Federal Election Reform Reformed
A Topic Proposal
Prepared for Submission to the
2004 National Debate Topic Selection Committee
by
Randy Pierce
Pattonville High School
Maryland Heights, Missouri
“If Boeing built airplanes like we conduct elections, no one would ever get
on an airplane again.”
Representative Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR)
“Based on what we’re going through now, Congress has an absolute obligation to give a
long and hard look at the whole electoral process. To have the world’s greatest democracy
facing the possibility of a legitimacy challenge as we go into the 21st century is simply bizarre.”
These words, offered in November of 2000 by Representative Jim Leach (R-OR), effectively
summarize the timeliness and relevance of federal election reform. Though various proposals
have been offered for many years - centuries, in fact - with regard to the electoral college,
campaign finance, term limits, and the primary season, among others, the presidential election
crisis of 2000 was the catalyst for widespread attention to be focused on the United States federal
election system. Some may question the appropriateness of election reform as a subject for
federal policymaking, since states and localities implement the elections themselves. But Thad
Hall of The Century Foundation and John Samples of the Cato Institute Center for
Representative Government reveal that even this basic question provides ample ground for
debate:
“Although elections historically have been viewed as a state activity, the federal
government can, for the most part, play as large or small a role as it desires. As Article I, Section
4, of the Constitution states, ‘The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.’” But later in the same article,
justification for rejecting federal action is provided: “Members of Congress know a lot about
running for office, but they know little about running elections. The people who do are
uniformly against federal mandates. The National Association of Secretaries of State
recommends voluntary management standards for each voting system. The National Association
of State Election Directors and the National Association of State Legislatures warn against new
federal mandates enforcing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution on America. If the experts reject federal
mandates, why should Congress overrule them and impose national standards?’”
Political debate on a range of potential reforms has already ensued as a result of
“Indecision 2000”, but no significant changes are apparent yet. Therefore, it seems appropriate to
consider several of the most frequently discussed areas of possible change.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM
“The most fundamental change under discussion--and the one facing the most obstacles-is the elimination or alteration of the electoral college. The ideal of abolishing or changing the
electoral college has been around virtually since it was created. The Congressional Research
Service has counted 1,028 proposals for changing the system, dating back to the 1st Congress,
according to an aide to Leach.
That total accounts for almost one out of every 10 constitutional amendments ever proposed in
Congress. Twice since World War II--in 1950 and 1969--plans for major revisions to the
electoral college won approval in one chamber of Congress but died in the other.” (Vita)
A brief review of the electoral college process may help to clarify both its strengths and
weaknesses. As specified in the Constitution, each state (and the District of Columbia) chooses
electors pledged to a ticket of a presidential and a vice-presidential candidate. The number of
electors provided to each state is equal to the number of U.S. representatives and senators from
that state - a total of 535 electors from the states, plus 3 from the District of Columbia. Within
each state, the ticket which garners a plurality of the votes cast (not necessarily a majority) is
awarded all of that state’s electoral votes. An absolute majority of 270 electoral votes is
2
necessary for a candidate to win the presidency. If no candidate receives a majority, the House
of Representatives picks the winner from the top three vote-getters, with each state’s delegation
in the House casing only one vote. It is primarily because of the winner-take-all system that the
electoral college has received so much criticism. As we learned in the fall of 2000, the electoral
process largely ignores the overall popular vote. By winning a number of very small popularvote margins (ex. - Florida) while losing others by significant margins (ex. - New York), a
candidate (ex. - George W. Bush, along with Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and Benjamin
Harrison in 1888) can win the presidency despite losing the popular vote. In simplest terms, this
situation would seem to violate the basic tenet of majority rule, and clearly appears to have
denied a popular mandate to the newest White House resident.
But problems with electoral college do not stop there, as analysts from both major
political parties have observed. Among them are the following:
1) “It Discourages Voter Turnout. Because each state gets the same number of electoral votes
regardless of how many people show up at the polls, there is no incentive for the states to
encourage voter participation. Also, people are more likely under the electoral college system to
feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference. Voters might be inclined to skip voting, for
example, if it’s clear from the news and the polls that Candidate X is bound to win their state.
2) It Violates the One-Person One-Vote Ideal. Each state has a minimum of three electors,
regardless of the size of its population. This gives residents of the smallest states, which based
on their population might otherwise be entitled to just one or two electors, more influence than
residents of larger states. Voters in smaller states also would be at an advantage if a presidential
election were thrown into the House of Representatives in the event that no candidate received a
majority of the electoral vote: Because each state’s delegation would have one vote, all states
have an equal say regardless of population. Two U.S. presidential elections, in 1800 and 1824,
have been decided by the House.
3) It Doesn’t require Electors To Vote the Way They Pledged To. It rarely happens, but there’s
nothing preventing electors from defecting from the candidate to whom they are pledged. Most
recently, in 1988, a Democratic elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen for president instead of Michael
Dukakis; Bentsen was Dukakis’s running mate. The main danger of “faithless electors” is that
the candidate who wins the popular vote could wind up one or two votes short of an electoral
college majority, and the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives.” (The
League of Women Voters)
4) “When no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, the vote is settled by the House of
Representatives, throwing out the people’s vote entirely. This generally leads to a purely
partisan battle that loses all sight of whatever popular mandate really exists. Often the only
resolution is some kind of back-room deal like the ‘corrupt bargains’ of 1824 and 1876.
5) The electoral college tends to enforce a two party structure, freezing out alternatives, because
nobody wants the election thrown to the House of Representatives. Third party candidacies are
generally seen only as ‘spoilers’ instead of as real choices. (The framers did not expect a two
party system to arise; some cynics say they really intended to leave the choice up to the House of
Representatives whenever nobody was overwhelmingly popular.)” (Kienitz)
6) The Electoral College is a major source of inequality and social injustice in America. . . The
rules introduce state-to-state bias in the value of a vote that is inversely proportional to the
3
population of the state of residence. The Electoral College therefore works against those racial,
cultural, and ethnic groups whose history, heritage, or financial endowment cause a
disproportionate geographical distribution of their people to states with larger populations. For
example, Blacks and Hispanics are located in the more populous states and the value of their
vote has been diminished thereby. The same is true for religious groups, such as the Jewish
population. Because of this Electoral College bias, the relative value of a vote of a typical
person in these groups is significantly different from that of the average White voter when it
comes to electing the President.” (Parish)
7) And finally, the electoral college makes America look stupid to foreigners, especially when
we talk about how we’re the bastion of democracy.” (Kienitz)
Analysis provided by the website “Reform It Now” elaborates on the specific forms of
inequality that result from the use of the Electoral College:
“The value of the Electoral Votes of small-populated states is too great. The value of the
Electoral College votes is 2 to 4 times more influential than many of the larger populated states.
For example, each electoral vote in Alaska is equivalent to approximately 112, 000 people. Each
electoral vote in New York is equivalent to approximately 404,000 eligible people (based on
1990 census data). . .
The Electoral College system ignores an individual’s vote if that person voted for a
candidate who didn’t win their state’s majority of votes. The reason: all Electoral Votes within
each state go to the candidate with the most popular votes. Over 18 million people who voted
for Gore had their votes essentially ignored if they live in the 29 states that Bush won. Over 22
million votes for Bush in 21 Gore-won states were also ignored, and over 3 million votes for the
3rd Party candidates in all 50 states were ignored. A Popular Vote system doesn’t ignore a
single vote, and no one living in a state where their opinion differs from the majority will feel
like their vote is a waste of time. . .
