No Contest, No ChoiceComing soon to a ballot box near you, courtesy of both Republicans and
Democrats: the no-contest, no-choice election. In fact, as more voters
learned in Tuesday's off-year voting, it has already arrived.
While politicians talk up the virtues of democracy and voter participation, the hard-nosed reality they pursue is quite the contrary: The best election is no election, or at least no opponent. And the best turnout is a low turnout - of opposition voters.
Through two devices, insiders are getting more brazen in pursuit of those goals:
Gerrymandering to maximize the number of safe, one-party seats. In Virginia Tuesday, 61% of state legislative races had only one major-party candidate. Fewer than 10% of the seats were regarded as remotely competitive. The legislature itself fixed it that way, drawing district boundaries to group Republicans with Republicans and Democrats with Democrats and leaving as little as possible to chance.
That happens in nearly every state: The politicians contrive to give themselves and their colleagues maximum job security while depriving the voters of meaningful choice.
Nationally, 41% of state legislative seats were uncontested last year; in Massachusetts, 70% were uncontested. Of the 435 seats in the U.S. House, scarcely 50 - fewer than one in eight - appear competitive going into 2000.
Ducking uphill battles to suppress turnout. House GOP campaign chief Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., talked openly of discouraging Republicans from challenging popular Democrats for local office Tuesday. The hope: Democrats would stay home, improving Republicans' chances in state legislative races. If successful, he plans to copy the strategy nationally.
Florida Democrats did the same when they faced a tight gubernatorial race in 1994. Florida Republicans returned the favor in 1998.
Thus, the voters' right to a meaningful choice is thwarted. Nonpartisan control of districting could end insider gerrymandering. Public financing of campaigns could make it impossible for party bosses to squelch honest challenges. But without public pressure, it won't happen. Elections will be left to politicians, and they're too important for that.
While politicians talk up the virtues of democracy and voter participation, the hard-nosed reality they pursue is quite the contrary: The best election is no election, or at least no opponent. And the best turnout is a low turnout - of opposition voters.
Through two devices, insiders are getting more brazen in pursuit of those goals:
Gerrymandering to maximize the number of safe, one-party seats. In Virginia Tuesday, 61% of state legislative races had only one major-party candidate. Fewer than 10% of the seats were regarded as remotely competitive. The legislature itself fixed it that way, drawing district boundaries to group Republicans with Republicans and Democrats with Democrats and leaving as little as possible to chance.
That happens in nearly every state: The politicians contrive to give themselves and their colleagues maximum job security while depriving the voters of meaningful choice.
Nationally, 41% of state legislative seats were uncontested last year; in Massachusetts, 70% were uncontested. Of the 435 seats in the U.S. House, scarcely 50 - fewer than one in eight - appear competitive going into 2000.
Ducking uphill battles to suppress turnout. House GOP campaign chief Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., talked openly of discouraging Republicans from challenging popular Democrats for local office Tuesday. The hope: Democrats would stay home, improving Republicans' chances in state legislative races. If successful, he plans to copy the strategy nationally.
Florida Democrats did the same when they faced a tight gubernatorial race in 1994. Florida Republicans returned the favor in 1998.
Thus, the voters' right to a meaningful choice is thwarted. Nonpartisan control of districting could end insider gerrymandering. Public financing of campaigns could make it impossible for party bosses to squelch honest challenges. But without public pressure, it won't happen. Elections will be left to politicians, and they're too important for that.
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.