Better Know a BMGer: Greg in 10.5 questions

> 1. Holy crap, you’re user #12 on BMG!  Does that affect how you view the site, or how you feel you should be viewed on the site?

Well, back in my day … just kidding. I do remember posting to the old Typepad version of the blog before it moved to Scoop. That sounds like ancient history now, but it was only less than 3 years ago. I guess that is ancient history in blog years.

I don’t think it affects how I view the site in any fundamental way. It’s given me the opportunity to come to know and respect the perspectives and personalities of many different contributors. As far as how I’m viewed, I hope there’s some level of credibility attached to my username, but I’ll leave that to other to judge. That last sentence sounds like something a politician would say (cringe).

> 2. Your interests clearly include reform of our voting system.  What, in capsule form, is your "ideal" voting system — how does it work and what makes it ideal?

It was sort of a realization over the past year that I should make electoral reform my #1 issue and really harp on it. I was always thought it important, but my more dedicated focus on it is relatively new. You asked for my ideal system “in capsule form”, so excuse me if it’s a rather large capsule …

The ideal electoral/voting system is one in which every voter can participate easily and equally. Admittedly that’s vague, so I’ll lay out some specific policies for realizing this ideal. If you look at electoral systems around the globe, you’ll see that none of these ideas are particularly novel or untested. Most of them are explained in Steven Hill’s excellent book 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy and Katrina vanden Heuvel’s recent Just Democracy essay in The Nation. Go read them.

Some properties of an ideal electoral process:

An ideal voting system would start with a Constitutional Right to Vote. One of the legal realities confirmed by the Supreme Court opinion in Bush v. Gore is that there is no federal constitutional right to vote, which is highly unusual for a modern democracy. Even Iraq’s new constitution includes a right to vote. The lack of a constitutional right to vote explains why it is perfectly legal for the District of Columbia to be denied representation in Congress, despite the fact that it has more registered voters than Wyoming, which gets two Senators and a Representative all to itself.

An ideal system would include Universal Voter Registration. There’s a lot of buzz and excitement now around Election Day Registration in Massachusetts, which is a very important step, but the whole idea of putting the onus on the citizen to register is not ideal and also highly unusual for a democracy. We should follow the lead of other democracies and have the government shoulder the responsibility of registering every eligible citizen and ensuring complete and accurate voter lists. This would also satisfy conservatives’ concerns of in-person voter fraud. Read this policy paper on universal registration (pdf) by the Brennan Center for Justice for more details.

Public financing of campaigns with spending and contribution limits would be a cornerstone to an ideal electoral system. It’s time to take our elections off the auction block and eliminate the "wealthy primary" to which candidates are subjected.

When we cast our vote, we must have confidence that it will be counted. To that end, every state should adopt the Verified Voting agenda, which includes (1) a mandatory voter-verified paper trail and (2) a mandatory audit requirement of the electronic tally against the paper trail. 18 states have adopted both requirements so far; Massachusetts has adopted neither.

Some properties of ideal voting methods:

For public single-winner elections (and all state and federal elections in the US are single-winner), the most fundamental criterion any democratic voting method should meet, in my view, is the majority criterion. It’s the common-sense property that if a candidate is the first choice of a majority of the voters, that candidate should win. In the simplest case of two candidates, the one who gets the most votes should win. The only election in the United States that fails that basic requirement is the election for President, but we can finally put that to rest by implementing the National Popular Vote plan.

With our current plurality voting method, however, the majority often splits it vote between a front-running candidate and a smaller "spoiler" candidate, leaving no candidate with a majority of the vote. Therefore, a good single-winner system, in addition to satisfying the majority criterion, should allow small third-party and independent candidates to compete without their playing the spoiler and splitting the majority. The spoiler effect can not only cause the election of a lesser candidate, but it helps keep small candidates out of public debates, thereby inhibiting new ideas and perspectives from being introduced into our political dialogue.

There are three good single-winner voting systems that satisfy both the majority criterion and do a good job of preventing the spoiler effect: Instant Runoff Voting, two-round runoff, and Condorcet methods. Of these, I strongly prefer IRV, which is why I started Somerville for IRV, but any would be an improvement over plurality voting. Note that every single-winner public election in the world uses either plurality, two-round runoff, or IRV.

Although we should use IRV for all single-winner elections, we have far too many single-winner elections in the US. Imagine if every district in the country were split 51% Democrat, 49% Republican. If each district elects just one person, we would wind up with 100% Democratic representation. That’s a horribly unfair outcome given that 49% of those who voted are Republican. The solution is for legislative districts to elect multiple candidates with a method that ensures proportional representation of each constituency.