A candidate can win the election by simply winning a slim majority of the 11 most
populous states, even if the candidate receives less than one half of the votes from those states.”
The affirmative harm position was summarized clearly by Lawrence Longley and Neil
Peirce in their 1999 book, The Electoral College Primer 2000:
“The electoral college is a highly imperfect method of electing the president of the United
States. At best it distorts campaign strategy and poorly represents the popular will. At worst it
can create political and constitutional crisis in determining who should be president. . . Our
argument is simple: the 2000 election, like any election, vividly illustrates the distortions and
imperfections of this fatally flawed means of determining the American president. Further, in
2000 or a future election the electoral college has the potential for creating serious electoral
crisis, deeply eroding the security of our democratic processes.”
The vast majority of those who favor electoral college reform--or abolition-- advocate
direct popular vote as the most desirable alternative. This would greatly simplify the process,
restore the principle of “one person, one vote”, and would eliminate the House of
Representatives from the process completely. Other serious proposals can be found in the
literature, however, including popular vote with a runoff election, proportional electoral vote,
weighted popular vote, electoral college with popular vote bonus, and preferential popular vote,
4
among others. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have already shifted to a system under which
electoral votes are allocated by congressional district, rather than on the winner-take-all basis.
Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar’s remarks to the House Judiciary Committee at a
hearing on Electoral College reform in 1997 summarize the view of those who favor scrapping
the status quo:
“I consider the so-called Electoral College a brilliant 18th-century device that clearly
solved a cluster of 18th-century problems. As we approach the 21st-century, we confront a
different cluster of problems, and our constitutional machinery of presidential selection doesn’t
look so brilliant.” (Reform It Now)
But the electoral college is not without its defenders, as evidenced by the analysis of John
C. Fortier of the American Enterprise Institute in the New York Times of November 13, 2000:
“The Electoral College is not undemocratic. It lets all votes be counted, but in the states,
not in a national vote count. We have a similar system for electing Congress, where each vote is
counted in a district. Occasionally, the national vote for Congress favors one party, while the
majority of Congress favors the other. All the presidential candidates know the rules in advance,
and it is only in the closest elections that the popular vote and the electoral vote go in opposite
directions.
Most opponents of the Electoral College call for a direct popular election, but our current
election troubles would only be magnified in such a system. Instead of a recount in Florida, a
close direct popular election might require recounts in every polling place in America. Would
we want to examine voting irregularities, lost ballots, and other difficulties across the land?
Finally, the Electoral College system encourages presidential candidates to seek votes in
smaller states and rural areas as well as big cities. If we had a direct popular election,
presidential candidates might focus their efforts entirely on big cities with large television
markets.
Before we change our system, let’s make sure we’re not trading it in for something
worse.”
TERM LIMITS
The subject of term limits is not a new one, but it does offer several intriguing
possibilities for significant changes affecting both presidential and congressional candidates.
And this area of reform is clearly within the purview of the federal, rather than state level,
government.
“The Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 1995 in the Arkansas case, U.S. Term Limits
Inc. v. Thornton. In a 5-4 decision on May 22, the Court held that the states indeed had no power
to change the qualifications for serving in Congress.
‘Allowing individual states to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be
inconsistent with the framers’ vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of
the United States,’ Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.” (Moore, p. 434)
The concept of term limits has received significant popular attention as well in recent
years. In 1994, the Republican “Contract with America” utilized a call for term limits, along
with other proposals, and the outcome of several individual races was affected by its inclusion.
5
Most advocates of term limitation express frustration over the significant advantages that
incumbents in Washington hold over their challengers. Many long-term members of Congress
are accused of using “pork barrel” projects to retain their offices, while at the same time losing
touch with many of their constituents. Considering the fact that the reelection rate for members
of the House since World War II is above 90 percent, these accusations do not seem
unwarranted.
The most common suggested change calls for a limit on the number of terms a senator or
representative can serve. For instance, using 12 years as the common factor, many term limit
advocates would restrict House members to six 2-year terms and senators to two 6-year terms.
Supporters of this arrangement view it as a way to increase electoral competition and make
office-holders more responsive to their constituents. Detractors counter that by periodically
cleansing the “institutional memory of Congress, lobbyists and staffers will assume inordinate
and inappropriate levels of influence. They also argue that the will of the populace is being
artificially circumvented by denying voters the chance to retain effective leaders whom they feel
represent them well. The validity of this claim is currently being laid open for analysis on the
state level, as term limits for state senators and representatives begin to expel many of the more
experienced legislators from their respective chambers.
A variation on the concept of term limitation attempts to address an entirely separate
concern, namely the political gridlock that all too often impedes meaningful policy changes.
Supporters of this idea would synchronize the terms of representatives, senators, and the
president, providing four-year terms for all three offices. With all of the elections occurring
every four years. The intent would be to mirror the benefits of parliamentary systems in which
voters can choose more unified national leadership. And by abolishing off-year elections, the
traditional mid-term loss of presidential power--and effectiveness--would be eliminated. (Burns)
A third, less-publicized, modification of term limits is term expansion. Richard A.
Clucas explains it in The Encyclopedia of American Political Reform:
“Over the past 30 years, however, many reformers have argued that the solution to the
problem of poor government is not a reduction in the length of terms but an expansion. Where
term limits have been offered as a means to make elected officials more responsive to private
citizens, term expansion is presented as a way to give elected officials more time to do their jobs
instead of constantly worrying about the next election.
Efforts to lengthen terms have occurred at both the state and national levels. State
reformers in the 1950s and 1960s argued that governors’ terms needed to be increased from two
to four years to allow the governors to develop better policy programs and gain greater control
over the bureaucracy. Reforms also advocated an end to the restrictive term limits on governors,
which in many states denied them the opportunity to serve more than one consecutive term.
Similarly, in the late 1960s and 1970s, supporters of the state legislative reform movement
advocated improving legislative salaries and benefits as a way to increase members’ tenure in
office. If members served longer terms, the supporters argued, it would improve their expertise
and lead to better public policy.” (p. 270)
Clucas continues with a description of specific reforms that might be implemented at the
federal level:
“In particular, some reformers advocate increasing House terms to four years and Senate
terms to eight, so that their elections coincide with presidential election years. This reform has
6
been presented as a way to reduce members’ obsession with the next election and to encourage
greater cooperation between the two branches. . .
In 1987, the Committee on the Constitutional System advocated extending the terms for House
and Senate offices to four and eight, respectively. Opponents argue, however, that frequent
elections are needed to make members responsive to the public, and that an eight-year Senate
term is simply too long.” (p. 271)
And the potential changes are not limited to affecting members of Congress. Term
changes of various sorts have been advocated for the President as well. Once again, Clucas
elaborates:
“A number of reformers have also called for lengthening the president’s term to six years,
and then denying the president the opportunity to be reelected. This reform has been proposed as
a way to reduce the amount of time that sitting presidents spend on campaigning, and to
encourage presidents to pursue wiser policy initiatives.
