Carter-Baker Panel Proposes Voting Reforms
A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former SecState James Baker III will present its report to President Bush this morning - the report recommends "a widespread overhaul of election practices to make it easier for Americans to vote and to guarantee that their votes are counted," according to the LA Times. The NY Times and WaPo also have coverage of this today. The full text of the report is available on the Commission's website, with a summary of their recommendations here (PDF).
Among the Commission's 87 suggestions are these:
- Remove election oversight responsibilities from partisan state Secretaries of State. The Commission writes "we cannot build confidence in elections if secretaries of State responsible for certifying votes are simultaneously chairing political campaigns."
- In precincts where electronic voting machines are used, a paper printout should be available to the voter showing their choices.
- The political parties should hold four regional presidential primaries (after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, which would remain sacrosanct), with the order of the regions rotating each election cycle.
- Creation of a "universal voting registration system," with state governments taking responsibility for maintaining voter rolls.
- A standard photo identification system requirement, instead of the sometimes-unclear patchwork that currently exists.
Don't seem like bad ideas at all. I hope Congress, the president, and the political parties will consider them seriously.
posted by JBD @ 8:37 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Among the Commission's 87 suggestions are these:
- Remove election oversight responsibilities from partisan state Secretaries of State. The Commission writes "we cannot build confidence in elections if secretaries of State responsible for certifying votes are simultaneously chairing political campaigns."
Being in Florida for the 2000 fiasco, I know Katherine Harris ought to have recused herself from the recount because she was a major player in Bush's campaign in that state, but she didn't and the stink of that conflict-of-interest still reeks. I agree that a non-partisan committees should have oversight of elections.
- In precincts where electronic voting machines are used, a paper printout should be available to the voter showing their choices.
We should always get a receipt. ;)
- The political parties should hold four regional presidential primaries (after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, which would remain sacrosanct), with the order of the regions rotating each election cycle.
I disagree here. Why have one region vote before all the others? The primaries are essentially endurance races, and whoever wins big first ends up getting more money and prestige while the losers (who may actually be better candidates but do poorly in that region they've lost) drop out, meaning the later regions have no choice at all. ALL states need to hold their primaries at the same time, to give all states a say on who they want as a candidate. I know this is unfair to small population states, but what about everyone else? Is it fair for South Carolina to get a say on who runs for the Republicans instead of California? Is it fair for Iowa to say who runs for the Democrats while Georgia has to wait?
I'm pretty sure most of the suggestions made are sensible and ought to be implemented. Knowing the idiots in charge, however, and considering this is threatening their job security, this ain't gonna see the light of day...
I disagree with phil here. We're electing a president who represents the whole country. A state-by-state primary will force candidates to change messages and promises state-by-state, rather than speak to the nation as a whole. Worst of all, you get small population states where the political extremes are in control voting in primaries before any of the large population states like California where political moderation is more at play. And these primaries are endurance races: whoever wins first tends to keep winning as the rivals drop out. This is what happened in 2000 when McCain dropped out right after South Carolina and before larger populated states like Florida had a chance to say who they wanted. If McCain stayed in the whole campaign he would have won the western states esp. California: instead the GOP campaign went to Dubya by default and we've been screwed ever since. Do you want South Carolina determining who runs for the GOP? I don't. I'd rather have ALL the states having an equal say at the same time. The President is not going to represent the states, so leave that to the Senators and Representatives: he's supposed to represent the whole nation, so have the whole nation make their say.
I agree with people above that the regional primary business is the messiest part of all of this. I would worry very much that if you have a huge regional primary with a quarter of the population all voting as one, then there really aren't local primaries at all anymore. You might as well just have all Republicans or Democrats around the country vote en mass at that point. But there are dangers with a huge national vote as well. One is that it is useful over a primary campaign season to weed out people that aren't going to make it. It lets Joe and Jane Schmo who aren't politicos concentrate on learning just 3-5 people who have legitimate shots at the nomination rather than 7-12 or so. Also, it might let dark horse candidates have a better shot. If you have a single gigantic national election, only people with massive amounts of money or fame will have any shot. They have to hit the ground running. But if you can concentrate on just one or two states, then the quiet unknown candidate has some shot of getting her name known by virtue of doing well there. Then there campaign might take off.
All that said, it's a great idea to rotate the primaries in some way. It's really quite stunning how little say many states have in the selection of their President. For the majority of states, the primary election is over before they walk into the polling booth. That needs to change.
Post a Comment
<< Home