-
Search Results
-
Topic: Party Poopers
Party Poopers: How plurality-based elections in a two party-system undermine democracy, and what we can do about it.
By David Preston
In his farewell address of 1796, El Presidente Numero Uno, George Washington, tried to warn his countrymen about the emerging threat of political parties:
The spirit [of the political party] serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.
Riots and insurrections? Foreign influence? Obviously, Washington needn’t have fretted on that score. Still, at the heart of his words, we sense a concern that Americans might be tempted to seek office for the benefit of themselves or their party, rather than for the benefit of the nation. And to some extent that concern has been borne out.
Since Washington retired, political parties have come to play an increasingly key role, not just in funding and promoting candidates for office, but in determining what those candidates do once they are in office. As a result, elected officials (especially at the national level) tend to remain loyal to the party machines that helped elect them. This attitude was epitomized by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was asked by journalist Bob Woodward whether George W. Bush’s razor-fine edge in the 2002 election had made him want to proceed with caution in taking the helm of a divided nation. According to Woodward, Cheney replied that he had considered the matter for about thirty seconds and then moved on. “We [Republicans] had an agenda,†Cheney said. “We ran on that agenda, we won the election. Full speed ahead.â€
Beyond the rise of party politics per se, a variety of factors in national politics (the rise of corporate and media influence, the complexity of the modern world) have left Americans with just two “serious†major parties to choose from: Democrat and Republican. In order to assure their continued ascendancy, both of these parties actively discourage so-called third parties from entering the ring, and one of the ways they do that is by framing third-party candidates and the people who vote for them as vote splitters or spoilers. Their arguments usually go something like this:
You third-party voters support some of our platform, but you’ve got your guy and we’ve got ours. You know your guy can’t win the election, so why split the vote and keep our guy from winning?—especially when you share many of our beliefs? You know you don’t like the other candidate, and if he gets in because you split the vote, it will be a disaster. But worse than that—it will be your fault.
Offering a carrot to go along with this stick, the major party might then adopt some of the third-party candidate’s platform, or even “draft†the third-party candidate in exchange for his agreement to drop out of the race. (This happens quite frequently in the primaries, where second- and third-place contenders for a major party nomination play the role of third-party challengers.)
Unfortunately, third-party voters may be susceptible to the “don’t rain on our parade†arguments of the major parties—even if they end up voting for their preferred candidate. Then, depending on how things turn out after the election, they may feel guilty for having voted their conscience, or lousy for not having voted it.
Surely democracy is not supposed to work like that. In a truly representative system, voters should be able to vote their conscience without guilt. At the same time, there are valid reasons for major parties to fear third-party candidates—reasons that have nothing to do with party ideology, but have everything to do with the way the American electoral system works. The first of these is our system of plurality voting. The second is our winner-take-all method of allotting political representation.
Plurality voting is a system whereby the person who gets the most votes in an election wins, even if that person has less than an overall majority (i.e., 50% of the votes cast, plus 1). Plurality voting works perfectly in elections with only two candidates. In that case, the winner will always have an overall majority as well. But what about elections with more than two contenders? Imagine a closely contested election with four candidates. Three candidates get a total of 70% of the votes between them, split three ways, and the fourth candidate gets 30%. The fourth candidate, with less than one third of the total vote in his favor, would win.
Winner-take-all (or direct election) is a system under which the right to keep a chair warm in Washington, D.C. is given to the person who wins the election, as opposed to the party that does. Although this system seems natural to Americans (since we’re so accustomed to it) it’s not the only way to have a democracy. Britain and a few other countries use a parliamentary system whereby voters vote for parties, not candidates, and the parties are then given a share of seats in parliament based on the percentage of votes they get in the polls. Although such proportional representation systems are far from perfect, they do allow for representation of minority parties who would be completely excluded from power in our winner-take-all system. In the 30/70 election described above, a candidate with only 30% of the vote would end up representing 100% of his constituents in Congress, including the 70% who didn’t vote for him. In a proportional representation system, by contrast, the 30% party would get only 30% of the seats, while the parties accounting for the other 70% would get a share according to the support each one had among the voters. Or at least, that’s the theory. It usually doesn’t work out so tidily in practice.
In any case, given the combination of plurality voting and winner-take-all representation, it’s no wonder that the two major parties collude to keep out third-party candidates. There is too much at stake for either one to risk losing an election—and being out of power for several years—by allowing a third-party challenger to split the vote. Nor is it an idle claim when the major parties decry third-party challengers for costing them elections in real life. Although it is impossible to know how any historical election would have turned out if the conditions were different, in two recent presidential elections, (1992 and 2000) third-party challengers did garner enough votes to have theoretically swung the election. (See Web pages below.)
1992 Vote Count: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1992
2000 Vote Count: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000
Moreover, in the same way that the winner of an ordinary plurality vote might not represent the preference of a majority of voters, the winner of an election where there’s a split may be even less representative of the voters’ will. Let us assume (correctly or otherwise) that Ross Perot’s 1992 voters would have voted for George H. W. Bush if Perot hadn’t been on the ballot. Given that assumption, then Bush would have won with a comfortable majority of the popular vote. Yet, as we know, Clinton won that election, and it’s quite possible that a majority of voters were dissatisfied with the result. Similarly, in the 2000 election, if just a few of Ralph Nader’s Florida voters had voted for Al Gore instead, Gore would have won the state of Florida, and also the presidency. (At 48.38%, Gore already had a plurality, though not a majority, of the popular vote. The reason Gore lost is because the Electoral College, which actually decides presidential elections, allots votes on a state-by-state basis, and not a national one.) In any case, as we know, Bush won the election. Sort of.
Surely, it cannot be a democratic result when a candidate who is not wanted by a majority of voters is elected. But, by the same token, it cannot be a democratic election when third-party candidates, no matter how “serious,†are discouraged from running.
So what to do? There are voting reform movements afoot here in the U.S., and a recent issue of the New Yorker magazine gives some good background on many of them.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/07/26/100726crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=all
In an upcoming post, I or one of my fellow pundits here on the Blog will be discussing those reform movements, with a particular emphasis on the one known as Instant Runoff Voting, or “IRV.â€
David Preston is a freelance writer and editor based in West Seattle. He can be contacted directly at DP_Editor at Comcast dot net.
(Nils Enevoldsen contributed material for this article.)
Â
Â
Some neighbors just found a cockatiel in their yard. We live on 39th between Oregon and Genessee. We don’t know of anyone right nearby who has a bird. They are going to take it to the Lien Animal Clinic and see if they know what to do with a found bird. It is very tame – flew right down to us and landed at our feet. Obviously, let me know if it’s your bird or you know of someone it might belong to, but also if you know the best place to take it. Thanks.
WSB Readers:
Greetings. David Preston here.
Some time ago, I posted a short piece on I-1098, an initiative that will be on the November ballot asking voters if they want to implement an income tax on wealthier Washingtonians.
There was much interest in the topic. Good questions were raised and thoughtful arguments were put forward on both sides. Based on that, I decided to put together some of the concerns WSB readers had raised about I-1098, add a few of my own, and ask I-1098’s sponsors for an official reply.
(Disclosure note: I am in favor of 1098 but am not affiliated with the campaign in any way. I simply want to encourage a vigorous debate on this important issue.)
Below are my questions, along with the I-1098 staff’s responses. I hope you will find their answers as helpful as I have.
Many thanks to Yes on 1098 staffers Jake Faleschini and Sandeep Kaushik for their time and effort in getting this information to me.
More information on I-1098 is available at this link:
For a PDF document containing this information, go here:
http://roominate.com/blogg/1098_Q_and_A.pdf
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q: What do you think I-1098’s chance of passing in November is?
A: This is going to be a hard-fought battle, and we expect it to be close. The opposition, which is being funded by a small group of very wealthy CEOs, venture capitalists, and big developers, has pledged to spend millions to stop 1098 because they want to preserve the massive tax advantages that they get under the current system. But we are confident that Washington’s voters will see through the misinformation. When they learn what I-1098 actually does — cut taxes for the middle class and small businesses while requiring the very wealthy to pay their fair share so we can restore the deep cuts to education and health care — they like the idea. Given the recent cuts to education and health care services in Washington State, voters realize that we can no longer afford to give the richest Washingtonians a pass on paying their fair share of taxes.