Critics argue that instead of improving performance, such a reform would cause a decline in the
president’s power, because the president would automatically become a lame duck. As an
alternative, these critics advocate the repeal of Twenty-second Amendment. Not only would this
overcome the lame-duck problem, they argue, but it would allow voters to continue to reelect a
popular president.” (Ibid)
But serious concerns have been voiced regarding the wisdom of virtually every type of
term limit change. To begin with, our federal election system has functioned well, providing an
exceptional level of political stability for more than 200 hundred years; that fact alone would
seem to call into question the wisdom of turning such a system on its head. Ethan Wallison, a
staff writer at Roll Call, cites an empirical example of a disadvantage that has emerged on the
state level:
“The truth is, for every assumed benefit of term limits--and every victory claimed by its
supporters--there is weighty evidence to the contrary developing in legislatures across the
country. Proponents of term limits anticipated, for instance, that the reform would make
legislators more responsive to constituents by taking away the option of making a career of
legislative service. They've accomplished that in several states, and now what are people
getting? Unresponsive lawmakers. Rebecca A. Tothero of Michigan State University studied
the voting habits of term-limited members in the Michigan legislature, and found that their
attendance decreased at a “statistically significant rate’ in their last year of service. Voting, of
course, is the way elected representatives ‘respond’ to their constituents.” (p. 41)
Clearly, then, the concept of term limits (or, perhaps more accurately, term modification),
is an area of political reform that justifies continued research, analysis, and debate.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Money has been called “the mother’s milk” of politics, and because of the enormous role
money has played in deciding the winners and losers in American politics, many reformers are
attempting to wean the system off of its dependence on the almighty dollar. The sheer financial
numbers involved are staggering, as seen in a recent issue of the Los Angeles Times:
7
“Common Cause, a pro-reform group, estimates that soft-money donations in
the most recent presidential campaign totaled $457 million over two years. That is
nearly double the $231 million raised in a comparable period before the 1996
election and
more than five times what was raised in 1991-92.” (Anderson)
And the number of “players” in this big-money game has also grown exponentially. Another
pro-reform group, Destination Democracy, provides a breakdown of the depth and breadth of
involvement by Political Action Committees, better known as PACs:
“In mid-1996, 4,033 PACs were registered with Federal Election Commission.
Corporate PACs are the largest category, with 1,545 committees, followed by
nonconnected committees--1,058; trade/membership/health--829; labor--332;
corporations without stock--126; and cooperatives--43.”
Clearly, a great many people, and a great many more dollars, are involved in our present system
of campaign finance. But how serious a problem is this?
The current campaign finance system is blamed for a variety of ills, including excessive
influence on the part of big business and big labor, public cynicism and resultant voter apathy,
exclusion of third parties from effective participation, elimination of high-quality potential
candidates who lack major financial resources, unfair advantages for incumbents in contrast to
their challengers, reduced effectiveness of officeholders who must constantly work to raise
additional funds, and full-blown corruption. Public dissatisfaction has grown significantly, with
most recent polls indicating that anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of the American public feel that
the system is broken (Corrado, p. 1).
Before considering proposed solutions, however, it is necessary to understand what the
current system actually is, and how it came to be. The use of television as a means of spreading
campaign ads grew rapidly in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and was followed by revelations during the
Watergate affair that numerous large corporations and wealthy individuals had made significant and illegal - cash contributions to President Nixon’s reelection campaign. Nixon had previously
signed into law the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, but in light of the
Watergate abuses, Congress toughened FECA with a number of amendments designed to
regulate the amount of private money going to candidates, provide greater scrutiny of all
campaign contributions, and create a system of partial public financing for presidential
candidates. However, opponents of such changes quickly brought suit against the new
amendments, challenging them on the grounds that the violated a candidate’s First Amendment
right to free speech, and that they might deprive the voting public of necessary political
information. Finding for the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in
1976 that drastically changed the prospects for meaningful campaign finance limitations. That
decision was Buckley v. Valeo, and it completely changed the ground rules - and constitutional
implications - of America’s campaign finance system. The online glossary of Destination
Democracy explains:
“The court agreed with the plaintiffs. It overturned the mandatory expenditure
limits--the legal cap on the money going out of a candidate’s campaign
treasury. The Court declared that, ‘it is clear that a primary effect of these
expenditure limitations is to restrict the quantity of campaign speech by
individuals, groups, and candidates. The restrictions . . . limit political
expression at the core of our electoral process and of First Amendment
8
freedoms.’ In effect, the Court ruled that campaign spending equals free
speech. . . Even though spending caps impose no prohibitions on what a
candidate can say, according to the Court and supporters of the Buckley
decision, they effectively restrict how he or she can say it and how many people he or
she can say it to. . . Campaigns are about information--information
expressed by
candidates to open-minded voters whose responsibility it is to
decide, on the basis of
that information, who to elect to office. Each time a
candidate communicates
information to voters, the candidate is exercising his
or her First Amendment right
to free speech. Voters judge the candidate largely on the basis of what he or she says to them. .
. For free speech to have any real
meaning in today’s campaigns, according to the
Court, candidates must be
granted the freedom to spend whatever amount they think
is necessary to
transmit their information to voters.”
Interestingly, the Court let stand the existing limitations on candidates who chose to accept
public funding, claiming that they were constitutionally sound because they were “voluntary”
limits. Some constitutional analysts believe that the Buckley decision may be challenged in the
near future on the grounds that “disproportionate campaign spending violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution because it denies poorer
candidates their right to be heard.” (Clucas, p. 31). To this date, however, no such challenge has
emerged.
Shortly thereafter, two additional amendments were added to the FECA. In 1976,
restrictions were placed on the spending by PACs. Then, in 1979, a major loophole was
inadvertently created when changes specified that the political parties could spend unlimited
amounts of money for “party-building” activities such as voter-registration drives, but not
naming specific candidates. This led to the growth of what is now known as “soft money”.
(League of Women Voters, p. 62)
In its broadest sense, soft money (also known as “nonfederal funds” or “sewer money”)
includes any financial contribution that is not covered by federal election laws. Even though
new rules enacted in 1991 require that such contributions must be reported to the Federal
Election Commission, there still remain four key advantages to the use of soft money by
candidates for federal office:
1. Soft money is not subject to any contribution limits.
2. Soft money contributions can be made by anyone--including groups
prohibited from making contributions to federal candidates or parties.
3. Soft money offers an extra means of political giving for individuals who’ve
already given the maximum to candidates and federal parties.
4. Soft money offers a way for corporations, unions and wealthy contributors to
directly support presidential candidates in the fall elections.” (Makinson and
Goldstein)
Most proponents of campaign finance reform view soft money as the primary source of
the problems to be addressed. But it is not the only type of activity that is being criticized; even
the sources of money that are regulated by current federal law seem to offer the potential for
abuse. Besides contributions made directly to candidates, the FECA provides for two other
broad categories of financial support.
Parties, groups, and individuals may spend money on behalf of candidates (rather than directly to
them) are known as “coordinated expenditures”, while individuals and groups who do not
9
coordinate their efforts directly with candidates may spend additional money, known as
“independent expenditures.” These two types of funding were originally regulated closely, but
in 1996 and 1998, the Supreme Court issued two key rulings that crippled the limitations that had
previously existed. Both cases are known as Colorado Republican Federal Campaign
Committee v. Federal Election Commission. First, the Court declared that political parties could
make independent expenditures. Two years later, it stated that limits on coordinated spending
were unconstitutional. Together, these two rulings provided even more opportunities for
circumvention of campaign finance limitations than had been created by Buckley alone.
(Corrado, pp. 14-18)
Yet another loophole to utilize in channeling funds to the benefit of a particular candidate
or party is the concept of issue advocacy. This is typically advertising that avoids any direct link
to a specific candidate, but manages to build support for that person through the use of ads that
address a particular issue. For example, the National Rifle Association ran many commercials
that never named George W. Bush or Al Gore, but which defended the position of the former on
gun control while denigrating the views of the latter. Likewise, various environmental
organizations publicized their concerns over the “destructive policies of those who would allow
oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”, without ever specifically naming Bush as the
primary backer of this proposal.
What steps can be taken, then, to address campaign finance in U.S. federal elections?
The most publicized recent effort is the McCain-Feingold bill (the House version being known as
Shays-Meehan), introduced in January of last year. Its key provisions include:
* Prohibiting national political parties from seeking so-called soft-money from
companies, labor unions and individuals
*Limiting individual contributions, so-called hard money, to Congressional and
presidential candidates to $2,000
*Imposing strict rules on the funding of radio and television “issue ads”
broadcast close to primary and general elections
At the time of this writing, McCain-Feingold’s impact is still quite uncertain. Though recently
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, legal challenges from the National
Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (primarily on firstamendment grounds) are already being mounted, and means of circumvention are already being
uncovered. John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation, points out that,“. . . there is
little doubt even among ardent adherents that McCain-Feingold is a small dam erected against a
raging river of special-interest corruption.”
Critics point out several elements of the legislation that raise concerns. Among these is
the fact that it doubles the permitted level of “hard money” contributions. Additionally, “its
passage is likely to result in increased, not decreased, public cynicism because, in the end, the
legislation’s restrictions will not do very much to rid the system of its pro-wealth bias. . . The
second matter of concern is the impact of McCain-Feingold on the political parties. Parties are
vehicles for political mobilization and expression. Depriving them of funds tends to weaken an
important mechanism by which opinion is expressed.” (Mandle)
Beyond McCain-Feingold, there are three broad categories of potential reform that are
most commonly considered for our campaign finance system. The most extreme, and least
discussed, suggests that the system would actually improve if restrictions were loosened, or even
totally abolished. Those who advocate such an approach usually cite concerns for the First
Amendment as their primary motivation. Specific options include “ending all limits but with full
10
disclosure, higher contribution limits, using public money to establish a minimum level of
funding but with no other limitations, and deregulating entirely--no limits and no disclosure.”
(Destination Democracy)
The organization Common Cause, among others, has advocated public funding of
elections for decades. Supporters of this approach argue that private money has no place in the
political process, and dispute the constitutional interpretation that campaign contributions are a
legitimate form of free speech. Proposals based upon this philosophy include full public
financing, partial public financing, allowing citizens to direct public funds to the candidates of
their choice (a variation on the current check-off box found at the top of federal income tax
returns), in-kind services provided by public funds, and the use of tax incentives. (Ibid)
Recently, one group advocated a federally run television station whose sole purpose would be to
provide equal time for federal candidates to communicate with the public. Several states,
including Maine, Arizona, and Massachusetts, have implemented “clean money, clean elections”
campaigns, which provide full public funding of elections. (Mandle)
Finally, a majority of current proposals for change advocate stricter controls on the
amount and use of private funding. This tack would seem to provide a middle ground between
the two previous philosophies. There are several options to consider, including enacting better
disclosure laws, stiffening penalties for campaign finance law violators, regulating broadcast
media access for candidates, mandatory spending limits, spending limits based on a state’s or
district’s population, controls on independent expenditures, and a constitutional amendment to
circumvent the rulings in Buckley and Colorado Republican Committee. (Ibid)
Of course, not everyone believes that change in this area would produce the desired
results, as was observed in May of this year:
“Election 2000 suggests the contradictions of campaign finance ‘reform.’ If the NAACP,
NRA, unions, Christian Coalition, the two parties, and others had not spent more than
$100,000,000 informing voters and getting out the vote, participation would have been much
lower than the 50.7% achieved. Those who plump for restrictions on campaign contributions
and spending would really encourage lower turnout and less participation. Yet, higher turnout
and more participation are the professed goals of those who would restrict the role of money in
politics. Turnout rose because money flowed into the political system in 2000, a fact that should
not be forgotten by advocates of regulating campaign finance.” (Samples et al)
The time is clearly ripe for serious debate over campaign finance reform, as was observed
by Nick Anderson of the Los Angeles Times in January of last year:
“Delay is the enemy of reform,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy
21, a pro-campaign reform group. “Every day you get away from the last
election and closer to the next election, the focus on raising huge amounts of
money for the next election gets bigger and bigger, and the abuses get further
and further away.”
Money may very well be the “mother’s milk” of American politics, but its use and abuse is
leaving a sour taste in the mouth of the American people.
ELECTION REFORM GENERALLY
11
Besides the areas described above--the electoral college, term limits, and campaign
finance--there are other problem areas associated with the federal election system. For instance,
with regard to the primary season, “Most Americans will acknowledge that it isn’t fair that small
states like New Hampshire, Delaware, and South Carolina have an overwhelming influence in
the Presidential Primary Election. These states held their Primary Elections 10 days to 4 months
earlier than 44 states. By the time most of America votes, many candidates have dropped out
and the leading candidate has practically wrapped up their party’s nomination.” (Reform It
Now)
Others draw attention to the concept of increasing opportunities for third-party
candidates:
“‘Ever since 1992 -- the ‘year of the outsider’ -- polls have suggested that the American
people want a third party. Basically what the voters have been telling us is that they are tired of
what goes on inside the Washington Beltway. They believe power has corrupted the
‘Republicrats’ and they want something centrist, socially liberal, economically conservative -where most of American people fall,’ says J. David Gillespie, a political scientist at Presbyterian
College in Clinton, S.C. who tracks third parties.’” (Welch)
Proposals to address such concerns include efforts to restrict or eliminate television exit
polling and / or premature reporting, moving election day to a weekend, closing all polls across
the country at the same time, rearranging the presidential primary election schedule, lowering the
barriers to third-party participation, reducing voter fraud (the Equal Protection of Voting Rights
Act), simplifying voter registration, and, of course, modernizing the voting technology (as
Oregon, for instance, has done with its 100-percent mail-in system) to eliminate hanging,
dimpled, pregnant, and all other types of “renegade” chad.
Serious study of all these proposals is already under way, as a number of bodies in the
status quo are considering which changes are both desirable and constitutionally feasible. These
groups include the National Commission on Election Standards and Reform, the National
Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of Counties, the Voting Integrity
Project, the Century Foundation’s election reform panel (co-chaired by former presidents Gerald
Ford and Jimmy Carter, former Tennessee senator Howard Baker, and former White House
counsel Lloyd Cutler), Common Cause, a recently-appointed select House committee, the
Federal Election Commission, and state governments themselves. Alaska, California, New
Mexico, Vermont, and Washington, for example, are weighing the option of instant runoff voting
(IRV), a system in which voters would rank candidates in order of preference. Votes cast for the
candidate receiving the least support would then be shifted to each voter’s second choice until
one candidate won an absolute majority. (Some readers may recognize this as the system used
by the National Forensic League to determine national qualifiers in Student Congress.)
Significant legitimate concerns cast doubt on the desirability of virtually every new idea.
For example, with regard to increasing the use of high technology, Ted Becker of Auburn
University’s Political Science department and Deborah M. Phillips of the Voting Integrity
Project have observed that:
“Current and future technologies cannot address the ‘weakest link’ in the electionintegrity chain -- the lack of verification of voter qualifications and identity and its subsequent
impact on voter rights. And future technologies, such as telephone voting or kiosk or remote
Internet voting, only would provide a greater opportunity for vote fraud, coercion, invasion of
12
privacy and potential disenfranchisement because they would remove elections from the
watchful eyes of election officials, trained poll workers and independent-citizen poll watchers.
