The Report : Executive Summary

Executive Summary (download pdf version)

During the spring of 2001, the University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies hosted the National Symposium on Presidential Selection. Over three months, the Center brought together former candidates, elected officials, political insiders, journalists, and scholars to tackle a number of issues relating to the way that the American president is chosen. Fueled by Florida's embarrassment in the wake of Election 2000, this Symposium coincided with a historic push for reform of our nation's election system. "We are going to be focusing on what is right with it, what is wrong with it, what needs to be changed, and realistically what can be changed," said Center Director Larry J. Sabato on the first night of the Symposium.

Due to a dwindling economy and the new national priorities after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the momentum of election reform has slowed significantly. Proponents must now broach the subject with new caution. The Election Reform Information Project's newly released report recognized the "one profound change in the election reform debate has been the de-emphasis of questions about President Bush's legitimacy-whether expressed or not-as a motivation for election reform." In response to the tragedies of September 11, the country has rallied behind the White House, and "discussions of the circumstances under which President Bush took office have faded."¹

Election 2000 and the zeal for reform it prompted have moved to the back burner. The Center is realistic about the prospects of lawmakers enacting swift, substantive reform. However, the primary goal of this report is to serve as the impetus for further meaningful discussion of reform in this country, whether now or in the future. Our Symposium and this report were designed to facilitate this discussion in an atmosphere removed from the politically charged atmosphere of the Florida debacle, yet mindful of the realities of the political process.

This report is not about Florida. It is true that the problems experienced in the Sunshine State have illuminated some deficiencies of the voting process, and it is important to focus on reforming the rules and regulations pertaining to ballot design, voter registration, and poll-worker training. In fact, several reports on election reform have been released since the beginning of the year and have provided numerous recommendations. However, these reports do not address the overall issue that will continue to hover over the nation in future elections. The Symposium and this report are designed to bring to the foreground the importance of looking at the big picture, beyond just the technical aspects of elections.

The Center shares the belief that our system must be improved if we are to bolster public confidence and trust in the efficacy of the political process. We also feel that any consequential discussion designed to boost confidence in our presidential elections must examine much more than just what happens on Election Day. The American people are not simply disenchanted with the way in which they cast their votes and the methods for counting them, although certain advancements clearly must be made in this regard. A recent survey by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 55 percent of respondents believe elected officials are not trustworthy. Sixty-seven percent would not like to see their son or daughter enter public service.² Perhaps even more troubling is that a voter turnout of just over half in an election as close as 2000 was hailed as impressive. Americans do not see the political process as savory, as something of which they wish to be a part.

This report addresses the question, "How do we restore faith in the sanctity of our elections?" But more importantly, this report asks: "How can more citizens be brought into the process?" While, as Tip O'Neill often stated, "All politics is local," the Center believes that the process of choosing a president provides an ideal venue for engaging our entire electorate. This is the one political contest calling for input from all Americans. During the Symposium and in this report, we have attempted to fuel a discussion that may lead to greater civic involvement.

Throughout this report, the Center for Governmental Studies focuses on practical solutions that will benefit the electoral system, as well as thoughtful, innovative ideas that will challenge Americans to think seriously about the entirety of the presidential selection process-from the nomination stage to the voting booth to the Electoral College, and beyond. The purpose of the report is to make this information available to lawmakers, scholars, and other interested parties when electoral reform once again takes center stage. We present ideas from all sides of the debate, whether feasible or far-fetched. Some recommendations may seem plausible in theory, but it is also important to take into consideration how our political system works. Changes that require constitutional amendments will most likely remain a theoretical discussion, and calls for high-tech voting equipment for all counties is rendered unrealistic by budgetary constraints. However, proposals that are not viable in practice are still noteworthy in our opinion, because as long as the conversation on reform continues and broadens, another Florida episode becomes less likely.

One fundamental topic omitted from this report is campaign finance reform. The way in which campaigns are funded is a dominant issue at almost every stage of the presidential selection process and throughout our political system. Its absence in a discussion of reform is conspicuous. However, there is an overwhelming, though certainly not unwarranted, amount of information and discussion on this topic. Therefore, we have decided to concentrate on the three topics at hand: the nominating process, the voting process, and the Electoral College. And, we conclude by calling for a renewed focus in this nation on civics education.