Â
Â
Q: How many Washingtonians will have to start paying income taxes if 1098 passes? (I’m not looking for a percentage figure here; I’m looking for a head count.)
A: The limited income tax provision under 1098 will affect less than 3% of Washingtonians: about 75,000 households out of more than 2.5 million in the state. However, many of those households would also receive tax cuts from the reduction in their property and B&O taxes (although the exact number is difficult to quantify). Thus, the number of households that will pay more tax after initiative 1098 is passed would be significantly fewer than 75,000. And those are the households that are benefitting from our current unfair system, where the wealthy only pay 2.6 percent of their income in state and local taxes while middle class families pay four times that rate.
Â
Q: How much do you estimate it will cost to collect and administer the new tax? How many new government positions will need to be created to do it? Will those expenses come directly out of the revenue raised?
A: The income tax on the wealthy will be simple to administer. That is because it will be based directly off of adjusted gross income on the federal tax form. Only those who owe any tax will have to file a state tax form, and it will be simple and take only a few minutes to fill out. Section 902 of Initiative 1098 states: “PERSONS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURNS. (1) Only taxpayers with joint income in excess of $400,000 ($200,000 for individuals) are required to file a tax return with the department. The department must utilize such taxpayer’s federal tax returns as a primary tool for obtaining taxpayers’ information. The department must prescribe a simple supplement of no more than two pages for computing the excise tax owed under this chapter.†Given this simple system, administrative costs will be minimal.
Â
Q: A state income tax has been challenged (and beaten) in our courts before. Do you anticipate any specific Constitutional challenges to I-1098 if it passes? (If so, what might they be based on?)
A: After consulting with some of the leading tax and constitutional law experts in the state, we are confident that I-1098 is constitutional. There is a state Supreme Court decision from the 1930s that declared an income tax unconstitutional, but all of the precedents that led to that decision have been overturned in subsequent decades. Other states have faced the exact same question and their courts have all decided that an income tax IS constitutional. We expect a challenge if I-1098 passes but we believe the courts will rule in our favor.
Â
Q: I-1098 imposes an arbitrary income threshold of $200,000 ($400,000 for couples.) How did you come up with those numbers?
A: We studied our current tax system to understand who pays our current tax burden. We found that those who make above those thresholds are paying a far lower percentage of their income in state and local taxes than working and middle class households. In fact, Washington State ranks dead last — 50th out of the 50 states — in basic tax fairness, with the middle class paying four times the tax rate of the wealthy. I-1098 will help to restore some fairness to the system.
Â
Q: Under the proposed new tax structure, what would be the difference, in dollars of tax owed, between a single person with a taxable income of $199,999 and another single person with an income of exactly $200,000?
A: There would be no difference, in dollars of tax owed, between a single person with a taxable income of $199,999 and another single person with a taxable income of exactly $200,000. Neither would owe ANY income tax because the new proposed income tax would only apply to the taxable income a single person makes ABOVE $200,000.
For example, a single person making an ADJUSTED gross income of $200,100 would pay five dollars in income tax and a person making $200,200 would pay ten dollars in income tax because the first $200,000 is exempt from the income tax. Furthermore, a single person making $200,200 would also likely see a tax reduction from the initiative’s reduction of the Property and B&O taxes and so would still likely pay less in taxes overall.
Â
Q: Historically, one reason Washingtonians have been against a state income tax is that Washington State already has one of the steepest sales taxes in the nation. The sales tax is the most regressive tax there is, hitting the poor the hardest. Why does I-1098 reduce property taxes and the B & O tax, instead of reducing the sales tax?
A: I-1098 is the best initiative citizens have put forward in over seven decades to improve Washington’s regressive and outdated tax system. It is not going to solve every problem with our tax code, but it is a huge step in the right direction.