They also may disproportionately affect certain voting populations.”
The election of November, 2000, cast public attention on a situation that threatens to
undermine public confidence in the very foundation of our democracy. Election reform is a topic
that directly affects every eligible voter in the United States. As former Minnesota Secretary of
State Joan Anderson Growe observed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune last fall:
“We must do better. America needs a 21st century system of elections in place by the
time of the next presidential election, Nov. 9, 2004. The opportunity for serious election reform
is now and there is no time to waste.”
Contextual Definitions (courtesy of Chuck Ballingall)
campaign finance:
“Current campaign finance laws limit the amount of money people and
groups can contribute to a candidate in an election. Individuals can give no more than
$1000 to a candidate per election. PACs can give no more than $5000 to a candidate per
election.”
(A glossary of campaign finance terms, Destination Democracy website,
http:// www.destinationdemocracy.org/glossary.html)
campaign finance system:
“Many view the campaign finance system in terms of a general
imbalance in resources between incumbents and challengers, as evidenced by a spending
ration of more than 3.5:1 in recent House and some 2:1 in recent Senate elections.
Incumbents’ generally easier access to money is seen as the real problem, not the
aggregate amounts being spent by all types of candidates.”
(Joseph Cantor, Campaign Financing, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, October 16, 1998)
federal campaign finance system: “In trying to fix one perceived problem in the campaign
finance system, there is always the possibility that a new and unforeseen problem will
arise to take its place. Here’s an example. When the federal campaign finance system
was last reformed, back in the 1970s, political action committees (PACs) were officially
recognized as legal for the first time.”
(A glossary of campaign finance terms, Destination Democracy website,
http://www.destinationdemocracy.org/glossary.html)
federal elections: “According to the FEC, soft money often includes corporate and treasury funds
and individual contributions in excess of federal limits, which cannot be legally used in
connection
with federal elections--elections for the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the presidency/vice presidency.”
(A glossary of campaign finance terms, Destination Democracy website,
http://www.destinationdemocracy.org/glossary.html)
financing of federal elections: “The Federal Election Commission is an independent regulatory
agency created by Congress in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Election
Campaign Act; the statute that governs the financing of federal elections.”
(A glossary of campaign finance terms, Destination Democracy website,
13
http://www.destinationdemocracy.org/glossary.html)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Nick. “Campaign Reform Gets an Early Push,” Los Angeles Times,
January 23, 2001.
Becker, Ted and Phillips, Deborah M. “Symposium: Electronic Voting Possibilities,”
Insight on the News. June 25, 2001, online, dialog.
Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. The Money Men. Crown Publishers. 2000.
Burns, James MacGregor. “Beyond How We Cast Ballots to Deeper Issues of Election
Reform,” The Boston Globe, January 20, 2001, online, lexis.
“Campaign Alternative,” The Christian Century. April 4, 2001, online, dialog.
Chaddock, Gail Russell, “Next Big Reform: The Way We Vote,” The Christian Science
Monitor, December 4, 2000.
Chait, Jonathan. “Reform School - Enron and the Need for Campaign Finance
Reform,” The New Republic. February 4, 2002, online, dialog.
“Cleaning Up Elections,” The Nation. September 17, 2001, online, dialog.
Clucas, Richard A. Encyclopedia of American Political Reform. ABC-CLIO. 1996.
Congressional Quarterly Guide to U.S. Elections. Congressional Quarterly. 1994.
Corrado, Anthony. Campaign Finance Reform. The Century Foundation Press. 2000.
Corrado, Anthony. Paying For Presidents. The Twentieth Century Fund Press. 1993.
Dudley, Robert L. and Gitelson, Alan R. American Elections: The Rules Matter.
Longman. 2002.
Eastland, Terry. “Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform,”
Commentary, June 2001, online, dialog.
“The Electoral College: Don’t Drop Out,” National Review, December 4, 2000.
“The FEC -- Bumbling Enforcer,” The Nation. June 11,2001, online, dialog.
Forbes, Steve. “Don’t Let America Be a College Dropout,” Forbes, December 11,
2000.
Gastil, John. By Popular Demand. University of California Press. 2000.
14
Gates, Christopher T.. “States, Cities Leading Way on Election Reform,” Denver Rocky
Mountain News, January 1, 2001.
Growe, Joan Anderson, “Current Mess Creates Opportunity for Overdue Election
Reform,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 22, 2000, online, lexis.
Gross, Martin L. The Political Racket. Ballantine Books. 1996.
Hall, Thad E. and Samples, John. “Symposium: Voting Standards in American
Elections,” Insight on the News. Dec. 24, 2001, online, dialog.
Federal
Heftel, Cecil. End Legalized Bribery. Seven Locks Press. 1998.
Heimanson, Rudolph. Dictionary of Political Science and Law. Oceana Publications,
1967.
Hickey, Jennifer G. “Confronting the PAC Mentality,” Insight on the News, April 16,
2001, online, dialog.
Kienitz, Paul. “Options for Electoral College Reform”. online @gning.net/electoral.html.
The League of Women Voters. Choosing the President. The Lyons Press. 1999.
Lewis, Charles and the Center for Public Integrity. The Buying of the President 2000.
Avon Books, 2000.
Longley, Lawrence D. and Braun, Alan G. The Politics of Electoral College Reform.
Yale University Press. 1972.
Longley, Lawrence and Peirce, Neil. The Electoral College Primer 2000. Yale
University Press. 1999.
Lowi, Theodore J. and Romance, Joseph. A Republic of Parties?: Debating the TwoParty System. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1998.
Luna, Christopher (editor). Campaign Finance Reform. The H. W. Wilson Company.
2001.
Lynch, Michael. “Prof. Smith Goes to Washington,” Reason. July, 2001, online, dialog
Maisel, L. Sandy (ed.). Political Parties and Elections in the United States. 1991.
Makinson, Larry and Goldstein, Joshua. The Cash Constituents of Congress.
Congressional Quarterly. 1994.
Mandle, Jay. “Follow The Money: Why Campaigns Should Be Publicly Financed,”
Commonweal. July 13, 2001.
15
Mauro, Tony. “Vote Controversy Could Be Referendum on Federalism,” The Legal
Intelligencer, November 20, 2000.
McClenahen, John S. “Reforms Destined For Review,” Industry Week. May, 2002,
online, dialog.
Meehan, Marty and DeLay, Tom. “Should Soft Money Be Banned?” New York Times
Upfront. May 14, 2001, online, dialog.
Moore, John L. CQ’s Ready Reference Encyclopedia of American Government:
Elections A to Z. Congressional Quarterly. 1999.
New York Times Upfront. “Time to Junk the Electoral College?” November 13, 2000
(online via Dialog).
Nicholas, Hans S. “Parties Test the Political Waters,” Insight on the News.
September 10, 2001, online, dialog.
Nichols, John. “Election Inspection,” The Nation. July 9, 2001, online, dialog.
Nichols, John. “Campaign Finance: The Sequel--With McCain-Feingold Finally
Passed,
2002, online,
It’s Time to Focus Again on Public Funding,” The Nation. April 29,
dialog.
Parish, Gary. “The Electoral College: Source of Inequality and Social Injustice in
America”, online @ www.geocities.com/gparish2000/.
