SERMON
For many of us, I suspect, voting just isn't what it used to be.
I cast my first ballot in November in the year of the bicentennial, 1976, at the elementary school down the street where I began my public education. I stood in line with many others as a frail nearsighted older woman squinted at the registration books looking for each of our names and had each of us sign next to it. Into the voting booth I went, pulled the curtain and relished the power I now held in my hands. The curtain darkened the booth but an overhead light shown down on the many levers identifying each candidate. I could have pulled the party lever at the top but I wanted to fully exercise my power flipping each individual lever by hand. My parents were very active in the Democratic Party and my father was chairman of our local district. I knew who I was voting for because of our many dinnertime conversations about candidates, their backgrounds and their positions. I was proud then and remain so today of the votes I cast starting at the top with Jimmy Carter for president. Since that day, I may have missed perhaps one primary but I have voted without fail in every election in which I had the opportunity to participate.
My passion for voting reflects the power of this most glorious ritual of democracy. The source of the power our representatives in government wield really is the people. Sure the special interests and the lobbyists ply their dollars and influence, but few elected officials will long go against the will of the people. The poll takers would like us to think they now have the power to speak with our voice. I've seen the statisticians interpreting their numbers as the will of the people. They are wrong. The ballot box is the moment of truth for voter and elected official alike. Statistical advantages are fickle and can disappear with a change in the political tides. A vote cast in an election makes a definitive statement which endures.
On the broad canvass of history, how often have the common people been able to influence the transfer of political or religious power? How often is the will of the people the deciding factor in the choice of a leader? Not very often. Today, the strong and the powerful are vulnerable to the will of Linda Lunchbucket and Larry Lawnmower, the farmers, the teachers, the small business owners, even the hamburger flippers and the welfare moms. Those who abuse the public trust can be removed. Those who stand up for the common people can be retained. The power of the vote is the ultimate check against tyranny.
If voting is such a precious right of citizenship, they why is there so little excitement about the elections this year? Even if you believe the polls which suggest that poor Bob Dole will be retiring soon and, can you believe it?, Bill Clinton will be winning by a landslide, there are plenty of other critical races to watch. The balance of power between Democrats and Republicans in Congress is up for grabs. There are many ballot initiatives of interest all around the country. There is the 1 cent sugar tax debated here over a week ago. What about the parental rights amendment in Colorado? The 1% sales tax extension for sewers right here at home? As you can tell, I'm brimming with excitement about the election - but it seems from reports in the press predicting a record low turnout that the average person is out of touch and doesn't care.
I hope many of you were as disturbed as I was to learn how many residents of Charlotte County don't know who their county commissioners are and generally how uninformed the common people are about politics whether federal, state or local. In the very place people have the most influence and can really make a difference, there is probably the most indifference - unless the commissioners show up at your doorstep with a sewer pipe.
One reason most often offered for this apathy, typically by the intellectual & professional classes (that's us), is the general stupidity of the electorate. I'll call this the elitist theory. The common person is either too dumb to grasp the questions in the first place or too preoccupied with their own personal lives, troubles and pathological behavior (such as substance abuse) to pay attention to the great issues of the day. The commoner only cares about themselves and has little concern for the world. They cannot see beyond their front door. These folks, if they vote at all, will vote their wallet, their self interest first, so the elitist theory goes.
Another reason typically offered by the do-gooder bleeding hearts (that's us too), is the demoralization of the common people by their oppressed state. I'll call this the disenfranchisement theory. The common people don't care to vote because they don't believe their vote will change their lives. Whether power is wielded by the Democrats or Republicans, the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. As Noam Chomsky put it in a speech I heard on my favorite station from Tampa, WMNF, the rising economic tide doesn't lift all boats, leaky ones will sink. But what is always true is a rising economic tide will lift all yachts. More often than not, the populist candidate will arrive in elected office and be welcomed with open arms by the special interests who will take them under their wings and show them the best way to serve those already in power and are more than willing to help with campaign financing. How many common folk here today have contributed to an election campaign this year? Money and power go together.
If you listen to the drone of the pundits every night, we are bored with this election because there really isn't much of a choice between the presidential candidates. This is the "no-difference" theory. Particularly in this election, one must look harder than ever to find the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats as old platforms get tossed in the rush to clean house as the era of big government ends. One gets very confused when one hears Bob Dole taking Clinton to task for abandoning the cities and forgetting the working soccer mom who needs a tax cut so she can stay home with the kids, while Bill Clinton touts as his success trimming the deficit and reforming welfare. Whether Clinton or Dole wins, forget the rhetoric, Medicare will cost more for less service and manufacturing jobs will continue to disappear across the border. So many of the problems we face today arise from ballooning entitlements and being part of an increasingly global village which no one nation can control.
