Forget Angry Birds. There is a flock of angry voters up in the air this election year, frustrated by a political system that seems unable to produce significant progress on jobs, health care, entitlement spending, taxes and the national debt.
Where these birds will land in November is not clear. The likely contest between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is just taking shape after Romney’s victory in New Hampshire.
What is clear is that gridlock is driving voters crazy. This week, one letter writer revived the idea of a binding “none of the above” voting option. (Such legislation would not affect the offices of president and vice president.) The idea, briefly considered in Ohio in 1996, is that if “none of the above” wins, then a follow-up election would be held with a fresh set of candidates.
While no doubt providing a therapeutic outlet, the “none of the above” option would contribute to gridlock, not fix it, by crippling the elections system. After a victory by “none of the above,” who would want to step forward? Political party leaders already whine about the difficulty of recruiting candidates.
There are things that do need fixing. Two have received attention in recent weeks, both heavy contributors to gridlock. One is eight-year legislative term limits, approved by Ohio voters in 1992, and the other is the winner-take-all system for redrawing legislative and congressional districts after each census.
Terms limits is on the agenda of a bipartisan Constitutional Modernization Commission that will make recommendations on amendments to a constitutional convention, if one is called by the voters in a November ballot issue, or directly to the legislature. Either way, abolishing or extending term limits would ease the grip of what’s often referred to as the “permament branch” of government, the lobbyists and staffers who stay around year after year. It would also help leadership develop, and prevent term-limited legislators from constantly plotting for their next office.
Work is also under way to create a new way to redraw congressional and legislative districts. Currently, the party that can win control of the legislature and most statewide offices can completely control the process.
Four legislators, among them Sens. Frank LaRose and Tom Sawyer, want to see a bipartisan process, requiring, as LaRose put it, a “buy in” from the party that is out of power. That would create competitive districts, producing legislators more willing to compromise.
In the safe districts that result when one party is in charge, candidates pay most attention to the extremes of their own party, fearing a primary challenger more than an opponent in the general election. Once elected, they are in no mood to find compromise. A special legislative task force is also looking at how new districts should be drawn.
Another priority, in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, is putting limits on what are now called “super PACs.” These committees, often run by close associates of candidates, are technically independent. They can accept unlimited contributions and avoid timely disclosure of donors, both weakening transparency.
As was the case in the Republican presidential races in Iowa and New Hampshire, the super PACs become the vehicles for negative campaigning because there is no direct link between the candidate and the committee throwing the mud.
When such huge sums of money are expended, the technical definition of independent becomes irrelevant. Those who contribute millions can be expected to exert a tremendous influence, especially when it comes to blocking bills and regulations they see as threatening their interests.
Two other contributors to gridlock are more difficult to change than extending term limits, reforming redistricting and regulating super PACs. Both are due to advances in communications technology.
While instant feedback via the Internet can be valuable in a campaign, it can weaken a legislator’s resolve to tackle controversial issues once in office. Term limits further erode resolve. Why get mired down when your time in office is so limited?
The feedback loop is now so tight that a vote on a controversial issue can instantly trigger a flood of calls, emails, even protesters. It is hard to get back to the district in time to explain things to the Lions Club.
More, political messages on the Internet are largely devoid of balance, let alone editing. They tend to attract attention from those who are already believers, reinforcing entrenched beliefs instead of encouraging compromise. Political websites also keep issues alive long after objective reporting has proved them false.
Hoffman is a Beacon Journal editorial writer. He can be reached at 330-996-3740 or emailed at slhoffman@thebeaconjournal.com.