NOMINATING PROCESS

The Center believes the nominating process represents an ideal opportunity to engage the populace, drawing citizens into the system at the very beginning. However, with turnout for primaries at less than 20 percent, it is safe to say that this opportunity is being forfeited. In fact, evidence suggests many Americans are turned off by the way in which the parties choose their candidates. The results of a weekly poll conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy consistently found the public complaining of campaigns being too long and feeling disenfranchised, echoing sentiments of "my vote does not count."³ Much of this can be attributed to the effects of front-loading, as more and more states bunch their nominating contests at the start of the season in hopes of garnering greater influence. This phenomenon has seen the nomination process squeezed into a few weeks in February and March-leaving only those candidates with the financial and organizational resources to run a fast, furious, and essentially national, competitive campaign. The end result may be that the process is essentially over before it begins. The structure of the nominating calendar has made the inside baseball game decisive in presidential politics, with fundraising and early endorsements critical to success. Public opinion polls prior to the start of the contest and isolated events like the Ames, Iowa, straw poll have become make-or-break for candidates even before the public has begun to focus on the race. Also, because of the front-loaded campaign schedule, and the lock Iowa and New Hampshire have on the first two contests, campaigns are prone to homestead in certain states for years prior to the election, creating a permanent campaign.

The Center is not necessarily concerned with the caliber and type of candidates that arise from this increasingly closed system (although this is something that the parties might consider, especially given recent attention to third-party candidates). We are far more troubled by the prospect of alienating vast pools of citizens so early in the process. It is with this in mind that the Center calls upon the parties, working with the states, to contemplate serious reform of the nominating calendar. This report examines a few of the most notable proposals for reform.

Several plans were discussed during the Symposium and in this report-including the National Primary Day Plan, the Delaware Plan, the Rotating Presidential Primary Plan, and the Regional Lottery Plan-all of which offer some strengths and weaknesses.

The Center proposes a composite plan that addresses many of the flaws in the current system. The Center's recommendation is based upon the Regional Lottery Plan, as proposed by Center Director Larry J. Sabato. Sabato's plan divides the nation into four geographic regions, each having approximately the same number of electoral votes. A few months prior to each election season, a lottery will be held to determine the order in which the regions will hold their nominating contests. This plan levels the playing field for both the states and candidates. It eliminates the problems of front-loading and reduces the opportunities for candidates to homestead in a certain state or region, ending the permanent campaign. However, this plan features one critical flaw. The mere size of the regions might prohibit the feasibility of grassroots campaigns, thus limiting the ability of dark-horse candidates to build momentum. If candidates are forced to run essentially national campaigns from the start, it may close the process even further. To address this, the Center endorses the Regional Lottery Plan with a few modifications. Most notably, we believe that certain small states should be eligible for a second lottery. From among these states, two will be selected to serve the Iowa/New Hampshire gatekeeper function.

• States are divided into four regions.
• States with up to a certain number of electoral votes (possibly 7) are eligible to enter the lottery for the small states.
• Two lottery-style drawings are held a few months prior to the start of the primary season-one to choose the months in which each region will hold its contests and one to select the two small states whose contests will lead off the nomination calendar.
• The two small states hold their primaries or caucuses in February.
• The states in each region hold nominating contests in March, April, May, and June, as determined by the lottery.

VOTING PROCESS

While this report seeks to expand the discourse beyond the scope of Election Day, we do fully recognize the critical importance of addressing the concerns stirred by the events surrounding Election 2000. The debacle in Florida drew attention to the shortcomings of the voting process, and cast into doubt for many voters the basic precepts of fairness and integrity. The effort to civically engage more Americans falls fatally short if citizens lose faith in their most direct interaction with their representative democracy-voting.

In response, many state legislatures enacted new laws establishing clearer guidelines for ballot casting and counting, and numerous academic and civic organizations conducted studies and presented recommendations on election reform. The Center applauds their efforts and encourages all state and national legislators to continue exploring options to better the voting process. However, the national discussion on reforming the mechanics of the voting process has proven that more discourse is not necessarily better discourse, and more laws are not necessarily better laws.

With that in mind, the Center urges caution in election-reform legislation, and encourages lawmakers and the public to consider the various unintended consequences of any new policy. Examples of hazardous reforms include combining Election Day and Veterans Day, mandating uniform national standards, and rushing toward Internet voting.