There are several voting methods that achieve proportional representation, but the one the enjoys the most support by activists and academics alike is "Choice Voting" (more technically known as the Single Transferable Vote). Choice Voting was once used by many cities in the United States, including several in Massachusetts, but it was largely eliminated because it had the "undesirable" effect of electing too many racial and ideological minorities. Today, the only public elections that use it are in Cambridge, but is on the way back with an upcoming implementation in Minneapolis and renewed efforts in several cities. Somerville for IRV proposes using Choice Voting to elect the Somerville Aldermen-at-Large.

The Choice Voting ballot look identical to the IRV ballot: just rank your candidates in order of preference. I often describe Choice Voting as a generlization of IRV to elect multiple candidates; however it’s more accurate t
o describe IRV as the application of Choice Voting to elect just one candidate. You can read more about it on Wikipedia.

To summarize, ideally we would use IRV for all executive offices (President, Governor, Mayor, etc), and our legislative elections would become multi-winner races elected via Choice Voting. To quote FairVote, the leading organization promoting IRV and Choice Voting in the United States, "The right of decision belongs to the majority, but the right to representation belongs to all."

> 3.  Let’s talk turkey here…how would a reformed voting system have improved the situation in Iraq, say, or the mortgage crisis?

Let’s look at some polling data to see how the American public feel on a some key issues and compare that data to actual policy. Yes, polls have to be studied carefully before conclusions are made, but I believe the following are accurate reflections of public attitudes.

• For years, a majority of Americans have favored a timetable for withdrawal. Yet we still don’t have a timetable, even though the Democrats have enough votes to filibuster any war-funding bill that doesn’t include one.
• A majority of the American public wants universal health coverage for every single citizen, guaranteed by the government, even if it means higher taxes. Despite that, Medicare-for-all (single-payer) is still considered a third rail.
• A majority of the American public want wiretaps to require warrants and oppose immunity for telecom companies.
• 77% of the American public believes we should be doing "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. We’re certainly no where close to that.
• Over 70% of the American public want the President elected by a National Popular Vote, yet we’re still stuck with the undemocratic Electoral College vote.

This evidence demonstrates a very serious gap between what the American public want and what our elected officials give us. As progressive activists, we expend a lot of time and energy trying to convince people of our ideas. Yet on so many crucial issues, a majority of the public already agrees with us and has been for years. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to matter if a majority of the public agrees with us. We are forced to go beyond mere majorities and into strong super majorities in favor of our ideas, and even then we are not guaranteed that action will be taken by our elected officials. What gives?

If our electoral system were truly democratic, such a wide gap between public opinion and public policy wouldn’t exist. Our electoral systems are simply not choosing people who accurately reflect our views. We have an assorted collection of horse-and-buggy electoral processes, many of which were born from a very elitist worldview. Many of the processes we use today were chosen at the same time it was decided that only white, property-owning males would be allowed to vote, and even those white, property-owning males were deemed too dumb to directly elect their own Senator or President. Relics of that time clearly still persist today.

So, to answer a generic version of the question, “how would a reformed voting system have improved issue X”. It would improve every issue, because it would elect a government that better reflects  our own perspectives and values.

> 4. Still on voting reform…do you feel that such a change in the electoral system would be better accomplished through Constitutional Amendment, rather than changing how electors are chosen in certain states?

I assume you’re asking specifically about the  National Popular Vote plan. If both courses of action — Constitutional Amendment and the NPV interstate compact — were equally feasible, I would prefer the Constitutional Amendment, because its a change that’s harder to undo. Amending the constitution is not feasible, however, which explains the groundswell of support for NPV (which itself is completely constitutional).

Over the course of discussing NPV on this blog, some comments have raised legal questions and a variety of hypothetical “what ifs”. I’d like those commenters to realize that NPV wasn’t an idea formulated overnight. Since it was first proposed by legal scholars back in 2001, this thing has been studied inside and out. Most of the questions that have been raised are answered definitively in the book Every Vote Equal, which you can read for free online.

> 5. Last one, I promise.  Tomorrow, John McCain comes out enthusiastically for implementing IRV at all levels, wherever feasible.  As president, he’ll devote a much political capital to such an effort. Does that make your support of Obama waver at all? What if the GOP gubernatorial candidate (assuming they field one) made such a promise in 2010?

