Electoral reform still necessary

As the war drums continue to sound, the economy continues to tank and consumer confidence reaches new lows, it's worth asking: "Is there a better way to run the country?" Since President Bush made it clear last week that hundreds of thousands of protesters would do nothing to influence his policies, perhaps it's time to consider the possibilities for 'regime change' at home. The debacle of the 2000 election seems long past us, but that depressing contest casts a long shadow over the prospects for meaningful change in American politics in the coming years. Have we learned anything from the Bush-Gore match-up? At best, the evidence is mixed.

On the most basic level, the confusion in Florida demonstrated the need to overhaul the building-blocks of the electoral system: outdated voting machines, long lines at the polls and inaccurate lists of voters all contributed both to the chaos in Florida and to the disenfranchisement of many Americans. On this crucial issue, there has been some progress. Late last year, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), intended to modernize voting equipment, update voter registration processes and ensure that polling stations are properly staffed. While HAVA will certainly make a difference in some states, the Bush administration and Congress have already begun to cut back on the funds necessary to revitalize these fundamental democratic processes. Moreover, progress on other electoral reforms has stalled completely. Several of the major issues raised by the 2000 election have disappeared from the political agenda: Will 2004 see yet another election decided by the Electoral College rather than the direct will of the people? Will voter turnout continue to fall, even as many states reject simply remedies like same-day voter registration? Will the presidential debates once more be hijacked by the 'bipartisan' Presidential Debates Commission, which effectively limits participation to the Republican and Democratic candidates? The answer to all three questions is 'yes,' and it seems that Americans will only realize the seriousness of these problems when it's once again too late to address them.

Another major issue from 2000 was campaign-finance reform. Since the mid-1990s, both major parties had solicited billions of dollars not only from private individuals but also from corporations, labor unions and 'special interest' groups (like the NRA or the Sierra Club). Given that a major portion of these campaign donations were 'soft money' contributions, meaning that they were not explicitly limited by the Federal Election Commission, the political system was awash with huge sums of money and the parties engaged in an arms-race of sorts to push campaign spending to new heights. (The presidential and congressional campaigns in 2000 cost more than $1 billion, a new record.)

In 2002, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold finally pushed their campaign finance reform bill into law, banning 'soft money' and attempting to curb the influence of big donors on politics. However, the final version of their bill had been weakened in many areas, and included a particularly large loophole allowing state political parties to recruit the same soft-money dollars that McCain-Feingold was intended to prohibit. Moreover, the bill raised the contribution limits for 'hard money,' allowing rich individuals to give at least twice as much cash to a candidate than under the previous system. Since candidate Bush raised around $100 million using this method in 2000, we're sure to see even more spectacular fundraising next time around.

Meanwhile, the moneybags chairman of the Democratic Party, Terry McAuliffe, is reported to have encouraged the candidates for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination to eschew spending limits and public financing for their campaigns. This means that the race to win the Democratic nomination will be much, much more expensive than under the public financing system, which in turns means that a rich/corporate-friendly/pro-war candidate (like Joe Lieberman, John Kerry or John Edwards) is certain to win. Candidates with a progressive message, like Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich, will find it impossible to compete with their rivals in advertising and organization even if their message resonates with ordinary voters; candidates with some progressive credentials, like Howard Dean, will have either to abandon their hopes or to take more 'moderate' (translation: business-friendly) positions in an effort to cozy up to corporate high rollers. And so even before we get to the really massive spending in the second half of 2004, big money will have played the leading role in selecting the next president.

It's true that George W. Bush has alienated many Americans with his economic policies and his military adventures, and there is undoubtedly a groundswell of opposition to the president that will carry into the 2004 election. However, if things continue on their present course, the thirst for political change will far exceed the ability of the electoral system to satisfy it.

Nicholas Guyatt is a graduate student in the history department. He is from Bristol, England.