Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

World

Op-Ed: Obama should pursue term limits instead of mandatory voting

Other Western democracies require citizens to vote, resulting in very high levels of voter turnout. In the United States, by contrast, we routinely see less than half of registered voters head to the ballot boxes on election day. Voter apathy is high in America, for multiple reasons. Some blame the electoral college and similar “winner-take-all” systems, where a popular vote is eschewed in favor of giving candidates votes based on winning a plurality of voters in a precinct, district, county, or state. A candidate who wins 60 percent of the vote in three counties, but only 20 percent of the vote in the other two, can win the election with only 22,000 votes out of 50,000 cast in five counties of 10,000 votes each. The opponent, who received 6,000 more votes, loses because he or she only carried two out of five counties. The majority parties in state legislatures are often accused of gerrymandering, or rigging voting district boundaries, to ensure these sorts of scenarios, allowing them to continue their political dominance indefinitely.

Other critics point to America’s two-party system as creating voter apathy, with many voters tired of mainstream Democratic and Republican positions. In most elections, voters lack a variety of choices and must choose between two candidates. In presidential elections, Democrats and Republicans often swing toward the political middle to attract moderate and independent voters, meaning big shifts in policy are very unlikely. As a result, problems rarely get fixed. Afraid to appear too radical, both Democrats and Republicans morph into near-moderates and institute only incremental changes. The two-party system is also blamed for creating political gridlock, where the near 50-50 split of partisan power has resulted in few deals and a lack of incentive to pursue compromise.

Why vote if gerrymandering and the electoral college makes your vote moot? Why vote if the Democrat or Republican you elect will do nothing in Congress, stymied by political gridlock, partisan antics, or fear of appearing “too radical”? Too many politicians want to play it safe, avoid making waves, and use their natural incumbent advantage to hold onto their position and continue enjoying its perks.

Days ago, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that we should remove all limitations on campaign funding, insisting that political contributions are free speech. Many, including myself, disagreed. We feel that political contributions actually hinder free speech by allowing some speech to unfairly crowd out other speech. Politicians, able to fund their entire campaign by wooing one super-wealthy donor, will no longer feel beholden to their constituents or electorate. Instead, they will only listen to the speech of those who could write a blank check.

President Obama is, of course, opposed to the idea of allowing more donor money into electoral politics. The president has suggested that it might be time for America to explore the concept of mandatory voting, reports CNN. In many other industrialized democracies, citizens are legally required to vote. The idea is that high voter turnout increases civic engagement and leads to better elections and more responsive legislatures and leaders. Politicians know they must appeal to the entirety of their constituents. While higher voter turnout is a good thing, it will not counteract the problem of money in politics. Obama has a noble idea, but is incorrect in his methodology.

Requiring all voters to vote will not counteract the influence of wealthy donors in American politics. Rather, it could intensify the desire for politicians to seek wealthy benefactors. If voting was mandatory, candidates would want even more money for advertising and campaigning. Election mania would intensify. Campaigns would become even more expensive than they already are, with candidates attempting to canvas greater swaths of territory. While many candidates would indeed become more responsive to historically under-represented voters, such as young and minority voters, in attempts to garner more votes, this would not weaken their need for wealthy donors. More citizens voting does not necessarily mean that those citizens will contribute financially to campaigns, which would leave the demand for political contributions squarely on the shoulders of the wealthy…and allow the wealthy to control the behind-the-scenes political conversations.

Like today, candidates would simply say what voters want to hear and then tailor their policies to favor their donors after winning office.

To remove the harmful effects of gluts of campaign donations in American politics, we must either mandate term limits or mandate meaningful campaign finance limits. We should also remove government support for our current two-party political system. These reforms, much more than mandatory voting, will have a permanently positive effect.

Term-limited candidates will be more bold and decisive, knowing they have nothing to lose by trying to implement real change. They will not cling to the political middle, accept political gridlock, or ingratiate themselves with wealthy donors under the goal of remaining in office indefinitely. They will try to implement the changes they talked about in their campaigns. Once this change occurs, voters will be more likely to vote. They will have more at stake if they know that candidates will truly try to follow their campaign goals once in office.

True campaign finance limits will also improve the situation. While politicians could remain in office indefinitely, they would have to rely on their entire constituency for campaign funds, not “loopholes” like super-PACs. Currently, Political Action Committees, or PACs, can indirectly raise unlimited funds for candidates, allowing wealthy donors to control the political conversation. Altering campaign finance to put hard limits on everyone’s contributions will require candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of their constituencies. Candidates will truly have to be responsive to their entire district, knowing that they must get funds from thousands of individual citizens instead of a few wealthy donors to PACs.

Removing government support for the Democratic and Republican parties, and allowing independent and third-party candidates to compete more fairly, will also help break up political gridlock and make candidates more responsive to voters. Once voters have more than two choices, true competition will occur and bring about all of the benefits of competition. In a free market economy, competition is what we should cherish.

Written By

You may also like:

World

Calling for urgent action is the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

World

Immigration is a symptom of a much deeper worldwide problem.

Business

Saudi Aramco President & CEO Amin Nasser speaks during the CERAWeek oil summit in Houston, Texas - Copyright AFP Mark FelixPointing to the still...

Business

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal infers that some workers might be falling out of the job market altogether.