Whether you believe the elitist, the disenfranchisement or the no-difference theory, they all have some self serving way to fix the blame for the low voter turnouts in recent years. Today I'd like to introduce to you yet another point of view. Could the problem really be the way we vote itself. Perhaps the way we vote is flawed and could use improvement
A major problem with the way we conduct elections is the abuse of the minority. All those who vote for a losing candidate, even if close to half the electorate, might as well not have voted. Their candidate lost and the winning candidate is swept into office, winner-take-all. The minority is silenced and no longer has a seat at the table of power. This is how it feels to be a Democrat in Charlotte County. One of our new county commissioners was selected in the Republican primary. No Democrat even ran because the proportion of voters is so tilted toward Republican. Democrats have a hard time getting excited about their possibilities at the polls and can feel pretty powerless.
One way to address this silencing of minority voices in government is to change to a system of voting called proportional representation. Instead of the winners taking all the marbles, the marbles are divvied up in proportion to the percentage of the vote. This seems strange at first until we recognize how many democracies around the world function this way. Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Greece, Spain, Japan, Russia, Nicaragua, Israel, Finland - in fact most of the world's democracies select their representatives this way. The "winner-take-all" approach is still used in France, Great Britain and it's former colonies Canada, India and the United States.
President James Garfield said "It is a weak point in the theory of representative government as now organized and administered, that a large proportion of the voting people are permanently disenfranchised." The great advantage of proportional voting is the much greater chance for minority voices to get some of the marbles. You may be surprised to learn that proportional representation or "PR" is being currently used in the United States to elect city councils in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Peoria, Illinois and Alamagordo, New Mexico, school boards in New York City, and Democratic presidential primaries, corporate boards, and the finalists for the Academy Awards. John Moot, long time resident of Cambridge Massachusetts put it this way:
So how does PR work? The most widely used method is the list system. The voter selects one party or it's slate of candidates to represent them. The slate itself can be open to select the individual candidates for that party. If a party receives 30% of the vote, they receive 30% of the seats in the legislature. 10% vote receives 10% representation from the slate. This method usually works well at the state and national level. Another popular format is the Mixed Member System. Half the legislature is the traditional, winner-take-all format with candidates elected from geographic areas. The other half comes from the list system. One could imagine this happening here with the senate being geographical and the representatives being proportionally selected
The people who first hear about proportional representation question how it can be used for an elected office such as the presidency. Only one person gets the job. Well, there is a way to expand the choices for president by the use of preference voting. Rather than select one person for president, rank all the candidates in the order of your preference. In this way each person can vote for exactly who they want and also select who they would settle for next if the candidate doesn't win. Thus to vote for a third party candidate doesn't mean you are throwing away your vote - far from it. I'd much rather help select my second choice with my vote rather than preventing my last choice from winning by casting my vote negatively. Preference voting is a much more positive way to vote.
Imagine if you could vote preferentially this year for president. Such a change isn't that far fetched and could be done without amending the Constitution. I know I'd be putting one of the minority party candidates first then select one of the majority parties. But as things stand, I'm leery of throwing away my vote unless I know my candidate will win without it. The presidential race is bound to be very close this year in Florida. With a system like this, everyone could feel good about their vote better expressing their true desires for leadership.
The great advantage of proportional voting is it allows minority voices greater access to power. The winner-take-all approach gives power to the majority at the expense of the minority, silencing their voices. The effect of this is to stifle change and support the status quo. This is fine if you are part of the status quo, are white, Protestant, and comfortably propertied and well off, but if you are black, Muslim, poor and the victim of overt and covert discrimination, you are likely to feel disenfranchised.
The major problem from the status quo perspective of allowing minority voices to be heard is they will want to dismantle the systems of oppression which keep them down and want a fair share of societies' prosperity. The transfer of wealth encounters great resistance by those who have it and would like to keep it - even if they don't need it. There are many forces which would resist any significant minority access to power except by those who have the face of a minority but a status quo heart.
Cutting people out of the power process is a big mistake. If people do not feel they belong to a society or do not have a stake in the well being of the society, they will not participate in it or worse will actively work to sabotage it or destroy it. If you want a quick cut understanding of what is happening in the inner cities, this is it. Unless the young black man feels he has realistic access to power, he will not vote. If he opts out of participation in our society, the society will strive to control him with fear and eventually find a way to put him in jail robbing him completely of power. Proportional representation is one small but significant step to interrupt this process of degradation and despair and reenergize participation by alienated voters in our democracy.
Still, even with winner-take-all, organized minorities can sway elections and have indirect influence and power. Not as much as with proportional representation but it's still power. Even if you are a Democrat in Charlotte County, your vote still matters and can influence close races. There are ballot initiatives of great importance. I plan to vote for sidewalks in Charlotte County and I hope you do too.
And for whom am I going to vote for president? Well the Christian Coalition told me I could tell you and by so doing perhaps influence your vote. I will not do it. I have very strong positive feelings for one candidate running for Commissioner whom we all know. I have very strong negative feelings about one of the candidates running for Commissioner. I'll keep them to myself unless you ask me privately. What matters most to me is that you carefully consider the candidates and the issues. Take time during coffee hour to share your preferences and opinions. If you don't feel you know enough about the candidates, take the advice of those you trust. Read the editorials in the papers and the campaign literature. Then make up your own mind.
May we all celebrate this glorious ritual of democracy and vote Tuesday!
SO BE IT.
Copyright (c)1996 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore. All rights reserved.