Morning Fog

Elections And Democracy

A couple of decades ago U.S. foreign and security policy began placing considerable new emphasis on "nation-building," or a process by which the employment of military force against an enemy would often culminate in an effort to revamp the target country's political system into a democracy (if it was not so before).  The end stage of that has often been presumed to be the holding of "free and fair elections."  There's nothing wrong with that effort, in fact for one simple reason I'll return to in a moment, it makes good sense for both world peace and U.S. security.

But there are some caveats.  As Paul Collier points out in the Washington Post today, for example, holding elections does not in and of itself guarantee a democratic outcome, because the candidates (or one candidate) may very well figure out a way to manipulate the system and "steal" an election.  In fact, holding an election is a lot like planting a tree when the fruit we hope for is democracy.  The tree may thrive, or it may not; it will have almost no chance if we just toss a seed on the ground without some preparation -- removing the biggest rocks, choosing a place near water, maybe even nurturing the seed into a sapling before planting it.  And its chances will improve if more time is spent preparing the ground - loosening the soil, fertilizing, watering.

Ideally, democratic institutions must come first.  A country with no tradition of democracy won't be used to the idea that the election results are accepted without protest and the opposition waits until next time to push its agenda.  A country traditionally ruled by warlords, or one with strong tribal traditions, is unlikely to be able to overcome its regionalism or ethnocentrism to form a government that works for everyone.  A President, once elected, may use his power to discriminate against his opponents, or against another tribe or region unless there are checks and balances of power that can effectively counter his effort.  Collier also suggests that the economy of a country determines whether or not elections will lead to democracy but I believe it only appears that way because the countries that have few or no democratic institutions happen to be those that have poor economies.  

It's this process, the creation and strengthening of democratic traditions and institutions, that is the only lasting basis for a well-functioning democracy.  Unfortunately, it's also the hard and time-consuming part, requiring our involvement far beyond the limits our budget, or our national patience, imposes on us.  In approaching decisions about Afghanistan now, the administration needs to be aware (and I think they are) of the trade-off between a long engagement and a successful end. 

Is it worth the candle?  It may be.  Although elections per se don't necessarily lead to peace in troubled areas, as Collier asserts, it has been demonstrated that real, functioning democracies are less likely to threaten their neighbors or cause regional conflict than other types of government.  Democracy -- solidly based democracy -- does make for a less dangerous world, even if elections might not.

The 3:30 AM Call

I'm publishing this post at 3:30 a.m.  At this very hour, exactly two days ago, I was getting up to grab a quick breakfast, have a shower and a shave, brush the ol' pearly whites, dress (mustn't forget that!) and get to the polls by 5:00 a.m.  I had signed up to be an election official for Virginia's off-year gubernatorial and state legislative elections.

Before I had this experience, I hadn't thought much about everything that goes into making our system of free elections possible.  It's worth taking a moment to appreciate.  Things may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but I think my experience is fairly typical. 

First, a look at the typical "election official's" day.  Your hours are from 5:00 a.m. to whenever votes are tallied and equipment put away, ideally by 9:00 p.m. -- but later, maybe much later, if there are any problems.  Bring food and water for the day because you can't leave the premises except for short breaks on site; and wear comfortable shoes because you'll be on your feet for at least 10 or 12 of the next 16 hours.  For your trouble, you'll be paid $150 for the day. 

Except for the standing, the work isn't physically demanding but every step of the process is swathed in detailed directions that need to be followed precisely, from set-up (e.g. opening/connecting/zeroing the voting machines), through checking in voters (e.g., exactness of names, addresses, and sometimes birthdates, is key) to casting the ballot (e.g., how to assist a voter who isn't clear on how the voting machines work), and after the polls close (e.g., checks and doublechecks of the machine tallies, and a complex multi-level reporting system).  The instruction packet for poll workers is 120 pages.  A lot of that deals with situations that you hope won't occur, and most exceptions are handled by the precinct chief, but still... 

For your 16 hour day you'll be paid $150 (pre-tax).  Chiefs have more work to do; they may come the day before to post signs, they hand-carry some of the equipment, they handle all the problem cases, they're responsible for the count, the double-checking, and the endless paperwork needed to close the polls and tally results; and they take the results to the county election board after everybody else goes home.  (They get $25 more.) 

