The logic behind this is not self-evident, but here goes. Steny Hoyer thinks that it is the People's fault that that the People are mad at Congress for it's mismanagement of the debt crisis, because the People keep voting for candidates with "hard stances" who think that "compromise (is) not something they should participate in." So, the dysfunctional state of Congress as a legislative body is not a result of its poor leadership, for which it's leaders should be held to account to the People, but a consequence of bad elections, for which the People should be held to account to Congress. After all, "elections have consequences" and those consequences, per Steny Hoyer, are the natural and proximate result of the People's incompetent voting, not the Congress' incompetent legislating.
I have two minor concerns with Steny's position:
Concern One: I have been voting for congressmen since Steny Hoyer has been a congressmen (long time) and I cannot recall ever having the choice between the Hard Stance No Compromise guy Steny says the People should stop voting for, and the Soft Stance Compromise Guy that Steny says the People should start voting for (if we were competent that is). That is to say, in my personal recollection, I cannot recall any candidate for office actually representing himself as a Soft Stance Guy hell-bent-for-leather to get to DC and start compromising. Who would vote for a guy like that? So, assuming the Soft Stance Guy actually exists, how are the People going to figure out who he is so we can start voting for him the way Steny says we're supposed to?
Concern Two: Where exactly is Steny going with his concept of the incompetence of the voting public? In the real world (i.e., that portion of the world which is not-Congress), we fire incompetent people who are to blame for messing up progress. If the People are incompetent because we keep messing up our elections by voting for the wrong guy, shouldn't we be fired? Shouldn't Steny and crew be unfettered to go ahead and fix all the People's problems for us without the distraction of the People intruding every two years with our infernal voting? That seems to be the implication. What else could Steny be getting at other than the issuance of a stern warning from a veteran legislator: either you People start voting right, or we may not let you do it anymore.
The governor of North Carolina had something similar in mind when she suggested taking a couple of elections off so Congress could go ahead and save the People without having to worry about what the People might have to say about the manner in which we were being saved. So this might be an idea that is catching on with a lot of our leaders, and it sounds good in a way. But, here's a problem. Being that (for now) the United States is a representative democracy in which our elected representatives are to govern within the will of the People, how are the People to express that will if we don't get to vote? I guess they could take polls to find out our will, but isn't that what an election is, a big poll with permanent consequences? Take that away and Congress would be free to govern us any way it saw fit, regardless of our will. And maybe, just maybe, that is exactly what the Steny Hoyers of the world would love the chance to do.
As someone who spent many years with our nation's chief election officials and built a national election alert platform, I'd say the issue is less about what chad the voter is punching out in the ballot box and the sheer fact that the majority of eligible citizens never vote.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. is the second largest democracy in the world (after India) in terms of population and yet ranks 120th in voter turnout/participation. While most registered voters can tell you when to vote in a general Presidential election, the good majority of our citizens don't understand that elections (Primary's, Specials, Generals) are held every year on a somewhat organized calendar. They cannot tell you the difference between a Municipal and Congressional voting year.
In a non-presidential year, we see voter turnout numbers is the 20%-30% range, which is why I have little tolerance for the majority of people who complain about what goes on with our elected officials when most do nothing about it.
I agree, and I believe that our voting apathy emboldens those in government who would rather not have us vote at all. It is the only way to express our national will. 20 to 30% is pathetic.
ReplyDelete