Democrats should make fairness a priority in Congress


By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
Published November 28th 2006 in San Jose Mercury News

With Democrats now in control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, one way for Democrats to build faith with all Americans would be to pursue policies designed to increase fairness within Congress, as well as improve democracy in the United States.

Change is certainly needed. The reality is that U.S. House elections now provide no more competition or choice to most voters than the former Soviet Union's elections to the Politburo. Even with Congress changing hands, 95 percent of incumbents still won re-election and 86 percent of seats were won by non-competitive margins. No wonder voter turnout nationwide was an anemic 40 percent of eligible voters, despite the high stakes.

It's time to modernize our elections and establish a more vital and fair democracy. Consider these five proposals:

• Better governance. Democratic leaders should change the ugly traditions of recent GOP congressional leaders and run the House with more fairness and openness to ideas, regardless of their source. Even though in the minority, Republican representatives should be able to propose amendments. Earmarks should be banned or at least open to full disclosure, and substantial bills should allow time for review and deliberation.

• Run better elections. Non-partisan, accountable election officials and a national elections commission are essential for elections that are accurate and secure. The United States leaves election administration to a hodgepodge of more than 3,000 counties and nearly 10,000 municipalities scattered across the nation with too few standards or uniformity to guide them. Election administrators should be highly trained civil servants who have a demonstrated proficiency with technology, running elections and making the electoral process transparent and secure. A national commission should establish minimum standards and work with state and local election officials to ensure accountability for their performance and prevent poor decisions, like purchasing glitzy voting machines that lack adequate security features.

•  Universal voter registration. We need a system of universal voter registration in which the government automatically registers all eligible voters. Most established democracies have voter rolls that are far more complete and clean than ours -- even Iraq has far more adults registered to vote than we in the United States because the Iraqi government was encouraged by the Bush administration to proactively register all eligible adults. Why shouldn't Americans have the same gift of democracy that was given to Iraq? Universal voter registration will be all the easier now that states must establish statewide voter databases that can be cross-checked with other lists of adults like Department of Motor Vehicle databases. Done well, universal registration would add 50 million eligible voters to our voter rolls.

Changing our 18th-century electoral system. We should end redistricting shenanigans that block accountability by adopting proportional representation voting methods. Partisan gerrymandering is bad enough, but most House districts have natural partisan tilts because of residential patterns that create lopsided districts for Democrats in most cities and Republicans in most rural areas. In an era of hardening partisan voting patterns, those tilts since 1996 have led to more than 98 percent of House incumbents winning re-election. In the states, nearly four out of 10 legislative winners have not faced even token opposition for years. Proportional voting systems would put all voters into competitive elections where their votes count more than the district lines.

Majority, spoiler-free voting. Instant runoff voting is an increasingly popular system that allows voters to rank a first, second and third choice on their ballots. If your first choice can't use your vote to win and no candidate has a majority, your vote moves to your second ranking as your runoff choice. The goal of instant runoff voting is to elect winners with a popular majority in a single election. It would pry open our political system and liberate voters to select candidates they really like instead of picking the lesser of two evils. Introduced with sparkling success in cities like San Francisco and Burlington, Vt., instant runoff voting has the support of reform-minded major party leaders like Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and could be adopted immediately for most elections. Voters agree -- it swept four campaigns this year in Oakland, Davis, Minneapolis, Minn., and Pierce County, Wash. North Carolina has adopted it for certain vacancy elections and for use at a local level.

By acting on such an agenda, Democratic congressional leaders would take a strong step toward earning the faith and respect of voters. Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, minor party member or independent, you can be part of one big party: the ``Better Democracy'' party.


STEVEN HILL directs the Political Reform Program for the New America Foundation. ROB RICHIE is executive director of FairVote (www.fairvote.org). They wrote this article for the Mercury News.

IRV Soars in Twin Cities, FairVote Corrects the Pundits on Meaning of Election Night '09
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers.  Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections;  the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.

And as pundits try to make hay out of the national implications of Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections, Rob Richie in the Huffington Post concludes that the gubernatorial elections have little bearing on federal elections.

Links