Disgusted

Wow, what a disappointing Election Day.

I suppose I could blame the 60.3% of Ohioans who couldn't be arsed to actually go to the polls on Tuesday. But even had the turnout been better than the 39.7% who did show, I don't think that it would have made a lick of difference. Issue 1 passed fairly easily, while Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 were soundly defeated by similar margins (ranging from 63%-37% to 69%-31%). Considering the polling numbers of the normally-reliable Dispatch Poll released this weekend (and conducted between October 24 and November 3), there are many questions to be raised.

Issue 2 was up in that poll by 26% (59%-33%) and Issue 3 was up by 36% (61%-25%). Even Issue 5 was polling close to even (41% for, 43% against). Only Issue 4 ended up anywhere near accurate to the polling (31% for, 45% against). Again, this is a normally reliable poll, and one with only a 2.5% +/- margin-of-error. It seemed that Issues 2 and 3 were likely to pass, with Issue 5 in a close battle. Instead, they were all soundly whipped, by similar margins.

My gut instinct wanted to cry "foul". I wanted to call "shenanigans". How could things shift so quickly without fraud being at the root? Especially since 44 counties were using touchscreen voting for the first time. And considering that Issue 5 was going to take control of the elections away from the Republican Secretary of State, why wouldn't he urge his friends at Diebold to ensure that these reform issues would fail?

But then I slept on it, and looked into what was being said in the aftermath. While I wasn't, and am not, happy with the "oh, we just didn't do a good enough job" defeatism I've encountered on other blogs, I'm not so quick to find no other explanation than fraud, either. This isn't to say that I don't think that there isn't some possibility that fraud came into play here. I just don't think it was the only thing that contributed to this wild swing.

First, the packaging of the issues. All of the pro-issue ads refered to them as a group. While we did want all four issues to pass, this may have led voters who were uncertain about one issue to vote against them all, feeling that they were parts of a whole. The only ads that treated any of the issues separately were ads opposing Issue 3 (the one that was passing by the greatest margin in the Dispatch Poll). Given that the pro-issue ads were treating the four issues as a whole, it would be understandable that the four issues would fall by similar margins.

Second, the partisan support. The GOP lined up early to defeat the issue. The Democrats stood aside, in part because the reform advocates did not want it to appear as if there were partisan motives behind the issues. While this is all well and good, and reform ought to be a non-partisan issue, it also ended up biting the pro-reform campaign in the ass. While Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Democratic Party chair Jimmy DiMora lined up with the GOP to defeat the proposals, state party chair Denny White (one of the most inept party chairs I've ever met) refused to support the issues. Perhaps what's most telling in that is that it gave the impression that the Democrats, as a party machine, were no more interested in real reform than the GOP was. Maybe they're hoping to seize the Governor's Mansion and the Secretary of State's chair in 2006, holding them in 2010 and repaying the GOP for what will be the previous 20 years when they get their crack at reapportionment. Of course this is assuming a lot of things, and it's also assuming that Ohio can deal with another 5 years or more of GOP legislative neglect. After all, these are the people who have yet, after nearly 8 years, refused to reform how public schools are funded, despite an order to do so from the State Supreme Court.

Third, where the RON campaign did find political support. By this, I mean the support that came from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Again, I'm all for the idea that reform should be above partisanship, so Arnold's support for the issues, and for Issue 4 in particular (which was nearly identical to California's Proposition 77, which also was defeated), wasn't an issue for me. However, when an Ohio Democrat is being asked by a famous Republican, in robo-calls and radio ads, to support an issue, the knee-jerk reaction will be to oppose them instead. Trying to use Arnold's star power to swing votes to the pro-reform side probably hurt as much, if not more, than it helped. Add in the fact that on progressive talk radio you would encounter individuals (Ed Schultz, I'm looking at you) who would talk up the Ohio reform issues including Issue 4, and talk down Prop 77, only added to partisan feel of the reforms.

