The idea of
eliminating straight ticket voting in Michigan – an archaic practice that no
longer exists in 80 percent of the states – has suffered a bad rap in recent
weeks.
The
controversial legislation making its way through the state House and Senate to
end straight ticket voting (STV), has been painted as a partisan ploy by
Republicans trying to gain an advantage at the ballot box. Unfortunately, there’s
some rationale to that argument.
controversial legislation making its way through the state House and Senate to
end straight ticket voting (STV), has been painted as a partisan ploy by
Republicans trying to gain an advantage at the ballot box. Unfortunately, there’s
some rationale to that argument.
GOP
lawmakers have approached this topic in a ham-handed fashion but that doesn’t
mean that putting an end to STV isn’t a good idea.
lawmakers have approached this topic in a ham-handed fashion but that doesn’t
mean that putting an end to STV isn’t a good idea.
Michigan is
just one of 10 states that retain an STV option on ballots, a practice that
dates to the 19th Century and is on its way out. Since 1994, 10
states have eliminated STV, bringing the total number without such a crude method
of voting to 40.
just one of 10 states that retain an STV option on ballots, a practice that
dates to the 19th Century and is on its way out. Since 1994, 10
states have eliminated STV, bringing the total number without such a crude method
of voting to 40.
What has
been lost in the partisan bickering over the pending legislation is that STV is
one of the last remnants of an American political system that was once
dominated by party bosses.
been lost in the partisan bickering over the pending legislation is that STV is
one of the last remnants of an American political system that was once
dominated by party bosses.
Up until the 1890s, voters did not cast secret
ballots, instead the job of handing out ballots was the purview of the parties,
not election officials manning the polls.
ballots, instead the job of handing out ballots was the purview of the parties,
not election officials manning the polls.
In fact,
many parties distributed color-coded ballots to the faithful and hovering party
henchmen held a watchful eye at the polls, using intimidation to ensure that
their voters followed through in support of their candidate lineup. When that
undemocratic method was discarded, the parties managed to keep some control
though the STV option – cast one vote, for your party, and you’re done.
many parties distributed color-coded ballots to the faithful and hovering party
henchmen held a watchful eye at the polls, using intimidation to ensure that
their voters followed through in support of their candidate lineup. When that
undemocratic method was discarded, the parties managed to keep some control
though the STV option – cast one vote, for your party, and you’re done.
Laziness, or partisan purity?
Today, across
Michigan STV is used by one-fifth to one-third of voters, with some substantial
geographic differences.
Michigan STV is used by one-fifth to one-third of voters, with some substantial
geographic differences.
Critics of
STV say that it encourages laziness on the voter’s part, effectively encouraging
people not to study the candidates or the issues and simply plunk down a vote
for a party slate. I would say it encourages political polarization by turning
voters into minions who march in lock-step with their preferred party.
STV say that it encourages laziness on the voter’s part, effectively encouraging
people not to study the candidates or the issues and simply plunk down a vote
for a party slate. I would say it encourages political polarization by turning
voters into minions who march in lock-step with their preferred party.
In a sharply divided Congress,
bipartisan bills to outlaw STV nationwide have languished despite the simple
assertion by supporters that the legislation will “promote thoughtful decision
making in the voting booth by ensuring that ballots are designed to ask voters
to select an individual candidate rather than a political party.”
bipartisan bills to outlaw STV nationwide have languished despite the simple
assertion by supporters that the legislation will “promote thoughtful decision
making in the voting booth by ensuring that ballots are designed to ask voters
to select an individual candidate rather than a political party.”
Of course,
eliminating STV does not prevent voters from making their way down the ballot,
filling in the oval for each candidate nominated by their party. But I would
bet anyone who follows that method will come across a least one party lackey
who has no business getting anywhere near a seat in an elected position.
eliminating STV does not prevent voters from making their way down the ballot,
filling in the oval for each candidate nominated by their party. But I would
bet anyone who follows that method will come across a least one party lackey
who has no business getting anywhere near a seat in an elected position.
Numerous
examples have emerged across the nation in recent years of wholly unqualified
candidates for state or local office winning election, and STV certainly played
a role in those embarrassing outcomes.
examples have emerged across the nation in recent years of wholly unqualified
candidates for state or local office winning election, and STV certainly played
a role in those embarrassing outcomes.
Vote for the candidate, or the party?
For
decades, independent voters have proudly proclaimed, “I vote for the man (or
woman), not the party.” And that’s always been viewed as an admirable approach.
Except that in the current hyper-partisan atmosphere, independents, moderates
and centrists increasingly experience vilification at the hands of hardcore
voters and officials on the far right and the far left.
decades, independent voters have proudly proclaimed, “I vote for the man (or
woman), not the party.” And that’s always been viewed as an admirable approach.
Except that in the current hyper-partisan atmosphere, independents, moderates
and centrists increasingly experience vilification at the hands of hardcore
voters and officials on the far right and the far left.
To be clear,
the largest bloc of voters in the nation does not consist of Republicans or
Democrats – it’s the independents, a group that is growing in numbers as common
sense voters express disgust with the political gridlock created by the two warring
parties.
the largest bloc of voters in the nation does not consist of Republicans or
Democrats – it’s the independents, a group that is growing in numbers as common
sense voters express disgust with the political gridlock created by the two warring
parties.
Yet, in 12
states with a closed process, independents are barred from voting in primaries.
In another 21 states, independents face restrictions when trying to cast a
primary election ballot. In Michigan, which doesn’t make either of those lists,
independents have to vote straight party in a primary – no ticket-splitting or crossover
voting allowed.
states with a closed process, independents are barred from voting in primaries.
