In my last post I touched upon the topic of voter choice, specifically regarding the Presidential elections. I'd like to take this opportunity to do two things, and the first is to clarify that I believe (and I hope it was implied) that I am for voter choice regardless of the office for which the candidates seek. Senate, Congressional, state-wide, county and local elections should always put two (or more) well qualified and respected individuals up for the voters choice. The freedom granted to the public by the Constitution to vote is just as important for town sanitation supervisor as it is for President of the United States. Why would you want anyone but a well qualified individual for either office?
My second goal in this post is to address more specifically the issue of incumbents along with voter choice. As I looked over my ballot this year I was seething with anger at the Democrats of my town, county and congressional district. My congressman, my state assemblyman, my state senator and my town justice were all running unopposed. All of them. What sort of democracy is it when they all go unchallenged? What incentive is there for them to represent me well and not simply rest on their laurels if there is no threat to their own job security? Goddamn, and damn it again! (John Adams) What means exist for the electorate to check the power of our leaders if there is no organized resistance to them?
The issue of the unchallenged incumbent is a national problem. In communities across the nation where the population is politically homogeneous, there is NEVER a complete consensus of the electorate. There should still be a voice, even a lone voice calling out against everything to say "I am still here! I am here to represent the unrepresented! To keep you honest and to keep you mindful!" Otherwise the tyranny of the majority will consume and corrupt itself. Even in places such as Washington, DC where you have what comes very close to a complete Democratic community, there is the Republican candidate for mayor. Everytime, it never fails. They know they are going to lose. They know that there is no chance that they can win. But they run, because they have interests that they believe are worthy of voicing. To offer a choice. To say, "this is a Democracy and my name will be on that ballot so that an alternative exists."
In New York, the Republican party fielded Howard Mills as a candidate for one of New York's Senate seats against Charles Schumer. Schumer, after Bush and Kerry, had more money in his campaign coffers than anyone else in the country. Schumer who is popular in New York, both personally and politically. But Howard Mills and the Republicans gave New Yorkers a choice. Schumer won overwhelmingly. 71% of the vote. I like Chuck Schumer, I think he does a good job for New York and he got my vote for his integrity and his record. But I must say, there was a pause before I voted for him. I thought to myself, Howard Mills is running an uphill campaign that Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki and a host of well known Republicans said no to. He did it because he believed in his ideas. He did knowing he was going to lose, but he still ran. There is a part of New York that does not agree with Charles Schumer. There are New Yorkers whose interests he may not represent. So Howard Mills was their candidate. He gave voice to the voiceless. And for that Howard Mills earned my respect. And he earned a quarter of the votes cast in the state. While 25% will not win an election, it is a sizeable minority whose interests are worthy of at least being heard.
And the Onondaga County Democrats failed. They failed me and every other person who feels that maybe State Senator John DeFrancisco is wrong for opposing the mall development project. Who feel that Congressman Jim Walsh absolutely does not deserve our vote for bringing a known terrorist and murderer, Gerry Adams, to Syracuse to head the St. Patricks Day parade. I chose to write in my vote for Walsh's seat. But I was furious that my own party neglected to give me a more effective voice. Someone who held rallies and someone who gave interviews to our local press to tell voters that they had a choice. Someone who sent out mailings that spoke to my values that Jim Walsh ignores everytime that he casts a vote in Congress. Syracuse has a Democrat as mayor. There are numerous other city and county offices held by Democrats. Its not that there isn't organization. There isn't passion.
Every election for every office in this country should give voters a choice. Never should a person be elected to any office without having to defend his/her policies and advocate strongly for their ideals. There is no one solution to the problem, but I believe strongly that there are several things that can be done to perhaps bring some measure of choice to voters.
First of all, local politics MUST be the frontline if any change of the system is to occur. For these local races, the first step ought to be ballot access. By easing the limits on getting a name onto a ballot, you allow for concerned citizens to share the same stage with incumbents in front of every voter. If the Onondaga County Democrats choose not to run a candidate for State Senate against John DeFrancisco, then a group of concerned citizens can at the very least get the name of a willing candidate on the ballot. Perhaps once the party notices that there is a segment of the population calling out for change or demanding an alternative to incumbency, they will begin to field candidates in future elections. Allowing third parties or individuals with enough support onto the ballot allows for the barest minimum. I may not be able to afford radio, newspaper or television advertisements or mass mailings, but my name on the ballot alongside the incumbent gives every constituent of that office a choice they did not have before. This increased ballot access allows other voices to be heard. Even places like Washington, DC and parts of New York City which lean overwhelmingly Democratic and there is little to no Republican or conservative presence, increased ballot access allows other voices such as the Green Party and DC Statehood party to be heard. Choice should not mean Republican or Democrat.
Second, the state legislatures need to immediately halt gerrymandering of congressional districts. The branching off of Congressional district is the worst form of voter disenfranchisement. It is not enough for a congressional district to be contiguous, but they must also be as compact as possible. The problem comes when a contiguous, compact geographic area is politically homogeneous, but is divided up to prevent that homogeneity from manifesting. An example is Monroe County in New York state, which contains the Democratic leaning Rochester. Unfortunately for those voters in Rochester, a slice of Monroe County is divided up, and follows the shoreline of Lake Ontario eastward and then eventually south to the heavily Republican Onondaga County. By dividing up Monroe County into several parts connected to heavily Republican districts, you have effectively disenfranchised an entire geographically compact and politically homogenous community. If the state legislatures fail to do this, it appears then that the courts must become involved to protect the disenfranchised. I speak only of Democrats being disenfranchised as an example, because I am well aware of cases in places like Massachusetts where Republicans and conservatives are also harmed by gerrymandering.
Third, is a public financing for Congressional races. One of the reasons that incumbents won at a rate of 88% in 2002 was due in a large part to the access they get to funds. If it was mandated that the top two parties in every congressional election were to recieve and be limited to the same amount of public money two things would happen: The first is that parties that typically have little incentive to run a candidate would all of a sudden have a great incentive to run a candidate. The second is that if it is public, rather that private money from large donors, being spent the public at large would have more at stake in every election. If they feel it was their money being spent, they would demand a quality campaign be run by both parties, and that both candidates be of such personal caliber to deserve public money.
Obviously it is a large problem that is difficult to solve. Incumbents will always hold distinct advantages over challengers in terms of the public awareness, constituent services and regular media access. But if the playing field can be evened so that voters are at the very least given a choice, because, isn't choice what democracy really is?