Fourth, the campaigning on Sunday. Specifically, the literature that was to be distributed with church bulletins this week, and the sermons from pulpits around the state. I have serious issues with whether or not these actions aren't violating the spirit of non-participation that is supposed to come with the churches tax-exempt status. Regardless, the churches were given literature designed to deceive, which was to be placed in the bulletins on Sunday. These fliers depicted the reforms as "anti-family", the tool of out-of-state interests, and the first step on the road to same-sex marriage and rampant abortion.

Finally, the ballot language. It was ponderous. Sure, some of it couldn't help but be. Issue 3 needed to spell out the contribution limits being proposed. But other issues could have been summarized much more concisely. And who is it that is involved in crafting the ballot language? The Secretary of State, of course. Sure, both the pro and anti campaigns get to review it, and lodge complaints. But in the end, the language is usually that which the Secretary of State's office decides on which ends up on the ballot, though perhaps with minor changes. The sort of changes that would have made these issues more concise would likely have been opposed by the anti-issue campaign, and thus the language would would not have changed much anyhow.

So there were many reasons beyond the voting machines that could account for the sudden change in the support in the last week of the campaign. All the same, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the machines as a cause, either. Some precincts in Lucas County (Toledo) and Wood County (Bowling Green) were apparently having getting their machines up and running yesterday morning and were turning voters away and telling them to come back later. That's never the appropriate way to deal with voters when these problems arise. So there were at least some problems, even if they were minor, with the machines. However, there were many other problems as well.

As for my ward and precinct, we had extremely low precinct turnout (90 voters total, which was at best 1/3 of the turnout in the presidential election last year but probably much closer to 1/10 or less). Among those who bothered to show, all of the statewide issues were favoured except Issue 4, which tied at 43 votes for and against. On a ward-wide basis, Issues 1, 2 and 7 were favoured, while 3, 4, and 5 were not.

My hope for the future of elections reform in Ohio is to get Issues 2 and 3 passed, which will open up voting to more people, and reduce the influence of the special interests. After that, go after the Secretary of State's role (Issue 5), and get the control of elections into a party-neutral body's hands. Then bring in the districting reform. While I feel that is the most important of the reforms, it will be the most difficult to get passed while the interests and the SoS still control the machinery of politics in Ohio. But all of these reforms need to be passed, and the sooner that they are, the better for all Ohioans.

Election Day upcoming

I apologize for the extended absence. I was away from my computer for a week and a half and since I've been back I have slowly been catching myself up. There are elections coming up on Tuesday, and there are five statewide issues that I wanted to mention and give "endorsements" on. Since I can't trust myself to hit them all if I don't do it right now, in one shot, here goes.


Issue 1:

This is a rehash of the "Third Frontier" initiative that the governor had placed on the ballot in either 2002 or 2003 (I forget which). It would authorize the government to issue bonds for the purpose of giving billions of dollars in "incentives" (read: bribes) to corporations to locate in Ohio. These would include tax breaks and other forms of corporate welfare. And rest assured that when these "incentives" have run their course, the corporations will move on to another state willing to "entice" them, if Ohio won't answer their extortionist demands for more money.

The issue is being sold to the public under the "no increase in your taxes" banner. But given that the money will come from bonds, and that bonds are a money-mill where the state can just mint dollars to cover the bonds, the money to repay the bond principle and interest has got to come from somewhere. When dealing with the Taft Administration, covering budget shortfalls without raising taxes has included taking the money from three areas in particular; education, social programs and transportation. What this means to the average voter is higher public-university tuitions, cuts in food stamps, Medicaid/CHIP and ADAMH funding, and more potholes and crumbling bridges.