In addition, the Center recommends several general principles for ensuring integrity in the voting process:

• Establish clear, unambiguous standards for counting and recounting votes before an election.
• Renew emphasis on poll-worker recruitment and training, including allowing young people and county workers to help work polls on Election Day.
• Avoid mandating uniform national election standards.
• Work to combat voter fraud with pragmatic yet non-invasive Election Day requirements.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The Electoral College is generally regarded as the after-thought of an election. Although there have been efforts throughout history to modify the Electoral College, the debate has usually been limited. This election threatened to once again thrust the Electoral College into the foreground of election reform. In the days following Election Day 2000, some momentum began to develop behind those who question the efficacy of the Electoral College. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and others quickly came forward and proposed its abolition. Had the details of Florida's vote not drawn so much attention, momentum may have built up to eliminate this institution.

Those who favor abolishing the Electoral College, such as former presidential candidates Michael Dukakis and John Anderson, argue strongly that it is a relic, an anachronism, and that it has no place in a modern democracy where the vote cast by each and every American should count, based on the principle of one person, one vote. Certainly, there is a case to be made that the Electoral College diminishes the individual voter's sense that his or her vote matters, and that it creates a system where the votes of some citizens in smaller states are disproportionately "worth" more than voters in other states.

On the other hand, those who support the Electoral College caution against tinkering with the institution because of unintended consequences that could significantly affect the nature of our political process. Darrell West told the Symposium that "when you change one institution, it changes candidate behavior, it changes patterns of media coverage, and it could even have consequences for voting behavior." Publisher Steve Forbes, former presidential contender, told the Center Symposium to "leave it alone." He says the Electoral College "forces candidates to wage a national campaign, pay more attention to local issues," and helps unify the country. Other panelists favored the "mend it, don't end it" approach. Chuck Todd, editor of The Hotline, offered the proposal to reallocate electoral votes based on congressional districts.

The Center's examination of the Electoral College is designed to preempt any future movement to abolish or alter it. Here, more than anywhere else, we urge extreme caution. The impact of the Electoral College, at every level of our political system, is significant. This misunderstood aspect of our election system has greatly influenced the way in which campaigns are run, parties develop, and how the states interact. Perhaps most importantly, the Electoral College helps a diverse nation remain more politically unified.

The Center finds most of the proposals for either abolishing or amending the Electoral College potentially destabilizing. We believe the benefits of the current system are significant and worth preserving. Above all, it seems, the Electoral College faces a few serious public-relations challenges. People may be turned off by the notion that each citizen's vote does not count equally, and that the eventual outcome of a presidential election can contradict the popular vote. For this reason, this report addresses some of the most common proposals for reform and suggests a few that should be considered if a significant challenge to the Electoral College ever mounts.

The most reasonable change to the Electoral College is making the electors honorary. While "faithless" electors have not presented a problem to date, there is no reason to leave the system susceptible to the whim of a few individuals, subject to personal agendas and motivation. By making this designation honorary, the parties retain the ability to offer elector status as a perk, while an enormous potential problem is eliminated.

In addition, should a serious challenge ever arise, the Center favors an Electoral College Redistribution or Addition proposal. The Center's favorite "mend it, don't end it" proposal features the distribution of additional electors to states based upon their percentage of the population. This proposal, presented by Sabato, or one like it, makes the Electoral College more reflective of the population, thus decreasing (but not eliminating) the chance that the Electoral College tally will contradict the popular vote result.

THE BIG PICTURE: CIVICS EDUCATION

The Center believes a sustained emphasis on civics education is the most critical key to solving, and preventing, many of the problems encountered in Florida and other states during Election 2000. More importantly, we believe a renewed focus on civics education is the most effective method for countering the citizenry's drift away from the political process. It is therefore imperative for states and local school districts to do more to educate and enlighten voters, and future voters, about their important role in the electoral process. We believe programs such as the Youth Leadership Initiative, sponsored by the Center for Governmental Studies, will encourage civic awareness and stress the importance of civic participation to the next generation of voters. We also believe it is critical that the focus on civics education extend beyond schools. This report calls upon federal and state elected officials, local government institutions, the news media, as well as non-profit organizations and religious institutions to make civics education a priority. If the next generation of voters were more informed and less politically apathetic, then it would most likely increase meaningful participation in the electoral process, making our democracy stronger and better.

_______________

Notes

1. "Election Reform One Year Later: What's Changed, What Hasn't, and Why," Election Reform Information Project, October 22, 2001. http://www.electionline.org.

2. Selected tables from "Deconstructing Distrust How Americans View Government," The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, March 10, 1998. For more information, see http://www.people-press.org/trusttab.htm.

3. Thomas E. Patterson, "Public Involvement and the 2000 Nominating Campaign: Implications for Electoral Reform," http://www.vanishingvoter.org/releases/04-27-00prim-4.shtml.

(c) 2001, University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies.