Mayor Louis Manzo discusses possible solutions to problems in the voting process
In this third and final entry in my series “Being Heard and Making Your Vote Count,” I will provide potential solutions to problems I’ve raised with our voting process.
Ultimately, we need to address the fact that half of us choose not to vote. As I stated last week, the 2018 mid-term election saw the highest voter turnout in more than 100 years, which is commendable. Any positive perspective wanes when you understand that this record-setting turnout was only 49.3 percent.
Clearly, there’s room for a movement to be created in this country by simply motivating the other half of the electorate to come out and vote. That could fix things, agreed? I’ll get back to that emotional solution, but first let’s examine the flaws in our voting process to determine if there’s a systematic fix there.
Do you agree voter apathy is created (at least partially) by the negative perception of our elected officials, which is fed by the media? Do you also acknowledge that most voter’s opinions are shaped by the message the media feeds us, and not our direct and researched understanding of a candidate’s stance on issues? Will you concede that political campaigns intentionally fan the flames of the negative fire about the opposing candidate? If so, do you make the connection that these negative TV, radio and mailing campaigns cost money? And lastly, do you believe that some elected officials control the governing process for too long? If “yes” to all of the above, the answer to fixing our system is obvious: true and substantial campaign finance reform and term limits. Easy, right?
Outside the U.S., about three-quarters of democratized countries already have public funding of candidates and half impose limits on spending. Some countries even limit the length of political campaigns. Suppose both candidates in a U.S. election spent exactly the same amount of money on their campaigns. Would that have an impact on the results? Imagine if a candidate for Congress also knew they would be limited to eight to 12 years in office like the president. Equally funded campaigns and a definitive limit on how long you can hold office would change how our government functions.
But don’t hold your breath. The 535 members of Congress are the individuals who need to change those laws at the federal level. History and common sense tell us why they haven’t done this. It’s about job security. Members of Congress are paid $174,000 a year with benefits and a pension based on years of service. Would you give that up? Take the opportunity to ask your senator or congressperson if they would support a bill with campaign spending equality and term limits and watch them squirm.
Sadly, I don’t expect this systematic fix to occur any time soon. Hence, we come full circle to the emotional solution to address voter turnout. Do we really need someone else to fix the problem systematically anyway? We the people hold that power. Inform yourself and vote in every election as if your child’s future depends upon it…because it does.
