The election is over and I think it's time to start thinking about what lessons we can take from the experience. Many have already tried to draw conclusions about the political prospects for the next cycle of elections or even the next presidential election. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I think there are far greater concerns that our most recent election highlights. Specifically, the problem is the way American elections work in the first place.
To put it succinctly, American election campaigns are way too long, but the elections themselves are way too short.
If we first examine the length of the campaign, we quickly see that the voting population (and the non-voting population as well) grows fatigued with the incessant campaign ads long before it is time to vote. Our experience in Wisconsin is one where Eric Hovde started running campaign ads for his senate campaign nearly a year before the election. This problem is compounded by the ridiculous amount of money that can be dumped into a particular election by outside parties thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Any television viewer or radio listener in a swing state is probably all to familiar with the compounding effects of the length of the campaign cycle and the copious amounts of ad spending.
We're already seeing this repeat itself. The election is not even a week old and already people are talking about the next election. You do not hear Republicans talking about their legislative agenda (because I do not consider "impede everything Obama does" to be an actual legislative agenda). Instead, you hear them talking about their political agenda, how they will fight with the President, how they will retool for the next election and how they can reach voters who want "things" as Bill O'Riley so bluntly put it during Fox News coverage of the election.
Conspicuously absent is a legislative agenda. Republicans in Congress are setting up to do exactly what they tried to do for the last four years: dig their heals in on every conceivable issue and then blame the President for not getting more stuff done. What we have is a bicameral body of 435 people whose full time job is to win their next election, not to govern a massive and powerful country responsibly.
If it is clear that the campaign is too long, it should be equally clear that the actual election is too short. It is way too difficult for way too many Americans to find the time to stand in line (in many cases) during one 12 hour window in November. Real people have real jobs, they have kids, they have responsibilities that have a much more immediate impact on their every day lives than casting their vote in even a Presidential election. Why does the single mother have to chose between voting and making dinner for her children?
The myriad of early voting options has certainly made things better as of recently, but that will only reach so many people. If you want to make sure that everybody is able to vote, you have fundamentally change the way we conduct elections in the United States. First, voter registration needs to be automatic and mandatory. Second, elections cannot be held during the work week. Elections should either be moved to the weekend when people are more likely to actually have the time to engage in the process. Failing that, election day needs to be made a national holiday where EVERYBODY is given the day off. Obviously there would be some exceptions out of necessity, but the national business of the day needs to be the election and the election only, as far as is feasible.
If you give people an adequate opportunity to vote, coupled with the incentive to do so, people will engage. Right now we have a system where voting is too much of a hassle, and they are desensitized to the process by an over-saturation political advertising that deals in nothing but generalizations and scare tactics. Perhaps a shorted campaign season would force candidates to make a more logical case for their candidacy, rather than relying on the power or repeating simple ideas over and over until they sink into people's brains. If more people felt like they were being persuaded rather than talked at, they might be more willing to engage in the process.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Do Political Parties Matter?
I've heard people say that it doesn't matter who you vote for, that you're just shoveling the same garbage in and out. At first glance, it seems to hold up. We continue to elect different people and yet we continue to deal with the same conflicts and gridlock. So far, the theory checks out.
The problem comes when we realize that divides on contested votes in congress happen very much along party lines. Filibusters happen along party lines. We vote for individuals, but what we're really getting is party votes. The truth is that political parties are all that matter. The individual you are voting for hardly makes a difference. For the most part, swapping one Democrat for another, or swapping one Republican for another is not likely to generate a different result.
So, why don't people realize this? In large degree, they do. The problem is that a large portion of voters don't think this generalization applies to their elected representatives. Approval ratings for congress are consistently in the gutter, yet incumbent reelection rates remain high. That is because people do not view their own representatives as part of the rot at the core of the body they are a part of.
Nobody wants to view themselves or their representatives as part of the problem, but until people start to pay attention to who they're voting for and the system they exist within, political parties will continue to dominate the political system. That domination comes at the expense of the actual voter.
The problem comes when we realize that divides on contested votes in congress happen very much along party lines. Filibusters happen along party lines. We vote for individuals, but what we're really getting is party votes. The truth is that political parties are all that matter. The individual you are voting for hardly makes a difference. For the most part, swapping one Democrat for another, or swapping one Republican for another is not likely to generate a different result.
So, why don't people realize this? In large degree, they do. The problem is that a large portion of voters don't think this generalization applies to their elected representatives. Approval ratings for congress are consistently in the gutter, yet incumbent reelection rates remain high. That is because people do not view their own representatives as part of the rot at the core of the body they are a part of.
Nobody wants to view themselves or their representatives as part of the problem, but until people start to pay attention to who they're voting for and the system they exist within, political parties will continue to dominate the political system. That domination comes at the expense of the actual voter.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Eric Hovde Thought...
Eric Hovde thought that he could flood the airwaves almost a year and dominate the mind share of the Wisconsin electorate. He thought that dominating the airwaves with his platitudes about our nation being at a cross-roads or it being time to take America back would resonate.
Eric Hovde thought that Wisconsinites were just looking for a fresh face. He thought that Wisconsin wanted someone who wasn't a politician, but a business man. He thought that people wanted someone who wasn't a political insider. He thought people wanted another Ron Johnson.
He was wrong.
Republican voters of Wisconsin rejected Eric Hovde and his late-night-infomercial-inspired strategy of being the only guy on TV, and they did not buy his "as seen on TV" product simply because he was the only thing on.
Eric Hovde, like many before him, ran a campaign based on money. He did not run a campaign based on ideas, goals or policy. His strategy was to spend more, and spend first. Wisconsin's Republican senatorial primary showed that money alone cannot buy an election in this state. Money is still trumped by back room political influence peddling.
Wait... Suddenly, I'm not as excited about the results of the election as I was.
Eric Hovde thought that Wisconsinites were just looking for a fresh face. He thought that Wisconsin wanted someone who wasn't a politician, but a business man. He thought that people wanted someone who wasn't a political insider. He thought people wanted another Ron Johnson.
He was wrong.
Republican voters of Wisconsin rejected Eric Hovde and his late-night-infomercial-inspired strategy of being the only guy on TV, and they did not buy his "as seen on TV" product simply because he was the only thing on.
Eric Hovde, like many before him, ran a campaign based on money. He did not run a campaign based on ideas, goals or policy. His strategy was to spend more, and spend first. Wisconsin's Republican senatorial primary showed that money alone cannot buy an election in this state. Money is still trumped by back room political influence peddling.
Wait... Suddenly, I'm not as excited about the results of the election as I was.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Amendment on Amendment Crime
It is becoming increasingly clear to me, both through my education and simply by paying attention to current events, that the rights promised to Americans by the US Constitution are not capable of standing together without conflicting to a degree. While there are any number of examples of this, the most clear and consistent example of this is the 2nd amendment and the role that it plays in interfering with other people's rights.
With recent, high-profile shootings in Oak Creek, Wisconsin (my home state), and Aurora, Colorado, the conflict between our rights has been thrust to the forefront. While there are plenty of people who feel very strongly that the 2nd amendment means that the government has no power to regulate firearms, there are two problems with this idea. First, these people often forget about the "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment's language. Regulation is an explicit requirement of the 2nd amendment.
Second, one cannot look at an individual constitutional right in a vacuum. While guns have legitimate uses, guns are also used to deprive people of their right to live, their right to worship as they choose and others. I will never say that guns are inherently bad. They are tools, and tools are only as good as the person who wields them. That being said, I see no reason why we shouldn't work to make sure that they are kept out of the wrong hands. We do it with drugs, cars and any number of other dangerous activities and items that can hurt people even by accident.
To treat guns as special is to elevate the 2nd amendment over every other right promised to us in the constitution. Any person or organization willing to take such a narrow focus is unintelligent and irresponsible.
With recent, high-profile shootings in Oak Creek, Wisconsin (my home state), and Aurora, Colorado, the conflict between our rights has been thrust to the forefront. While there are plenty of people who feel very strongly that the 2nd amendment means that the government has no power to regulate firearms, there are two problems with this idea. First, these people often forget about the "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment's language. Regulation is an explicit requirement of the 2nd amendment.
Second, one cannot look at an individual constitutional right in a vacuum. While guns have legitimate uses, guns are also used to deprive people of their right to live, their right to worship as they choose and others. I will never say that guns are inherently bad. They are tools, and tools are only as good as the person who wields them. That being said, I see no reason why we shouldn't work to make sure that they are kept out of the wrong hands. We do it with drugs, cars and any number of other dangerous activities and items that can hurt people even by accident.