Pluviose-Fenton, Veronique. “Senate Agrees to Reconsider Election Reform Bill,”
Nation’s Cities Weekly. April 1, 2002, online, dialog.
Ragsdale, Lyn. Vital Statistics on the Presidency. Congressional Quarterly. 1998.
Raspberry, William. “Post-Traumatic Suggestions,” The Washington Post, January 1,
2001.
Reform It Now, online @ www.reformitnow.com/.
The Routes to Democracy, online @www.destinationdemocracy.org/glossary.html.
Safire, William. Safire’s New Political Dictionary. Random House. 1993.
Samples, John et al. “Lessons of the 2000 Election,” USA Today Magazine. May,
2001.
Savage, David G. “Special Report/Decision 2000,” Los Angeles Times, November 9,
2000.
Scheiber, Noam. “Business School - Enron and the Irrelevance of Campaign Finance
16
Reform,” The New Republic. February 4, 2002, online, dialog.
Schwarz, Frederic D. “The Electoral College: How it Got That Way and Why We’re
Stuck With It” American Heritage, February-March, 2001.
Sefton, Dru. “Election Reform?” New Orleans Times-Picayune, November 16, 2000.
Sifry, Micah. Spoiling For a Fight: Third-Party politics in America. Routledge, 2002.
“Soft-Money Ban Could Lead Way on Election Reform,” The Kansas City Star,
January 2, 2001.
Squitieri, Tom. “Ford, Carter to Lead Panel to Study Election Reform,” USA Today,
January 31, 2000.
Tannenbaum, Percy H. and Kostrich, Leslie J. Turned-On TV/Turned-Off Voters. Sage
Publications. 1983.
Twombley, Jim. “The Need For Election reform,” The Buffalo News, December 10,
2000.
Vita, Matthew and Dewar, Helen. “Congress Debates Election Reform,” The
Washington Post, November 17, 2000.
Wallison, Ethan. “The Legislative Shuffle,” The Washington Monthly, September, 2000
Welch, Aimee. “Party Crashers,” Insight on the News, August 21, 2000, online, dialog.
Welton, Kent. The One-Term Solution. Pandit Press Inc. 1988.
Wilmerding, Lucius Jr.. The Electoral College. Beacon Press. 1958.
Witcover, Jules. “Getting to Work on Voting Reform,” The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 31, 2000.
Election-Related Web Sites
(All begin with http://)
AllPolitics - cnn.com/allpolitics (hundreds of new stories on elections and politics)
Ballot Access News - www.ballot-access.org (newsletter covering ballot access)
Center for Responsive Politics - www.crp.org (detailed campaign finance data)
Common Cause - www.commoncause.org/publications/campaign finance.htm
Democracy Matters - www.democracymatters.org
ELECnet - www.iupui.edu/-epackard/eleclink.html (hundreds of links to election17
related Web sites and federal agencies)
Election Central - www.lwv.org/elect.html (The League of Women Voters Education
Fund provides registration information and links to other election sites)
Election Notes - www.klipsan.com/elecnews.htm (current worldwide election news)
Electoral College pros and cons - www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp
FECInfo - www.tray.com/fecinfo (federal campaign finance data)
Federal Election commission - www.fec.gov (database on campaign finance reports,
candidates, lobbying, and other issues)
Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) - www.fvap.gov (election information,
legislative initiatives, and links to state government sites)
Geographic Information Center: Election Maps - www.lib.virginia.edu/gic/elections/
index.html (maps of popular and electoral vote results)
Hoover Institution info. on campaign finance reform - www.campaignfinancesite.org.
Instant Runoff Voting Info. - www.igc.org/cvd/irv/index.html
International Foundation for Election systems - www.ifes.org/index.htm (links to
election-related organizations around the world)
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill summary www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/s26.htm
National Election Studies - www.umich.edu/-nes (polling data on electoral behavior)
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press - www.peoplepress.org (polls
regarding elections and political issues)
Political resources on the Net - www.agora.stm.it/politic (links to more than 18,000
election and politics sites)
Political Science resources: United States Politics - www.libumich.edu/libhome/
documents.center/psusp.htm (links to hundreds of Web sites dealing with
politics and elections)
Politics1 - www.politics1.com (many links to sites operated by candidates, political
parties, election offices, and election news sources)
Project Vote Smart - www.vote-smart.org (campaign finance data, voting records, and
links to thousands of politics-related Web sites)
18
Reform It Now - www.reformitnow.com (descriptions of and petitions for various
reforms of our election system)
Rock the Vote - www.rockthevote.org (voter registration, election calendars, and links
to other political Web sites)
Soft Money Laundromat - www.commoncause.org/laundromat (Common Cause’s
database of soft money contributions and information regarding soft money)
Web White and Blue - www.webwhiteblue.com (links to many of the best electionrelated Web sites)
NFHS Criteria for Debate Topics
Federal Election Reform
Propositions: This problem area would support a variety of broadly worded resolutions, though
the “laundry list” may also be appropriate. There are several distinct areas of election reform
which have received significant attention in recent years.
Time: This is an exceptionally timely topic. The 2000 presidential election generated analysis
and media
coverage that was both wide and deep in scope, and such research continues to be
produced.
There is, in fact, much more in-depth analysis available in 2002 than there was one year
earlier.
Scope: Because this topic area deals with national elections, it is relevant to and researchable in
all parts of the United States. Certainly, all those eligible to vote are directly affected by election
law and procedures.
Range: This topic should be interesting and manageable to both beginning and advanced
debaters, and should also provide a degree of familiarity for coaches. Recent media coverage of
the nuances of the electoral college, voting procedures, and changes in the campaign finance
system such as McCain-Feingold have helped to increase public knowledge of the topic area.
Quality: Federal election reform has received in-depth attention for many years, but the events
of the fall of 2000 make this an especially fertile time to discuss the topic at length. New reform
proposals and analysis of problems within the status quo continue to be generated.
Material: The combination of law review articles, books, “think tank” analyses, periodical
coverage, and numerous political websites assure that debaters will have no trouble finding
plenty of research materials on the topic. Publications by the Congressional Quarterly press
provide particularly insightful coverage.
Interest: The fact that so many debaters eventually enter the field of political science suggests
that student interest should be significant. The topic would allow “political junkies” to satisfy
their passion for analyzing a wide range of issues (including the first amendment) without being
19
hampered by partisan biases. It has been 28 years since a political process topic has been
debated.
Balance: All of the areas of election reform discussed here seem to be balanced. Several pieces
of legislation and proposed constitutional amendments indicate a range of affirmative options,
but there are numerous logistical and philosophical objections to each of them that provide ample
negative ground.
Correlation: Once again, the extraordinary presidential election of 2000, the ongoing debate
over (and lawsuits regarding legislation addressing) campaign finance reform, and the perpetual
questions surrounding the desirability of the electoral college suggest that this topic will continue
to remain in the public - and media - eye.
Value: Federal elections represent the essence of democracy at work, and culminate in the
implementation of many concepts generated by public debate throughout the campaign. All
students are potential voters, all citizens are affected by the results of federal elections, and all
debaters will enhance their understanding of this key aspect of the political process.
