AZ: Independents Demand Reform of Legislature

From the Arizona Daily Star:

As Arizona drowns in red ink, the state Legislature appears to be more ideological than pragmatic in dealing with the myriad problems facing our state. In a state where registered independent voters are the fastest growing political bloc (recently surpassing Democratic voters in numbers), not a single independent serves in the Legislature, and moderates of both major political parties are routinely beaten in primary elections by extreme conservative and liberal candidates.

Is the Arizona electorate as polarized and out of touch with the rest of the country as it seems, or is the moderate middle being disenfranchised by well meaning "reforms" that have had unintended consequences? The following are suggestions (some borrowed from a recent Arizona Town Hall) that could make Arizona's Legislature more pragmatic and less ideological . . .

Election Law Protects Ruling Class, Aids in Political Class War against Voters

From Richard Reeves on a change to California's redistricting laws:

A majority of voters [in CA] approved a proposition denying the right of the state legislature to draw the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts. From now on, the districts will be drawn by 14 ordinary citizens, men and women whose names have been drawn from a hat -- not exactly a hat, just one of those spinning cages full of pingpong balls they use in lotteries.

The devils of politics have always been in the details, and in recent American politics the details have been jiggered to favor incumbent congressmen and state legislators, many of them charmingly mediocre. They had the power, and still do in most states, to craftily craft districts to make it difficult to unseat incumbents of either party. In other words, American election laws are basically a contract between the Democrats and Republicans in office to preserve each other and keep outsiders where they belong, outside. Election rules. Ballot designs. Voter registration. All these things were designed to protect incumbents against ordinary voters.  [Emphasis added.]

Eliot Cutler: The Major Parties are Increasingly Irrelevant

In a post-election discussion with the Portland Press Herald, former Independent gubernatorial candidate Eliot Cutler has vowed to remain politically active and argues that the major parties are increasingly irrelevant.  From the Portland Press Herald:

A week after his close second-place finish in the gubernatorial race, Eliot Cutler was tight-lipped about his political future but did not rule out another run for elected office. "I don't know what I'm going to do," the independent candidate said. "I'm going to stay active politically." . . .

Cutler met with the editorial board of The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram last week for an election post-mortem. Among the things he would have changed if he could: persuade the media to pay less attention to the "horse race" and polling; end early absentee voting; persuade former Gov. Angus King to make his endorsement earlier.

Cutler said he believes the two major parties are becoming increasingly irrelevant . . .  "The parties are no longer mediating differences among people," he said. Cutler said the parties fail to serve most of their followers, but they benefit from election laws that give them an advantage over independent candidates such as himself.

Read the rest. 

CT: Greens Decry "Broken Election System," Demand All Votes be Counted

From On the Wilder Side:

Green Party candidates and officials stated today a recent audit of state voting system showed a “broken election system” that needs reform, upgrades to ballot security, and transparency. Greens were shocked that ballots to be audited were left unsecured, left under desks and had differences in the ballot count, according to the audit report.

Settling for the Lesser of Two Evils is the Greater Evil

As a voter and citizen in a democracy I should be able to vote my conscience and beliefs in elections. At its core this involves voting for candidates which represent my beliefs. Absent any palatable candidates, I would like to have some sort of mechanism to register my blanket disapproval such as a “None of the Above” option. Having such an option would put political parties and elected officials on notice that they aren’t up to snuff and the general public expects a lot more than what they are currently offering. These suggestions promote choice and competition in politics — that’s the American way right?

To my surprise, I get a lot of resistance from people whenever I broach such issues. People typically agree with me about how much our choices in elections in candidates and political parties are inadequate. But when the discussion veers towards answering the question of what we can do about it and I broach the third-party and independent option this is where I encounter resistance.

Some objections:

* Voting for third party and independent candidates will only result in siphoning votes away from the major party candidate you most agree with, resulting in a win for the major party candidate you most oppose. Therefore, your vote for an independent or a third party only increases the likelihood of the major party candidates whom you most disagree with winning and is wasting your vote.

* Politics is a game where you can’t always get what you want. Winning elections always involves some sort of compromise.

* Having a None of the Above option is stupid. Voters should just choose between those who are on the ballot. If they disagree with the choices, they should be active in the stages of politics before the candidates are formally chosen such as party primaries, to make sure candidates of their choice will be represented on the ballot.

I will try to address these issues one by one.

Read the complete article by clicking here.