To treat guns as special is to elevate the 2nd amendment over every other right promised to us in the constitution. Any person or organization willing to take such a narrow focus is unintelligent and irresponsible.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Looking For Answers in Colorado
To start, I don't expect to find any answers about what happened in Colorado. My only hope is to figure out what questions are the right ones to ask. Our initial question is to ask "why?" It's not a bad question to ask, but it is too broad. Without narrowing the question, trying to figure out "why" would be too large of a task to expect to even make progress on. Until more information comes out, any discussion of motivation or thought process of James Holmes, the shooter, is merely an exercise in speculation. Still, there some broad themes worth pondering.
My first thought was wondering what connections people would draw between the shooter/shooting and the Dark Knight Rises. I'll admit that as a huge fan of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, I risk getting defensive. With that disclaimer in mind, I think that drawing connections between this or any movie is a folly. While it's certainly been said before, it's worth repeating. A mind fragile enough to be pushed over the edge by a movie would almost inevitably be pushed over the edge by something. While there are certainly similarities between the way the attack was planned and the type of attacks executed by The Joker in The Dark Knight (not to mention the outrageous hair color), this is not evidence that Heath Ledger's amazing character had any influence in motivating these murders. That said, it's difficult to deny that there wasn't some influence upon the form that his murderous ambition took.
Holmes was, by all accounts, a very smart young man. Enough attention has been paid to his brain power that it's worth asking why nobody saw what most would consider a brain defect. While the dream of predicting this type of behavior through study of the brain may be a reality someday, today it remains a dream. Many will try to look back at "signs" that were visible ahead of time. We should not fall into the trap of this "confirmation bias" type of retrospection. I can only hope that when we finally achieve the necessary understanding of the brain to make these predictions without the benefit of hindsight, we not only have the ability to treat the problem, but we also have a way to give people access to the care they need.
Finally, there are the guns. While it's fair to say that James Holmes killed the people in that theater, it's undeniable that his guns allowed him to do that much more efficiently. I'm not a gun owner, but as a Wisconsinite, I appreciate the place that guns have in our culture. That said, the availability of guns to those who have no business owning them is something that should trouble us all. I cannot claim to have the solution to this problem, but I think that it's time to reevaluate how we think about guns. Marijuana faces exponentially higher restrictions than guns, and I doubt you can find credible statistics to show that pot is as dangerous as a gun in the hands of a madman.
These are just some of the broad themes that the tragedy in Colorado brings to my mind. I'm sure that as more information comes out, further questions will be raised. Answers, however, will be much more difficult to find.
My first thought was wondering what connections people would draw between the shooter/shooting and the Dark Knight Rises. I'll admit that as a huge fan of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, I risk getting defensive. With that disclaimer in mind, I think that drawing connections between this or any movie is a folly. While it's certainly been said before, it's worth repeating. A mind fragile enough to be pushed over the edge by a movie would almost inevitably be pushed over the edge by something. While there are certainly similarities between the way the attack was planned and the type of attacks executed by The Joker in The Dark Knight (not to mention the outrageous hair color), this is not evidence that Heath Ledger's amazing character had any influence in motivating these murders. That said, it's difficult to deny that there wasn't some influence upon the form that his murderous ambition took.
Holmes was, by all accounts, a very smart young man. Enough attention has been paid to his brain power that it's worth asking why nobody saw what most would consider a brain defect. While the dream of predicting this type of behavior through study of the brain may be a reality someday, today it remains a dream. Many will try to look back at "signs" that were visible ahead of time. We should not fall into the trap of this "confirmation bias" type of retrospection. I can only hope that when we finally achieve the necessary understanding of the brain to make these predictions without the benefit of hindsight, we not only have the ability to treat the problem, but we also have a way to give people access to the care they need.
Finally, there are the guns. While it's fair to say that James Holmes killed the people in that theater, it's undeniable that his guns allowed him to do that much more efficiently. I'm not a gun owner, but as a Wisconsinite, I appreciate the place that guns have in our culture. That said, the availability of guns to those who have no business owning them is something that should trouble us all. I cannot claim to have the solution to this problem, but I think that it's time to reevaluate how we think about guns. Marijuana faces exponentially higher restrictions than guns, and I doubt you can find credible statistics to show that pot is as dangerous as a gun in the hands of a madman.
