What do you know; it worked. The idea was that if Democrats could get five point-plus margins in voter turnout in races all over the country that they would win enough of them, albeit by slim margins, that they could take the House and even, if everything went just right, the Senate. And indeed, it seems that the GOP vote-skewing machine only nets them about a five points. Who knew?
Now that we have a hard-earned and well-deserved Democratic Congress what should we do? Or more accurately, what should the voters demand of the representatives they voted into office? I have two priorities which go beyond what I have heard proposed from Democratic lawmakers.
1) Abolish voting machines. There's been a lot of talk about assuring that voting machines have "verifiable paper trails," but that still assumes that we need machines for voting in the first place. We don't. What problem with paper ballots are voting machines supposedly solving?
In fact paper trails add a new dimension to voter confusion. Not only do voters have to make their choices that will be machine-counted using the touch screen, they also have to verify that those were registered correctly by the software by double-checking the receipt. Even if people do take the trouble to assure that their votes were transcribed, how can we assure that the primary tally -- the one that emerges from the innards of insecure and proprietary software -- is accurate?
Many first-world democracies use paper ballots for their elections. Consider the advantages. The ballot is the slate of choices exactly as the voter sees it. Their mark on the ballot itself is their vote. Counting is done by looking at the ballot and recording the voter's intention. Re-counting is exactly the same as counting. It's true that some paper ballots have unacceptable error rates or spoilage, but the various methods -- check the box, fill in the pip, punch the chad, complete the line -- can be compared empirically and minimum standards defined. The only way to tamper with paper ballots is to physically steal, replace or add to the paper, and the American obsession with money has given us all an intuitive understanding of how to protect the security of little slips of paper.
It's possible to build voting machines that are verifiable, but it's much harder and more expensive than a slip of paper, a pen, a small privacy curtain and a locked box. It's far more important to have confidence in the accuracy of our votes than to get the results fast.
2) Close the revolving door. Ethics reform proposals from the new House leadership have included some very important changes -- like disallowing all gifts of any kind from anyone involved in lobbying to anyone involved in the legislature. While they would also require disclosure of any employment offers to people moving from one sector to the other they stop short of disbarring it. I would go that extra step.
Anyone involved in Congress in any capacity should not be allowed to be employed by a lobbying firm or in a lobbying capacity in the private sector for two years after leaving their government job. A two-year hiatus should also be imposed on the reverse: moving from lobbying to government. This would assure that there would always be an election cycle between congressional staffers quitting public service and coming back as lobbyists.
There might be some complaints that this would unfairly interfere with someone's ability to use their skills to make a living. To some extent it might, although I think the benefits far outweigh any restriction on personal liberty. A few people might be stopped from getting a job that they would have been able to get on the basis of their skills and expertise. The vast majority of these high-paying lobbying jobs are not predicated on the value of the staffer's experience, but of their connections. I think we can agree that even in a capitalist country some economic transactions should be illegal. Our representatives and those who work for them in our name should not be for sale.
- jack*
Comments