In another 21 states, independents face restrictions when trying to cast a
primary election ballot. In Michigan, which doesn’t make either of those lists,
independents have to vote straight party in a primary – no ticket-splitting or crossover
voting allowed.
As a result
of this election system dominated by the two parties, reform movements are
seeking changes that reduce the emphasis on partisanship, and eliminating STV
is one of their prime targets.
In
Michigan, that goal was embraced by a group of GOP pols in Lansing with far
from pure motives as they put their anti-STV bills on a fast track with the
2016 election year approaching.
Michigan, that goal was embraced by a group of GOP pols in Lansing with far
from pure motives as they put their anti-STV bills on a fast track with the
2016 election year approaching.
Criticism
rightly rained down on the Republican legislation because it includes a nebulous
$1 million appropriation that makes the measure referendum-proof. Any bill that
includes a spending provision cannot be reversed by a public vote on a ballot
proposal.
rightly rained down on the Republican legislation because it includes a nebulous
$1 million appropriation that makes the measure referendum-proof. Any bill that
includes a spending provision cannot be reversed by a public vote on a ballot
proposal.
GOP botched the process
Preventing
the voters from having a say in the matter looks especially sinister because Michigan
voters rejected an STV law, through the referendum process, in 2002. In following
that path that makes this proposed change in election law untouchable, these
lawmakers botched the entire legislative process.
the voters from having a say in the matter looks especially sinister because Michigan
voters rejected an STV law, through the referendum process, in 2002. In following
that path that makes this proposed change in election law untouchable, these
lawmakers botched the entire legislative process.
At the same
time, some of the opposition arguments coming from the Democrats seem rather
weak:
time, some of the opposition arguments coming from the Democrats seem rather
weak:
· * The
2002 ballot referendum, which was defeated soundly, was a hodge-podge of
election reforms in the wake of the Florida presidential recount fiasco two
years earlier that exposed a number of weaknesses in states’ election systems.
To say that it was a voter-veto of STV is a bit simplistic.
2002 ballot referendum, which was defeated soundly, was a hodge-podge of
election reforms in the wake of the Florida presidential recount fiasco two
years earlier that exposed a number of weaknesses in states’ election systems.
To say that it was a voter-veto of STV is a bit simplistic.
· * The
concern that disastrously long lines will develop at polling places if voters
no longer have the quick and easy STV option fails to acknowledge the bigger
picture. If delays in the voting booth were an issue, why is that 40 states –
some deep Blue States, some ruby Red States – have all moved in this direction?
concern that disastrously long lines will develop at polling places if voters
no longer have the quick and easy STV option fails to acknowledge the bigger
picture. If delays in the voting booth were an issue, why is that 40 states –
some deep Blue States, some ruby Red States – have all moved in this direction?
· * While
it’s true that Democrats vote straight ticket more than Republicans, much of
that statewide edge can be traced to Detroit and Wayne County. No one can argue
that the GOP is seeking to turn the tables and win campaigns in election territories
where Democrats routinely receive 90 percent of the vote. No change in election
law, barring an outright ban on the existence of the Democratic Party, could
give the GOP a leg up in most of heavily populated Wayne County.
it’s true that Democrats vote straight ticket more than Republicans, much of
that statewide edge can be traced to Detroit and Wayne County. No one can argue
that the GOP is seeking to turn the tables and win campaigns in election territories
where Democrats routinely receive 90 percent of the vote. No change in election
law, barring an outright ban on the existence of the Democratic Party, could
give the GOP a leg up in most of heavily populated Wayne County.
· * Much
of the partisan strategizing over the legislation centers on the Democrats’ success, in part due to STV, in winning seats on the obscure
university boards and the State Board of Education. More to the point, these
offices should not be decided by the ballot at all as about 99 percent of the
public knows nothing about the candidates or what these positions entail.
of the partisan strategizing over the legislation centers on the Democrats’ success, in part due to STV, in winning seats on the obscure
university boards and the State Board of Education. More to the point, these
offices should not be decided by the ballot at all as about 99 percent of the
public knows nothing about the candidates or what these positions entail.
Pragmatic fixes available
I would
suggest that GOP legislators pull the $1 million appropriation out of the bills
and incorporate that money into a separate spending bill. Let that $1 million
(or probably more) serve as an allocation to help election clerks in large
urban and suburban communities, due to an end to STV, deal with the perceived
need for additional election workers and equipment as the upcoming 2016 presidential
election approaches. After all, the state’s Headlee Amendment, which requires
Lansing to pay for new mandates imposed by the Legislature, should certainly
come into play.
suggest that GOP legislators pull the $1 million appropriation out of the bills
and incorporate that money into a separate spending bill. Let that $1 million
(or probably more) serve as an allocation to help election clerks in large
urban and suburban communities, due to an end to STV, deal with the perceived
need for additional election workers and equipment as the upcoming 2016 presidential
election approaches. After all, the state’s Headlee Amendment, which requires
Lansing to pay for new mandates imposed by the Legislature, should certainly
come into play.
Let the
voters get a good look at how an election without STV works in 2016. If it’s faulty,
a subsequent voter referendum can reverse the process. That sounds like a
pragmatic approach that both parties can live with.
voters get a good look at how an election without STV works in 2016. If it’s faulty,
a subsequent voter referendum can reverse the process. That sounds like a
pragmatic approach that both parties can live with.
Of course,
that assumes Republican lawmakers in Lansing are focused on real reforms, not
election returns.
that assumes Republican lawmakers in Lansing are focused on real reforms, not
election returns.
Although I agree that adding a nominal appropriation to inoculate legislation against referendum is a bit on the underhanded side, Democrats are certainly not innocent of gaming the system to their advantage in other areas. Hearing them complain about the appropriation aspect of this legislation is a bit like listening to the pot calling the kettle black.