These are just some of the broad themes that the tragedy in Colorado brings to my mind. I'm sure that as more information comes out, further questions will be raised. Answers, however, will be much more difficult to find.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Media Ratings Madness
America is schizophrenic when it comes to depictions of sex and violence in media. We tell ourselves that we want to protect children from graphic sex and violence in movies, TV and video games because we're afraid that it will have a negative effect on them. If we assume that violence and sex in media is something that we should concerned about, Americans should be concerned about the methods we have chosen to make this happen.
When it comes to movies, we have the MPAA's rating system. There are two components to this. First, there is the "G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17" portion. This is the actual rating. Along with that, the MPAA descriptors to inform people why a certain rating was given. These could include items like "graphic violence" or "strong language". But, what do these ratings actually mean? Probably nothing. The MPAA says on it's website that it's board of parents tries to represent what they think the average American parent's standards.
I think it's pretty clear that they've failed to represent the average American. While the descriptors may be useful enough, the actual rating are nearly useless. The head of the MPAA Ratings Board said recently that they do not make "qualitative judgement" about movies. While she was referring how good or bad a movie is, you can't say that film ratings are anything but qualitative judgments. So, are the qualitative judgement of a bunch of people whose judgments on such matters we cannot verify. Would you walk up to a random person on the street and as if the new Batman movie is appropriate for your kids? That's what you're doing if you rely on the MPAA's ratings. The MPAA would argue that they use criteria to take some of the subjectivity out of it, but a quick look at the guide for the ratings system will show you that in place of subjectivity, they've inserted arbitrariness.
Video games suffer from from much of the same problem under the ESRB's rating system. While the descriptors are again helpful, the rating itself is nearly useless. All one needs to do is compare the Halo games to the Grand Theft Auto games. One has been all over the news (though, mostly Fox) because of the things you could do: killing policemen, patronizing prostitutes, killing prostitutes, buying, selling and using drugs, driving drunk and the list goes on. In Halo, faceless space marines defend the world from alien invaders. Unlike Grand Theft Auto, there's no cursing, no drugs, no alcohol, no blood, the violence is cartoonish rather than graphic, and there is not a prostitute to be found. The fact that these games are given the same "M" (mature) rating shows you what a joke the system is.
While the discriptors in the movie and game rating systems can be helpful, the actual ratings are arbitrary and inconsistent. Anybody who wants to know what's really going on in a movie or game would be well served to look beyond what the ESRB and MPAA are providing you, because they're not giving you much.
When it comes to movies, we have the MPAA's rating system. There are two components to this. First, there is the "G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17" portion. This is the actual rating. Along with that, the MPAA descriptors to inform people why a certain rating was given. These could include items like "graphic violence" or "strong language". But, what do these ratings actually mean? Probably nothing. The MPAA says on it's website that it's board of parents tries to represent what they think the average American parent's standards.
I think it's pretty clear that they've failed to represent the average American. While the descriptors may be useful enough, the actual rating are nearly useless. The head of the MPAA Ratings Board said recently that they do not make "qualitative judgement" about movies. While she was referring how good or bad a movie is, you can't say that film ratings are anything but qualitative judgments. So, are the qualitative judgement of a bunch of people whose judgments on such matters we cannot verify. Would you walk up to a random person on the street and as if the new Batman movie is appropriate for your kids? That's what you're doing if you rely on the MPAA's ratings. The MPAA would argue that they use criteria to take some of the subjectivity out of it, but a quick look at the guide for the ratings system will show you that in place of subjectivity, they've inserted arbitrariness.
Video games suffer from from much of the same problem under the ESRB's rating system. While the descriptors are again helpful, the rating itself is nearly useless. All one needs to do is compare the Halo games to the Grand Theft Auto games. One has been all over the news (though, mostly Fox) because of the things you could do: killing policemen, patronizing prostitutes, killing prostitutes, buying, selling and using drugs, driving drunk and the list goes on. In Halo, faceless space marines defend the world from alien invaders. Unlike Grand Theft Auto, there's no cursing, no drugs, no alcohol, no blood, the violence is cartoonish rather than graphic, and there is not a prostitute to be found. The fact that these games are given the same "M" (mature) rating shows you what a joke the system is.
While the discriptors in the movie and game rating systems can be helpful, the actual ratings are arbitrary and inconsistent. Anybody who wants to know what's really going on in a movie or game would be well served to look beyond what the ESRB and MPAA are providing you, because they're not giving you much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)