So, why do people volunteer to do it?  I don't think it's the pay.  Luckily, we seem to have enough people willing to spare a long day of their time to make the mechanics of our election process run smoothly.  I would recommend that everyone who can spare the time should sign up to work the polls at least once.  But if you can't, here are three little thoughts I would share:

Appreciate your poll workers.  Not me, I'm a novice.  But many of the people I worked with have been doing this for years.  They're the ones answering the 3:30 a.m. call at the grass roots level to preserve our democratic system.  (In fact, several voters did thank me for my role.) 

Recognize how expensive it is to hold an election.  We had 11 "election officials" for our small precinct, just about enough to handle the constant flow of voters we got.  More would be needed for larger districts.  Five voting machines, three notebook computers containing the county voter registration rolls, signage, paper ballots, miscellaneous equipment, the costs of delivering the equipment to each polling place and picking it up again -- all this replicated in hundreds of precincts.  Add in the personnel and equipment infrastructure required at the county and state levels, and various other costs, and you've got a considerable expenditure for just one state election.

Feel confident that our elections are fair and secure.  With the many controls and checks involved, the review and signing of results by all poll personnel including our ordinary citizen-officials, the decentralization of the process (each voting machine keeps its own tally), and many other safeguards, I think we can rest assured that the electoral process is about as tamper-proof as we can make it (though certainly improvements may come along in future).    

As Virginia Goes

Well, our elections in Virginia are over.  We have picked a new Republican Governor, Bob McDonnell, who probably isn't dangerous and may even get something accomplished.   As I've said before, I don't believe the outcome of this race -- the result of which, if not the margin, could have been predicted months ago -- has any serious national significance.  To reinforce the point, I highly recommend Ruth Marcus's column in the Washington Post today, but I won't belabor the matter beyond that.  Instead, a few random thoughts about McDonnell's win.

First, the suggestion that McDonnell's victory came as a result of rising anti-Democratic or anti-Obama sentiment is unfair to the candidate himself.  It was almost a foregone conclusion that a Republican would recapture the Virginia Governor's mansion this year, but the margin of victory is very much the story of McDonnell's well-planned and nicely executed campaign (and his opponent's equally poorly run one).  Give the man credit, and remember that in order to win that big, he had to downplay his deep conservatism on social issues.

Second, one factor I think has been neglected by analysts is Republican voters' choice of Deeds to head the Democratic ticket.  (Yes, I said Republican.)  After all, in Virginia, there is no bar to Republicans' voting in a Democratic primary.  Deeds's winning the nomination was unexpected and seemed to surprise even him.  But it's not a great mystery.  There are no statistics to prove this, but my personal impression was that conservative voters flocked to the polls in June to vote against the more electable and better-funded McAuliffe, and did so in numbers sufficient to make a difference.

Last, Deeds has been accused, and stands pretty much convicted, of running a poor campaign.  New taxes? What was he thinking?  Ignoring Northern Virginia for months? Democrats can't win without those votes.  But please, let's back away from the idea that his inarticulateness, or his seeming confusion in the face of unexpected questions, were negative factors.  If a man can be elected President of the U.S. with such "handicaps," then surely they can't be used to hold a mere gubernatorial hopeful up to ridicule.

How Customs Change - Halloween

For years, we've noticed that we seem to get fewer trick-or-treaters every Halloween.  We always assumed that was because of our location on a dead-end street at the top of a hill.  Not too many kids (or their parents) decide to climb a steep grade for just a few houses, so typically, we only got the kids of our immediate neighbors.  Now that they're mostly grown, we were down to only four (4) trick-or-treaters last night. 

But other people who live in more accessible places are telling me they too are getting fewer visitors on Halloween night.   Halloween remains, according to various marketing surveys, the occasion for which more holiday decorations are sold than for any other time but Christmas.  Yet slowly, our Halloween customs seem to be changing. 

The big change came quite a few years ago.  Sometime between my own childhood and my dotage, we started to hear about incidents of some nasty tricks being played on kids:  Razor blades, poisons, hallucinogenic drugs, all kinds of weird stuff being put into candy or other treats and handed out to little tykes.  Not so much later came more tales involving sinister approaches, molestation, kidnapping.  This created a big security scare (with good reason!).  One consequence was that homemade treats pretty much disappeared, at least in more urban areas, to be replaced by commercially prepackaged little bits of sweets.  Another was that increasingly, parents felt the need to go trick-or-treating with their kids for supervision and protection.  This was the sea change; those of us who remembered just getting dressed and heading out the door with only a sibling or a couple of friends for company knew something had been lost from the experience.  It was our innocence, I guess.