Potential affirmative case list (NOT intended to be exhaustive)
Primary elections:
Simultaneous state primaries
National primary
Regional primary
Limit primary campaign season
Terms of office:
Term limits
Lengthening of terms
Single (presidential) term
Media changes:
Exit poll limitations
Free media access for candidates
Modifications for voters:
Improved voter registration
Mandatory voting (as in Australia)
Voter guides
Citizen advisory panels
Improved voting technology
Internet voting
Provisional voting
Enforcement of civil rights
Mail-in voting
Party reforms:
Boost third-party opportunities
Three-party system
Eliminate parties
Campaign finance:
Public funding of elections
Lift all spending limits
Ban / restore Political Action Committees (PACS)
Ban / limit lobbyists
Spending limits
Rescind McCain-Feingold
Clean Money Campaign Reform
20
Voting systems:
Direct popular vote
National bonus plan
Proportional electoral college
District electoral college
Runoff elections
Preferential popular vote
Cumulative voting
Universal representation
Chronological changes:
Regulate opening / closing times of polls
Limit campaign length / season
Enforcement reforms: Federal Election Commission reform
Increased penalties for election-law violations
Addendum to “Election Reform Reformed”
(A response to reviews of initial paper)
Concern has been expressed that the campaign-finance legislation signed by President
Bush on March 27 of this year (Senate version = McCain-Feingold) would make this subject area
less desirable as a national topic. Analysis of the legislation and the reaction its passage has
generated would seem to suggest otherwise. The key elements of the new law include:
*Banning “soft money” contributions to national political parties.
*Allowing limited soft-money contributions to state parties if the money is not used to
influence federal elections.
*Doubling “hard money” limits and indexing them for inflation
*Banning the use of corporate, union and some independent group funds for “issue ads”
that mention a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
*Banning foreigners from contributing to federal, state or local elections.
*Prohibiting solicitation of campaign contributions on federal property.
*Requiring television and radio stations to publicize information relating to
all broadcast political ads.
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 28, 2002, p. A4)
Though one might initially view this legislation as undercutting the viability of the election
reform topic area, news coverage over the last four months indicates that the new bill has done
little, if anything, to reduce debatable ground. Some teams might wish to develop cases
reflecting the views of Republican senators, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Rifle
Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union, all of whom filed suit immediately to
overturn the bill on the basis of first-amendment free-speech violations. Columnist George Will
has observed that while the new law would limit political advocacy funding from a variety of
independent groups, it would place no limits whatsoever on media outlets themselves, such as
the New York Times or Washington Post. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 31, 2002, p. B3)
On the other hand, many others, including co-sponsor Senator Russ Feingold himself,
view this bill as “only the first step in a larger campaign to rid politics of big-money influence. . .
It is only the beginning. It is modest reform.” (USA Today, March 21, 2002, p. 6A). A number
of sources have suggested that the legislation may actually prove counterproductive with regard
to the influence of money on the campaign process:
21
The campaign-finance reform bill that passed the House yesterday
wouldn’t end the love affair between lawmakers and big campaign bucks.
History shows that party fundraisers may eventually find-and widen-loopholes
in any new money restrictions. . . It wouldn’t be hard, analysts say, for
corporations that once would have donated large amounts of soft money to the
national parties, to shift their contributions to multiple state parties. Candidates
may also find themselves spending more time soliciting small contributions, to
try to make up for their party’s loss in revenue.
(Christian Science Monitor, February 15, 2002, pp. 1,5)
With regard to other election-reform issues besides campaign finance, such as voter registration,
voting technology, and enfranchisement policies, little reform has resulted in spite of the
November, 2000, election debacle.
A year after the 2000 election fiasco in Florida, most states have failed
to reform their voting systems, according to a new study by Common Cause.
The study, set to be released today, reports that many states failed to make
significant changes after a presidential recount in Florida exposed weaknesses
in the nation’s election system. ‘By looking at what’s happened in state
legislatures in the past year, you’d never know that we had a genuine electoral
crisis on our hands just a year ago,’ said Scott Harshbarger, president of Common Cause.
On the federal level, partisan differences in Congress have slowed efforts to make
significant changes in election law.
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 6, 2001, p. A8)
And as recently as July 9, 2002, USA Today observed that meaningful election reform has been
insignificant at best.
An NAACP report inspired by the 2000 presidential election found that
most states have made little progress in reforming their election systems. . . The
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that in the 2000 election, black Florida
Voters were nearly 10 times as likely as non-black voters to have their ballots
rejected by the machines.
Thus, it appears that the subject of election reform still holds great promise for debate in spite of
the passage of actions taken in the wake of our last presidential election.
The question has also been raised as to whether or not the phrase “federal election
process” creates too broad a topic for debate. The resolutions suggested in this year’s
paper reflect adjustments made in light of last year’s concern that “presidential election process”
was too narrow. It would seem that the Wording Committee and / or convention attendees will
need to serve as the final arbiter(s) of this difference of opinion. This writer believes that either
choice would provide an effective national topic area.
In conclusion, Harvard history and social policy professor Alex Keyssar, writing in
August, 2001, has suggested that the field of election reform is a vast one, and that even if the
Carter-Ford commission had its recommendations adopted into policy,
22
“. . . the prescriptions offered will do little to address the more subterranean
faults in our political life that became visible during and after Election 2000:
the alienation and anger of much of the black community; the pitfalls of the
Electoral College and the ways in which it skews political campaigns; the high
rates of nonvoting, particularly among the poor and less educated; the dangers
of partisan control of election administration; the cavalier and disrespectful treatment of
voters in many locales; and the absence, as the Supreme Court observed in Bush v. Gore,
of a constitutional right to vote for president.
If our electoral system is to become, as the commission hopes, ‘a
source of national pride and a model to all the world,’ a great deal of work
remains to be done.”
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, August 20, 2001, p. B 7)
23
2008 Addendum to “Federal Election Reform - Reformed”
(a proposal to the National Debate Topic Selection Committee)
by Randy Pierce
“Well, you know, that’s the problem in America, we’re always having elections.”
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), March 29, 2006
With all due respect to a U.S. Senator from our host state, the problem is not that we’re
always having elections, but rather that we’re always having elections with problems.
The variety of structural and procedural disadvantages of our federal election system are clearly
documented in the original version(s) of this topic paper, but it is noteworthy that even though a
great deal of public attention has been drawn to these problems since the election of 2000, almost
nothing has been done to address them. The issue of campaign finance reform is the one area in
which action has been taken recently, but even in this case, no meaningful improvement has
resulted, as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported three months ago:
The leading presidential contenders have unleashed a gusher of campaign
cash as they battle for the White House, while soft money groups are setting up
shop in the shadows. But even as 2008 takes shape as one of the most expensive
elections years in history, the agency charged with policing political fundraising
and spending is essentially closed for business. The Federal Election Commission
can’t advise candidates on how to comply with fundraising laws. It can’t rule on
pending complaints of officially open new investigations. And it can’t issue new
disclosure rules ordered last year by Congress to shed more light on donations
collected by lobbyists. The reason? The FEC currently only has two
commissioners, shy of the four-person quorum it needs to operate. Four nominees
are locked in a high-level congressional standoff that has blocked any
confirmation vote. “It’s a campaign finance scandal of a kind we haven’t seen
before,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a campaign finance
watchdog group. “We have no agency capable of overseeing, implementing and
enforcing the nation’s campaign finance laws in the middle of a presidential and
congressional election year.” . . . Common Cause President Bob Edgar said the
situation is a “national embarrassment.”
In a year when more U.S. citizens will participate in our federal elections than ever
before, public awareness of, and concern over, the quirks of our system is at an all-time high.
