Richard S. Dunham, Lee Walczak, Paula Dwyer, Mike McNamee, and Alexandra Starr in Washington wrote this report. "DOES YOUR VOTE MATTER?; Is an election crisis looming this year? It's a distinct possibility, since little has changed since 2000. The good news: The process can be revitalized. " Business Week 14 Jun. 2004: 60-62. ABI/INFORM Global.

Subjects: Electoral reform, Problems, Political parties, Presidential elections
Title: Does Your Vote Matter?
Author(s): Richard S. Dunham, Lee Walczak, Paula Dwyer, Mike McNamee, and Alexandra Starr
Publication Business Week. New York: Jun 14, 2004. , Iss. 3887; pg. 60
Source type: Periodical ISSN/ISBN: 07398395.  ProQuest 649550731 document ID

Full Text (649 words). Copyright 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. http://www.mcgraw-hill.com

When Americans troop to the polls on November 2, most will take pride in being part of a hallowed ritual of democracy. It's hard to argue that such patriotic feelings are not justified.

But as the nation girds for Election Day, something is amiss in the land of Madison and Jefferson. In some very basic ways, the delicate mechanism of our democracy has come unsprung. It is time to take an unblinking look at our political landscape -- and assess the growing symptoms of dysfunction. What is amazing is how little has changed since November, 2000. The underlying problems that led to the Presidential election crisis still exist and could stretch on for years. What has changed is hardly for the better.

The country is even more split among politically polarized regions. Republicans dominate "Red" states of the Deep South, much of the Farm Belt, and the Mountain West. Democrats control "Blue" states along the coasts. Meanwhile, the number of swing states has dwindled to 17 or 18 -- effectively disenfranchising millions of voters residing in the "already decided" areas.

To make matters worse, an Electoral College system conceived by the Founders as an insulating mechanism between a landed aristocracy and the masses makes more 2000-style fiascoes distinctly possible. With Democrats and Republicans at parity, either party's candidate could again triumph in the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College. Such an outcome could spawn a crisis of legitimacy, dog the "winner" for the duration of his term, and reinforce doubts about government by the people and for the people.

Who loses? Everybody. INSIDE THOSE RED ZONES and Blue Zones, political competition is being systematically snuffed out as the major parties redesign congressional district lines into genetically engineered safe havens. Thanks to pernicious gerrymandering, only 35 seats at best out of 435 are even remotely in play this year. The result: growing voter disenchantment over the lack of choice and yet another sign that democracy is in trouble.

The good news is that democracy is a living organism that can be revitalized. The most obvious solution: Give voice to the voiceless by dispensing with the musty Electoral College, which artificially magnifies the clout of sparsely populated states.

While we're replacing the Electoral College with direct Presidential elections, we should also revamp the undemocratic method the parties use to select standard-bearers. The dominance of Iowa and New Hampshire -- two small and not-terribly-representative throwbacks to Norman Rockwell America -- distorts the entire race, forcing contenders to shape issues designed to catch fire with the locals. The primary calendar should be retooled into a series of competitions that give voters in other regions a stake in the nomination.

At the same time, voting technology should be wrenched into this century with a guiding hand from Washington, a dollop of cash for new equipment, and smart thinking about security standards for the coming age of e-voting.

Finally, our scandalous system for funding campaigns, a throwback to the buy-a-vote days of yore, could stand another massive dose of reform. Of course, asking lawmakers to curb new soft-money groups, fix the near-broke Presidential campaign fund, and help challengers have a shot at dug-in incumbents is like asking them to saw off an arm. Reform requires a recognition that there exists something called the national interest -- and demands a rare moment of vision by Capitol Hill's shameless partisans.

Unless we want to continue on the path we're treading -- declining participation, permanent incumbency, less competition for ideas, increased balkanization, and more big-money politics -- reform isn't an option. It is perhaps the most urgent priority facing the republic as it lurches into the harsh light of a new century burdened by a political system that seems less democratic by the day.
===============================================================================

Note: the following Letters to the Editor" were received by Business Week:

"Does your vote matter?" rests on a faulty premise. You argue that because most voters reside in "red" or "blue" states -- states that we already know will vote Republican or Democratic in this year's Presidential race -- they are effectively disenfranchised. How so? On Election Day, most Texans will vote for President Bush, while most New Yorkers will vote for Senator Kerry. How the votes from such "already decided" states will count less than those from swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida simply escapes me. Not long ago, the South was solidly Democratic and California was reliably Republican -- the opposite of what we see today. As the world changes, voters' allegiances will shift once more.

You complain because Bush and Kerry spend so much time currying favor with swing voters in swing states. In fact, Bush and Kerry are each trying to do two things: 1) keep their base of supporters energized enough to cast their votes; and 2) persuade undecided voters to come their way. That's no different from what William McKinley did in 1896, Harry Truman did in 1948, or Ronald Reagan did in 1980. Nor is it any reason for an "already decided" Bush or Kerry voter anywhere in America to feel disenfranchised in the least.

Lawrence J. Haas, Potomac, Md.

You should be ashamed of this contribution to national cynicism. Your article encourages voters from 33 states to avoid the polls because their state is already decided. But is it not the individual votes from these voters that decide these states? It is the voters themselves who make New York a "blue" state and Texas a "red" one. Telling these voters that their vote is immaterial is irresponsible.

Joseph A. Mies, Duryea, Pa.

Your reporting emphasizes repeatedly red for Republican and blue for Democrat, yet in "How democracy in decline looks" proceeds to color the "particularly egregious" Democratic district in Atlanta in RED.

Richard H. Kapp, Greenville, S.C.

The present system does not make one "voiceless" any more than your direct-voting remedy would. I am a Californian who will vote for Bush, though Bush will never win here. Yet I am not voiceless. I'm on the losing side of a fair election in which my vote was counted. Warts and all, it's more or less the same system we've had since the 1820s, and it works. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. Can't muster the power to pass an amendment? That's democracy. Hamilton and the Federalists were wise, and I'm certain they would be proud of what we have today.

Michael McKinney, Irvine, Calif.