Today, though, a variety of other trends also seem to point toward a gradual shift away from trick-or-treating from house to house:

• Concern about security continues to dominate. As a result, people are turning more to group parties - at malls, at the movies, at a neighbor's house - but often it seems these groups don't go out to trick-or-treat.
• Concerns about health and nutrition. Not every parent wants his child to collect and eat all that sugar. What else can we give out, though? An Ipod? No, every kid already has one of those. My sister gives money, and while that might be welcomed from 1 in 100 houses, most youngsters wouldn't consider it a "treat" if everyone were doing it.
• Actual health and nutrition. With so many children overweight these days (often emulating their parents), all that walking around might just seem like too much effort.
• Growing jadedness about the whole affair. In olden times, going out at night, by yourself, was a real adventure, and the sights, colors, noises, and displays of the evening could really be scary. Now, anyone over three gets equivalent thrills every day on TV and the computer.
• Daylight Saving Time. It's just silly to hold onto DST until after Halloween so "the kids can go trick-or-treating." The whole point is that it should be nighttime, and it's dark out.
• Trickee Fatigue. Those who offer up treats will just get tired of the whole thing. At my house, after only four kids and a lot of leftover candy I'm thinking this year will be our last (though my wife disagrees).  A neighbor of mine puts in a couple of days building a really frightening approach to his front door; almost a haunted house. Will he keep putting in that effort for four, or a half-dozen, sweet-seekers? 

Facing these challenges, how long can old-fashioned door-to-door trick or treating survive?

New York's Lesson For National Politics

Scozza-what? You might be forgiven for asking, unless you're from New York.  Briefly, the story is that the Republican candidate for Congress in New York's Twenty-Third District (Scozzafava) is a moderate who seemed a good match for the generally moderate voters in this district that Republicans have held for 100 years; but against a challenge by a rabid regressive (Hoffman), running as a Conservative Party candidate, Scozzafava fell badly behind in the polls, and has withdrawn from the race, leaving the field closely split between Hoffman and the Democratic candidate (Owens). 

So what might have been an obscure race for Congress has rapidly become the focus of national attention.  In fact, this race may actually hold some lessons for politics on the national level (unlike the upcoming Governor race in Virginia, which really has none).  So far, the lesson is that Hoffman's success in driving out the moderate candidate demonstrates the degree of voter anger on the right, and disappointment with the GOP's failure to address voter expectations.  But this was already evident. 

Many analysts seem to be predicting a victory for Hoffman but I wonder what they base that on.  We're told that the District has reliably elected moderate Republicans for many years.  What we've seen so far is the highjacking of the political process by a group of reactionary activists.  Do they really represent the sense of voters in the district?  Or might some Republican voters be turned off by Hoffman's lockstep march with the Republican party line, and vote for Owens instead?  Did normally big contributors to the GOP sabotage Scozzafava by refusing to contribute to her campaign? We don't know yet. 

It's too bad Scozzafava could not have stayed in the race as a spoiler, but apparently funds were lacking.  She did apparently avoid endorsing Hoffman as she withdrew.  Undoubtedly she was under great pressure from the Republican powers and from a vocal group of activists.  Only election results will tell, however, whether voters who are fundamentally moderate will move in large numbers to a candidate who is immoderately fundamental. 

I'm not predicting that Hoffman will win, or lose.  I don't know enough about the district or its local issues.  Let's assume Hoffman wins, though.  His victory would certainly reinforce the view of opinionators like Michael Steele and William Kristol that they only need to stick with their current sit-tight, oppose-everything plan and wait for voters to flock to the Republican Party.  But the basic question remains, are those pundits right?  We'll need more than this one election to tell us that.

Personally, I think the Steele-Kristol-Cheney-etc. (i.e. the Republican establishment) approach is a poor strategy for the long term.  In the turmoil of the bad Bush (admit it or not, the GOP is still living down the negative cloud of political gas his 8 years left behind), the still-uncertain economic situation, and yes, even the new President's legislative plans, which definitely cut across the grain of the Republican base -- amidst all that, it may seem wise or at least tempting for Republican leaders to pander to the populist trend.  They may even get a bounce from it in the 2010 elections; yet that could add to the confusion about which direction to go, because election gains in midterm elections would be the norm for the "out" party anyway.

As a strategy, a GOP embrace of the populist approach is likely only to prolong their camp-out in the Slough of Despond.  The notion that voters will flood back to a party offering principles and dogma without practical solutions is a will-o-the-wisp.