[You are] correct that the Sales Tax is regressive, but so are property taxes. And many economists actually list the B&O tax as the most regressive tax because it is nearly always passed on to consumers (like a sales tax) and can tax the same object or service multiple times. Thus, the effect of a B&O tax is often that of a sales tax on steroids. Eliminating the B&O tax for small businesses makes sense because it will stimulate job creation and help put Washingtonians back to work. Thus, the citizens who put the initiative forward felt that eliminating the B&O tax was a more pressing concern in the short run.
The citizens who proposed this initiative also spent a lot of time listening to the concerns of average Washington citizens, who felt that property taxes caused them the most hardship. Particularly at a time when so many people are in danger of losing their homes, we wanted to ensure that this Initiative alleviates some of that pressure.
Â
Q: When Washington voters were asked to vote on a state lottery several years ago, they were told by lottery supporters that the money raised would be dedicated to paying for education, but in the end, lottery money was comingled with the general fund and we ended up cutting education funding anyway. I-1098 sponsors say this kind of comingling won’t happen with money raised by a state income tax, but is there any provision in Washington state law that expressly forbids the Legislature from eventually comingling the trust fund money with the general fund if it wants to do that?
A: When writing 1098, we were very aware of previous actions by the legislature. That is why we built such strict transparency and accountability measures into the initiative. By law, revenues raised by 1098 will not go to the general fund but instead will be directed to a special trust fund that will be dedicated to funding education and health care. The fund will pay for priorities like reducing class sizes, helping students afford a college education at community and four-year colleges and universities, and pay for the voter-approved Basic Health Plan.
Â
Q: Will the money in the trust fund fully restore recent cuts to education and health? If not, what percentage will it restore?
A: Initiative 1098 will generate enough resources to restore ALL of the money that was recently cut from the Education Legacy Trust Fund for K-12 Education. It will also restore a significant amount of the funding for the recent cuts to health care and higher education.
Â
Q: Some people see I-1098 as creating a potential cash cow for the Legislature. They worry that, two years from now, politicians in Olympia could gradually begin lowering the taxable income threshold set by I-1098. Beyond whatever language you have included in the text of I-1098 is there language anywhere in Washington state law that requires a public vote on new taxes?
A: Section 1004 of Initiative 1098 states: “The excise tax rates in section 501 of this act may not be increased for any income level without a majority vote of the legislature and submission of the changes to the people for approval.†If the legislature tried to change this language, they would be committing political suicide. And if they did it anyway, it is all but certain that another initiative will be filed to make sure that the public has the final say on any change to the income tax.
Â
Q: When will I-1098 take effect if passed?
A: If passed, both the tax cuts and the limited income tax provided for in Initiative 1098 will take effect in fiscal year 2012.
Â
Â
Hey neighors, my nanny has beent taking care of my two kids and cleaning my house part time for the past ten years. She’s become a part of our family. With both kids in school full time starting in September, she’s moving on, so she’s looking to pick up a few more customers.
Some info about our beloved Nanny-o:
–She cleans like a speed demon, if you are looking for a housekeeper!
–she is like Mary Poppins with the kids. She uses playful parenting and positive discipline to get the kids to cooperate, without them even knowing it.
— She has a million craft projects and activities for rainy days
— She is the nanny who takes the kids to the playground and actually PLAYS with the kids, AND watches the other kids, instead of texting on her cell phone
— if your kids are young enough to nap, she’ll clean your house while they are sleeping
— she takes care of stuff the way you want it done, not the way she thinks it should be done
— she’ll alert you to any potential kid hazards in your home
–she is experienced in handling breastmilk and in bottle feeding breast fed babies.
After so many years of experience, she can afford to be picky. I pay her nearly $20/hour and am meticulous about her taxes. She needs a family who will treat her with respect and dignity, honor her time, pay her promptly, come home when they say they will come home, and pay her taxes appropriately.
She will only work in West Seattle, White Center, or Burien — no crossing the Bridge.
Let me know if you would like more information or her contact data. Reliable families only!
We’ll have a TON of seriously stylish housewares, a few baby things and some misc items.
Just on the corner of 45th and Atlantic in the Admiral area. Saturday only 10-4pm.
See you there!
West Seattle, Washington
22 Tuesday