What's more, if the outcry over the deterioration of the public highways grows loud enough, the transport budget may end up being beefed up by way of another 5-cent per gallon rise in the gasoline tax. Ohio is already among the top five of states in the tax we levy on a gallon of gas. The cost of gasoline does as much to keep manufacturing out of Ohio as anything else, because it has become so costly to transport materials into the state and to truck out the finished goods. But if it keeps the Taxpayers Union happy to not levy the tax on incomes, and keeps the corporations happy to hand them free money, who cares how the working and middle classes will end up being squeezed by the results of this misguided attempt at bringing industry back to Ohio (most of which has been off-shored to China and isn't coming back, anyhow)?

Verdict: NO on Issue 1


Issue 2:

This issue would remove most restrictions on the availability of absentee ballots. Opponents of the issue decry the reform as opening the process to "massive fraud". Supporters see this as a way to decrease the size of lines at the polls on Election Day.

Last fall, on the occasion of the presidential election, Ohioans lined up at the polls, knowing this state would be vital to the fortunes of either of the major candidates. In some cases, "lined up" was more literally true than in others. Some precincts had voters still waiting in their lines until after 2 am, meaning they were in line for up to 8 hours. There is little room to argue that reducing such waits would do anything other than help increase participation, especially among those with jobs who are unable to use "voting" as a valid excuse for missing work or being late. Allowing them to vote early at their county board of elections (a less publicized provision of Issue 2) or by way of absentee ballot would give these people a better chance to participate in our system.

The arguments about "fraud" are easily debunked, as well. Every polling station has an enrollment book, and the voter rolls are all computerized. It would be as simple as using a couple of layers of double-checking to ensure that people do not vote more than once. All absentee and early voters who have voted before Election Day are marked in the precinct books as having already voted. Those who have voted at the polls and sent in an absentee ballot that arrives on Election Day can be cross-checked by matching the names on the statement envelope (in Ohio, there are three envelopes involved in voting absentee; a "secrecy" envelope that wraps around the ballot, a "statement" envelope that the voter signs to verify that this is their vote, and a postal envelope that the entire assembly is returned to the Board of Elections in) against the poll books. If a voter has sent in a valid absentee ballot and voted in person at the polls, they should be charged with elections fraud without any dispute.

In short, the concerns mostly fall on their face when one examines the way elections are conducted in Ohio. The benefits to the public, with greater voter participation, are immeasurable.

Verdict: YES on 2


Issue 3:

This issue is designed to reform the way campaigns are financed in Ohio. The contribution limits in place now would be reduced, and corporate contributions to campaigns would be outlawed. The argument for this issue is that it would make the average contributor's voice more equal to that of a wealthy contributor. The argument against the issue is that it would unconstitutional to limit the contributions and to outlaw corporate contributions. Also it would give "special interests" more say in government.

There isn't much disputing the pro-issue argument. If wealthy contributors are limited to contribution levels that put them on a more equal footing with the rest of the electorate, the propensity to listen to, and seek to please, the wealthy contributors will be reduced. There will be a wider range of "maximum contributors" for candidates to seek to please. This can only help to democratize the process.

The arguments about the constitutionality of the issue are based on specious reasoning, at best. For example, the state of Texas has long outlawed corporate campaign contributions without anyone seeking to have these overturned by the courts. And Ohio has had individual contribution limits in place for a number of years and they've not been found to be unconstitutional, either.

To further the arguments in favour of the issue, there is the financial report that was released in mid-October by the groups backing and opposing Issues 2-5. The pro-reform campaign has raised $1.8 million dollars from roughly 3,000 individuals while the anti-reform campaign has raised $2.2 million dollars from about 120 individuals. The average donor to the pro-reform campaign has given $545, while the average donor to the anti-reform campaign has given $13,000. And further, the top 12 donors to the anti-reform camp are responsible for about $1.5 million, including $500,000 from a single donor.

Verdict: YES on Issue 3


Issue 4:

This issue is an effort to reform the districting process in Ohio. Currently, among Ohio's 18 US House districts there is only one district that has consistently produced races which finished with the top two candidates within 10 percent of the vote of one another. What's more, in a state that has been nearly evenly split in the last two presidential elections, 12 of the 18 US House seats are occupied by Republicans.

The argument for the issue uses these facts to say that the current districting method unfairly favours the party that holds the majority of three statewide offices (Governor, Secretary of State and Auditor), and that the maps are drawn to favour their party. They wish to replace the present Apportionment Board consisting of elected officials with an appointed board that accepts any map submitted to them and scores the map based on a formula that includes criteria such as competitive balance, minority composition and compactness. The commission will also have discretion to pass over the best-scoring map if there is one that makes better geographical sense without excessively affecting the competitive balance gains of the better-scoring map.

The argument against the issue is that it would create districts that snake across the state in a worse manner than they currently do, in order that they grab Democratic strongholds in Northern Ohio and Republican strongholds in Central and Southwestern Ohio. The opposition also plays to the fears of an unelected body being in charge and therefore not directly accountable to the voters, as well as the cost of setting up and running the board in a period of tight economics in Ohio. The first argument can be dismissed by the simple statement that people don't vote for governor, auditor or state representatives based upon whether or not that will affect the partisan balance of the apportionment board; that people have greater concerns when they vote for those positions, and that saying you can vote them out if you're unhappy with the districting is naive and dismissive of reality. The cost position can be refuted by the fact that if costs/economics were of such importance to these opponents, then the same people should not be lining up behind the "Third Frontier" bond issue.

Verdict: YES on Issue 4 (this may be the most important of the reform issues)


Issue 5:

This issue would take the elections-oversight responsibility away from the Secretary of State and vest it in a "non-partisan" State Board of Elections that would be composed of and equal number of Democrats and Republicans, as well as at least one independent. The supporters point to the sitting Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who was co-chair of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign in Ohio as being the strongest argument in favour of this reform. Opponents again oppose on the basis of the cost of another board and the lack of accountability.

The argument for can be very compelling. There is something that feels slightly off about a person who has a stake in an election being in charge of the machinery of that election. And not only does Blackwell's role last year highlight this problem, but also the role of Katherine Harris in Florida in 2000. And when the Secretary of State runs for re-election, this personal stake becomes even more apparent.

The accountability argument against is a little bit stronger in this case. It has been the primary function of the Secretary of State in Ohio to oversee the elections (though that isn't the offices only function), so it's difficult to argue that people wouldn't vote for the office based upon this responsibility; it's the most visible of the secretary's roles. Again, the cost of the board is a hollow argument for the same reasons with Issue 4; it's hard to express concern about the cost of a board that may run to about $400,000/year when you're advocating giving out a billion dollars in tax incentives to corporations.

This is the issue that gave me the most pause, and it was only after having it clarified for me that the Secretary of State would still hold his authority over commerce and business that I came around to a decision on this issue. In fact, I think that should Issue 5 pass, the Office of Development could be placed under the Secretary, and the position of Director of Development could be phased out. Likewise, the insurance industry could fall under the Secretary's purview and another appointed director could be eliminated. Elimination of those two appointed directorships could save the state enough to offset the cost of the Elections Board. There is much potential to reorganize the executive departments if this issue passes.

Verdict: YES on Issue 5 (though slightly tentative)


Issue 7:

This is a countywide issue in Franklin County. It's a replacement levy for the county ADAMH (Alcohol/Drug Abuse and Mental Health) budget. The old levy, approved about 8 years ago, is expiring. A "no" vote would leave the ADAMH budget at pre-1997 levels in 2006. While the replacement will reflect a slight increase over the levy that is in place, the social benefits gained by funding these programs are greater. This levy funds mental health aid for low-income individuals and drug and alcohol treatment and intervention programs for county residents. The state support for these programs has dwindled over years of Republican neglect. If Issue 1 passes, the state funding may wither to practically nothing. These programs are going to rely increasingly on local funding sources, and this levy is vital to the programs.

Verdict: YES on Issue 7

Summary:

NO on Issue 1
YES on Issues 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7