TIME TO END STRAIGHT PARTY VOTING, RI IS
ONE of only 16 nationwide!
|
Copyright Providence Journal/Evening Bulletin Apr 24, 2007
PEOPLE IN RHODE ISLAND seem to have a hard time arriving at notions that
come far more easily to residents of other states. For example, that it is wrong to rig
elections.
With New Hampshire heading for reform, our state will soon be the last in
the Northeast - and one of only 16 nationwide - to preserve straight-ticket
voting, a legacy of old-time machine politics.
Under the straight-ticket system, a voter, with a single checkmark, can vote for every
candidate on the ballot from one party. It was devised a century ago by political
bosses who did not want voters thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of
individual candidates; they wanted them maintaining their party's patronage and
taxpayer-funded benefits for certain groups. Vote the party, not the person, was the
idea - even though some candidates from that party might be fools or scoundrels.
In modern Rhode Island, the method helps candidates breeze to victory just by virtue
of being members of the dominant party - especially in down-ballot races, such as
for state legislature, which many clueless voters, utterly ignorant of the candidates
and the issues, would otherwise skip. An attractive challenger in Rhode Island often
makes a strong case to the voters, and wins more of the actual votes cast for the two
candidates, but gets swamped by the mindless straight-ticket vote.
In the 2006 election, a whopping 15.5 percent of the votes Democratic candidates
received statewide came through this system, compared to only 4.7 percent for
Republicans. A built-in 10-plus- point advantage for the ruling party is a very steep
barrier for any challenger to overcome - especially given the special-interest support
incumbents usually have. And third-party candidates - such as those running under
the Green Party banner - get no help at all from the straight-ticket system.
In some communities, the advantage is vastly greater. More than half of the ballots
cast in Central Falls last November were straight-ticket ballots; more than 38
percent in Providence; more than 31 percent in Pawtucket. These are essentially
killing fields for challengers.
It's no surprise that this inherently corrupt system breeds one- party dominance, and
the sins that go with it, of which Rhode Island is all too familiar: corruption,
arrogance, massive deficits, and government of, by, and for the special interests.
Bills filed in the House and Senate this year would do away with this rigged game,
and require that voters actually elect their representatives and senators, as the
founders intended, rather than simply selecting a party. During State House hearings,
no one publicly opposed this sensible reform, which both Common Cause and
Operation Clean Government supported.
But it's dead this year anyway, apparently.
The reform was strangled, as so many are at the State House - silently, with no
fingerprints left on the throat. House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President
Joseph Montalbano put the interests of their power and party ahead of the interests
of their state and its people.
When Sen. June Gibbs (R.-Middletown) asked Mr. Montalbano, whom she
personally likes, about her bill to rescind straight-ticket voting, "He immediately said,
'That has no chance.'." This is what passes for reasoned debate in Rhode Island.
It's clear why the public-employee unions, which essentially call the shots at the State
House, want to preserve this system. It's easy to tell voters to simply check off the
party in power, and secure their taxpayer-funded goodies.
It may seem like the height of navety to expect politicians to behave any other way.
Except that politicians in other states do. They comprehend the value - to everyone
in their state - of having a healthy civic culture. In terms of making politicians honest
and accountable, no ethics reform can compare to competitive elections.
In a way, it is remarkable that the unions and their servants are so panicked by this
reform. In Massachusetts next door, Democrats maintain a similar majority in the
legislature without the need of such a crutch. For some reason, party leaders here
fear they have a tougher sale to make to the voters.
The system can be a double-edged sword. In New Hampshire, it was Republicans -
long in the majority - who opposed the reform. But the straight-party system
battered them last November, because of widespread anger at President Bush and
his handling of the Iraq mess. Some wonder whether Rhode Island Democrats will
suffer a similar fate if the U.S. attorney here begins frog-marching Democrats out of
the State House as part of a widespread corruption probe. A larger percentage of
disgusted voters might mindlessly check off "Republican."
Improving the civic culture of Rhode Island will never be easy. Ms. Gibbs noted she
started working on this reform in the 1950s - only to be rebuffed by her fellow
Republicans, who liked their chances for straight-ticket voting with the popular
Dwight Eisenhower in the White House and an all-GOP Middletown Town Council.
Both parties are only too eager to tilt the playing field their way.
That doesn't make it right. The public interest is served when elections are relatively
fair and robust - no matter who is in control.
Edward Achorn is The Journal's deputy editorial-pages editor (eachorn@projo.com).
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner.