women candidates presently raise campaign money on a par with men and have since the 1980s, in part

The road to incumbency is rugged—and expensive. Escalated campaign costs have made fundraising a daunting task, preventing most potential candidates from even considering running for office and ensuring “serious” candidates are those with access to money.due to contributions from at least 46 PACs and donor networks that primarily contribute to women candidates or whose donors are female.  The problem is that incumbents typically raise more than twice the amount of money, as do challengers, allowing them greater media access and other exposure to the public.

Incumbents raise funds more readily than challengers simply by the advantages of holding office. According to Washington insider and former Cabinet member Joseph Califano, House members typically start fundraising for re-election immediately after they are elected, and most senators easily spend one-third of their six-year terms fundraising.

 Historically, women have fared equally well in running for open Congressional seats against non-incumbent men, but fared much worse challenging male incumbents, a trend illustrated by the results of the 2000 election:  only two of 33 women major party candidates challenging male House incumbents were deemed winners.

Preliminary spending reports indicate just three challengers defeated incumbents for Senate seats in 2000 without outspending them, and lower-spending challengers won just four House seats.

Despite their slight representation in the Congress, women have played a vital role with respect to issues such as sex discrimination that entered the law books because those who had firsthand experience championed them.

Title IX, that denies federal funds to schools that discriminate based on sex, might not exist today if a woman in Congress hadn’t saved it from near-defeat. Women led the way for federal laws on equal pay and funding of daycare for poor women. Historically, women in Congress raise issues of health, poverty, family, and social concerns that often are dwarfed by military or foreign policy issues.

While the corrupting influence of money in government is not exactly a revelation to Americans, most current reform proposals merely seek to lessen the damage to democracy and fail to challenge the faulty premise at the root.

Those interested in changing the rules must recognize that the Supreme Court tends to react to popular movements and the social climate–as it did in response to civil unrest during the Civil Rights Era—rather than lead the way. Government officials, whether appointed or elected, rarely create the necessary changes to enable a government worthy of the name democracy—an organized public will.

Whether our goal is achieving equal representation for all Americans, or simply a less corrupt government, reversing Buckley v. Valeo and dispelling the money-equals-speech dogma must be part of the foundation of change.  Doing so may not ensure fairer representation, but it would help return politics to its root, polites or citizen, and open the board to a greater diversity of players—one that looks more like the constituency it purportedly represents.   

Jennifer Rockne is the Assistant Director of ReclaimDemocracy.org