The Optimist: Colorado can light the way for democracy in America

[ad_1]

Greg Goldfarb. Courtesy photo This column will be about Colorado … eventually, I promise.

But I want to start with context on the state of American democracy. Political scientists have measures to analyze partisanship in different historical periods. By these measures, we have reached a level of partisanship seen twice before in our history — in the 1850s and 1890s. We all know the first period led to terrible conflict. But the second period gave birth to one of the great ages of democracy reform.

Against Gilded Age business trusts and back-room political deals, our society’s immune system responded. After the 1890s, citizens and leaders drove a “greatest hits” list of reforms that shape the democracy we know. It’s hard to imagine that US senators were once elected by state legislatures, but it was only in 1913 that the US passed the 17th Amendment to directly elect senators. Six years later, the 19th Amendment enshrined women’s right to vote. After the extreme partisanship of the Gilded Age, citizens asserted their control over democracy, pulling it back from anti-democratic forces that had hacked the system for their own gains.

We have entered the third period of extreme partisanship in US history. As partisanship skyrocketed over the past 30 years, faith in institutions plummeted. Whether it is the Supreme Court, the presidency, Congress, or other social institutions, trust has fallen significantly. Measured by long-term Gallup tracking, Congress is the Death Valley of trust, falling from an unimpressive 26% of Americans who trusted Congress “a great deal or quite a lot” in 2001 to a near flatline level of 9% in 2024. When the branch of government intended to be “first among equals” loses this much trust, we swim in troubled waters as a nation.

Three forces have impacted the House of Representatives most acutely. First, natural population sorting and scientific gerrymandering by state legislatures reduced competition in many political districts. Purplish state legislative and House districts went from competitive to monopolistic. Today, there are only 60 of 435 House districts where Biden or Trump won by less than 8% in 2020. By this and other measure of competitiveness, roughly 85% House districts are “safe” for one party.

Second, social media and specialty media like Fox and MSNBC perfected the art of narrowcasting to echo chambers. This modern media system magnifies gerrymandering to further entrench political monopolies in many districts.

Third, unfettered money in politics after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision further severed the link between voters and politicians — money grew so powerful that it could help elect relatively unpopular politicians via primaries where a tiny sliver of citizens vote.

We cannot solve money in politics without Congressional or Supreme Court action. Nor can we solve the narrowcasting of Fox, MSNBC, and social media algorithms without radical choices about the role of media in society. But we can change the incentives of politicians and voters through democracy reform.

Warren Buffett’s business partner, Charlie Munger, famously said, “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” Right now, our primary system rewards extremism. Because most districts are uncompetitive, many voters skip the primary and leave a small minority of the most extreme voters to elect the candidate. With ~85% of House districts safe for one party, the candidate who wins the primary wins the general election. In a New York Democratic primary in 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated incumbent Joe Crowley with 16,898 votes to Crowley’s 12,880 votes. There were 375,000 registered voters in this bright blue district, so fewer than 8% of voters effectively chose the next representative. Republican firebrand Matt Gaetz won his first primary with 35,689 votes in a district with over 500,000 registered voters.

Incredibly, 15 US states use fully-closed primaries for Congressional elections (22 use closed primaries for the presidency). A closed primary means an independent or unaffiliated voter has no primary vote. 40% of Americans are now independent or unaffiliated, exceeding the number of Americans that belong to either party. Consider again that roughly 85% of House districts are safe for one party, meaning whoever wins that primary effectively wins the seat. If you are thinking that a closed primary system disenfranchises a large minority of Americans who do not affiliate with a party, you would be correct.

Now to Colorado …

This November, Colorado has the opportunity to lead a growing state movement to adopt a single primary election open to all voters. The top four vote-getters advance to the general election. Increasing political competition, this open primary system means every voter has an equal voice in advancing candidates to the general election. It also opens a path for independent and unaffiliated candidates to compete without playing spoiler. Voters have an actual incentive to show up to vote in the primary when their vote matters. Candidates have an incentive to compete for more votes.

In the general election, voters would rank candidates and the winning candidate would need a majority of the vote. If the leading candidate does not have 50.1% when all first rankings are counted, voters who selected the fourth-ranked candidate see their second-ranked candidate move to the top of their ballot. This process continues until one candidate has 50.1% of the vote. How does this change candidate behavior? Candidates must compete not just for the extreme wings of their party, but must earn the respect and preference of more voters. Essentially, this instant runoff mechanism opens space for more competitive elections, but requires that a winner earns a true majority preference of the voting public.

This system is not perfect. The counting process can be slower. Ranked choice systems that use more than the top four candidates have been messy. But our current system has rewarded extremism, reduced the incentive to vote, and disenfranchised voters in many states. It has made democracy more vulnerable to money and to media echo chambers. Many Americans long for a recent past where leaders cared about a majority of voters, not just their most partisan primary voters. We remember an era when politicians reached across the aisle and compromised for country over party. In a more competitive political climate, politicians saw rewards for legislative accomplishments and for putting country first. That time was not so long ago. We can bring it back.

On Nov. 5, consider voting “yes” for Proposition 131 to increase competition in state and national politics and to reshape incentives for politicians to win the hearts, or at least the respect, of more voters. Modifying Munger’s idea slightly: “Change the incentive, and we can change the outcome.”

Greg Goldfarb lives in Aspen. He is also a non-financial supporter of Unite & Renew, a nonprofit focused on non-partisan democracy reform to make our system more functional, responsive, and trusted for all citizens. It supports Proposition 131.

[ad_1]

Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=67086a3abe494e0c930790d649968b22&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aspentimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fthe-optimist-colorado-can-light-the-way-for-democracy-in-america%2F&c=11597186890590912196&mkt=en-us Author : Publish date : 2024-10-10 12:39:00 Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source .