And the range of questions about the system’s fairness is wider than ever. Should the
Constitution be amended to allow foreign-born citizens (Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example)
to run for the presidency? Is the deck unfairly stacked against third-party candidates? Is the
public interest served by the multitude of confusing rules about how delegates are accumulated
in the various state primaries and caucuses? Have campaign finance reform efforts been
24
counterproductive? When the White House is controlled by one party and Congress is controlled
by the other, do we get a balance of power or political gridlock? Should all citizens - including
nearly 5 million disenfranchised convicted felons - retain the right to vote? Would a single sixyear term remove some of the political motivation of presidential policy-making? Should the
Electoral College be reformed, or expanded, or abolished? Can anything be done to reduce the
enormous advantages enjoyed by incumbent members of Congress? Would a national ID card
reduce voter fraud, or discourage millions of potential voters - or both? Will computerized
voting systems solve the reliability problems inherent in paper-ballot systems? Should resident
legal aliens be given the right to vote, as they are in Scandinavia? Would democracy be better
served by revising the term NHS of U.S. Senators and Representatives? How can we improve
our abysmal voter turnouts (currently ranked 138th in the world, between Botswana and Chad)?
Should the size of the House of Representatives be enlarged to better reflect our population
growth? Would multimember congressional districts alleviate the “disenfranchisement”
resulting from our winner-take-all system? Should residents of the District of Columbia be given
a say in presidential elections?
To be sure, efforts have been initiated to address many of these questions, and others. In
2001 alone, more than fifty election administration reform bills appeared in Congress. And at
the same time, four national commissions presented potential changes dealing with federal
election reform (many of which would make excellent affirmative plans).
Those groups are the Constitution Project, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform,
the Caltech MIT Voting Technology Project, and the National Task Force on Election Reform.
In 2007, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law produced an additional series of
specific reforms which can be found at www.federalelectionreform.com/. Electoral policy
recommendations from these groups are numerous, but to date, virtually none of them have been
implemented.
Multiple additional concepts for reforming federal elections are presented and evaluated
by Professor Larry J. Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, in
his 2007 book, A More Perfect Constitution. They include abolition of the “faithless electors”
and/or House unit rule within the Electoral College, expansion of the Electoral College, a
regional lottery plan for presidential primaries, automatic voter registration, congressional and
Supreme Court term limits, and a variety of modifications of presidential terms.
In conclusion, public interest in federal elections appears to be peaking (especially among
young people), there is a wealth of material, both affirmative and negative, on a wide-range of
easily-understood policy options (with more to be produced in the coming months), and it’s been
34 years since the nation debated the U.S. political system. What more could be asked of a
potential topic area?
25
Bibliography
Disch, Lisa Jane. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System. Columbia University Press,
2002.
Gibson, William E. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. July 21, 2004. online.
Hayduk, Ron and Wucker, Michele. New York Daily News. September 23, 2003. online.
Hill, Steven. Fixing Elections: The Failure of America’s Winner Take All Politics.
Routledge, 2002.
Pattersonm Thomas E. The Vanishing Voter. Vintage Books. 2003.
Schier, Steven E. You Call This An Election? Georgetown University Press. 2003.
Thompson, Dennis F. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United
States. The University of Chicago Press. 2002.
Websites:
Center for Voting and Democracy - www.fairvote.org/righttovote
DC Vote - www.dcvote.org
Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action - www.demos-usa.org
ElectionReform.org - www.electionreform.org
Federal Election Reform Network - www.reformelections.org
The Interfaith Alliance: Free Air Time for Presidential Candidates - www.interfaithalliance.org
National Youth Rights Association - www.youthrights.org
Public Campaign - www.publicampaign.org
26
FEDERAL ELECTION REFORM REPORT SUMMARY
Potential resolutions are listed in rank order.
1. Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change its federal
election system.
Comment: this resolution is the broadest and most simply-worded.
2. Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change its method
of conducting federal elections.
Comment: this resolution is primarily a reworded version of resolution number one,
though some definitions may indicate that the term “federal election system” encompasses more
areas (conventions, primaries, and the media, for example) than does the phrase “method of
conducting federal elections.”
3. Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change its election
system in one or more of the following areas: electoral college, term limits, campaign finance,
third parties.
Comment: this resolution includes the most popular subtopics within the spectrum of
political reform, and it may provide a greater “comfort level” than the previous choices by
limiting the topic to four specific areas.
4. Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change its
presidential election system.
Comment: this resolution is clearly more narrow than the previous three, but would still
provide sufficient ground for effective and balanced debate, as well as significantly more case
options than would the final choice.
5. Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change the
electoral college system.
Comment: this is the most limiting resolution, but the one which received the most
public attention during the presidential election of 2000. Based upon last year’s topic meeting
discussions, it may very well be construed as too narrow in scope.
Affirmative cases: Affirmative teams would have a wide range of cases from which to
choose. In regard to the Electoral College, options include direct popular vote, popular vote with
runoff election, proportional electoral vote, congressional district electoral vote, and preferential
popular vote, among others. Campaign finance reforms include rescinding the recently-passed
McCain-Feingold bill, ending soft money, regulating PACs, limiting contributions, mandatory
spending limits, spending linked to state population, full public financing, higher contribution
limits, total deregulation, limits on - or free access to -broadcast media, easier availability of
funds for third parties, and tougher penalties for violations. Term limit changes might limit the
27
number of terms, synchronize the terms of Representatives, Senators, and the President, or
change the length terms of office. Other cases might deal with the length of the campaign season
for primary and/or general elections, the primary system itself, federal support for improved and
standardized voting technology, voter registration, exit poll limitations, mandatory voting,
uniform poll closing times, Internet voting, or reform (abolition?) of the Federal Election
Commission.
Negative positions: Negative teams will be able to construct solid arguments contesting the
harms in the present system; in spite of all potential tragedies, the nation has survived a range of
difficulties over the past two centuries. In fact, the crisis of 2000 may provide proof that “the
system” really does work. There won’t be dead bodies on the flow, so case impacts will
necessarily be of a more philosophical nature (eg. - social justice, racial equality, freedom of
expression, voter apathy and disenchantment, the relative influence of lightly-populated versus
heavily-populated areas) than has been the case with many recent topics. Inherency can be
argued in light of numerous commissions currently studying election reform, both on the state
and national levels, along with the fact that a number of states have already enacted (or are
considering) reforms. Solvency will provide strong negative ground, in that there are political
drawbacks (voter participation levels, unbalanced influence for small vs. large states, excess or
inadequate party influence, denial of a working mandate, the rise of fringe party candidates) to
virtually every case. Disadvantages would include denial of first amendment freedom of speech
and/or press rights, political gridlock, voter apathy, a weakened two-party system, technology
snafus, the loss of influence by a number of small states, increased influence on the part of
lobbyists and special interest groups, reduced voter turnout, privacy violations, greater likelihood
of vote fraud, and that perennial favorite, federalism (what with election law being primarily the
domain of the states). State counterplans would also seem appropriate.
Debatability: In light of the many serious reform proposals that have surfaced in the past 30
years and the variety of opposing arguments for each of them, this topic area seems to be ripe for
effective and balanced debate. Literature - both paper and web-based - is extensive on both
affirmative and negative positions, and much of it is particularly recent because of the fall 2000
election crisis. Both sides would be forced to discuss political impacts as an inherent element of
the resolution, rather than a sidebar that circumvents the intended subject area, and the
philosophical underpinnings of the current system would receive long-overdue attention.
28