For starters, John McCain did come out enthusiastically for IRV in the past, as did Barack Obama. In 2002, McCain endorsed ballot measure that would implement IRV for state and federal elections in Alaska, and Barack Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would have allowed cities and towns to use IRV for their municipal elections. Many in the US wrongly think of a IRV as something only lefties advocate. The Alaskan effort was sponsored primarily by Republicans in part because Republicans and Libertarians frequently split the vote for state offices. In Australia, it was the leading conservative party that first introduced IRV back in 1918, in response to the rise of a rival conservative party.

To answer your question on McCain, no. All other things begin equal, his enthusiastic support of IRV would not be enough to sway my vote away from Obama. As for the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2010, I doubt it. Unless that GOP candidate were to adopt progressive stances on a number of other issues, then I wouldn’t consider voting Republican.

> 6. You’ve also been a proud supporter of Senator Russ Feingold on this site.  Do you think he’ll ever make it to the Executive Branch?

I think Russ would have been a terrific candidate. He won re-election to his third term in 2004, beating a well-funded Republican challenger by 12 points in his swing state of Wisconsin. He’s an eloquent advocate of the progressive agenda and an extremely principled legislator. I was disappointed when he decided to not run for President, but I enjoy having his voice in the Senate Democratic majority. At this point, I don’t predict the Presidency in his future … but you never know.

> 7. You pay attention to a wide range of races, and we have many of them at all levels in 2008.  Who are three candidates who excite you right now?

Locally, I’m working to ensure Carl Sciortino‘s re-election to State Representative. In addition to being a wonderful progressive, he’s extremely hard-working and hyper-responsive to his constituents. His dedication is obvious from my interactions with him, from my conversations with voters going door-to-door for his campaign, and from the respect he’s earned from his colleagues in the State House. His opponent Bob Trane, a lackluster Somerville alderman, is running a vacuous campaign funded by Teamster money that he won by pledging support for the Governor’s casino plan.

One out-of-sta
te race I’m watching is the Vermont gubernatorial race. Incumbent Republican Governor Jim Douglas has proven himself an enemy of electoral reform, and I would love to see him lose re-election in November. The Vermont Statehouse sent him three important electoral reforms this year to sign: (1) the National Popular Vote bill; (2) a bill that would enact IRV for their two Senators and their one Representative (which would have made Vermont the first state to ever use IRV for federal offices); and (3) a campaign finance reform bill. He vetoed all three, offering a laughably poor explanation in the case of the IRV bill.  (Note: the Democratic nominee is Gaye Symington)

Lastly, I’m excited about Barack Obama and waving goodbye to the Bush/McCain policies we’ve suffered through for the past 8 years.

> 8. You’re a member of the “Progressive Democrats of Somerville” (PDS).  What’s the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

For me, I think of a progressive as a liberal who is also populist. On social policy, I don’t see a difference between a liberal and a progressive. When it comes to taming big corporations, a progressive is more likely to forgo “the carrot” (ie, subsidies for good behavior) in favor of “the stick” (ie, regulation against bad behavior).

Those policy differences aside, what really makes a “progressive” more than anything else is found right in the PDS motto: “Democracy Demands Participation.” Progressives believe strongly that their agenda can be accomplished by energizing the grassroots. To that end, progressives have historically focused on making our electoral processes more democratic and finding new ways for citizens to have a say in their government. Progressives are credited with women’s suffrage, the direct election of Senators, the ballot iniative, and more.

> 9.  There’s a lot of crap about Jesse Jackson and the New Yorker in the media coverage of the presidential race.  What’s being overlooked in this noise?

Lots of issues are overlooked or just poorly covered all the time. Besides electoral reform, I would say media reform is the other big, systemic problem that needs fixing.

I don’t have a problem with the mainstream media covering Jesse Jackson’s whispers or the New Yorker cover, per se. My problem with their covering these events in a sensational way. Alternative media cover have covered these stories too, but in ways that bring depth to the subject. See the articles on Jesse Jackson and The New Yorker cover by John Nichols in The Nation, for example.

> 10. Why do you blog?

Just to have my voice heard and discuss and educate myself about the issues of the day.

> 10.5  All about Greg’s favorite…

A) Breed of dog

I don’t really know anything about dogs, so no favorite.

B) Professional athlete

Paul Pierce was my favorite this year. Growing up, I was lucky to have a dad who had a pair of Celtics season tickets to every other home game. I saw the end of the Bird/Parish/McHale years, often from the seats in the old Garden, and it was great to see them re-build and capture the championship this year.

C) Foreign travel destination

Dominican Republic

D) Expression from another language

oy vey iz mir

E) Non-political blog

Slashdot, though I guess you could question whether it’s truly “non-political” given the number of issues at the intersection of technology and politics that make their way on there. Is there really such a think as a “non-political” blog anyway? Politics intersects everything, whether we like it or not!