The Price Of Democracy

Today was election day in my hometown of Somerville. Early this morning, I went to my polling place to vote in the sole race being contested today, the mayoral primary. The mayoral race is non-partisan, so state law requires a primary if the number of candidates exceeds double the number of spaces available. So, today, we rounded down the number of candidates from three to two, and on November 6th, we'll round it down from two to one (despite the fact that the incumbent, Joe Curtatone, carried 77% of the vote in the primary and his reelection is all but assured).

There were about ten senior citizens working the polls this morning, checking people in, handing out ballots, demonstrating to voters how to fill out their ballots (when requested), checking people out once they voted, and directing voters as they fed their ballots into the tabulation machine. Plus, according to state law, a police officer must be present at all times when the polls are open. My polling station is in a private apartment complex for which the city must pay rent. Over the course of the twelve hours during which the polls were open, a mere 154 people cast ballots. And consider that my polling station was just one of approximately twenty scattered throughout the city. When you think about the salaries, police details, and rent, it really adds up.

Consider also that several precincts in Somerville were just at the polls two weeks ago to participate in a special primary election for the state senate seat vacated by Jarrett Barrios. Even though there was a municipal election already scheduled for two weeks later, state law requires special elections to be completed by a certain date after the seat is vacated. So, Somerville needed to set up the whole election apparatus on two separate occasions just 15 days apart. The general election portion of the state senate race is scheduled for October 9th, even though there will already be a municipal election less than a month later.

What bothers me about this system is that the state mandates the schedules and procedures and regulations for elections while the municipalities are stuck paying the bill. A city like Somerville that seeks to save money by consolidating its election finds its hands tied by the state. I'm a huge fan of democracy and I completely support the idea of giving people the right to select their own leaders, but we can do things more efficiently. Therefore, I propose the following changes to the system:

1. Designate two days per year for national and state elections
The state should designate one day in September for a state primary and one day in November for the general election. These days should correspond to any national election days imposed by Congress. Municipalities will know of these dates in advance and can schedule their own elections to correspond in order to save money. If they so desire to spend money on additional or alternate dates, it's up to them. But the state will not mandate any elections beyond those that take place on those two days.

2. Allow for temporary appointments to fill vacant seats
Under this proposed system, elections to fill vacant seats can only take place on one of the two pre-designated dates. So what happens if a seat is vacated ten months before the next election? I propose that the state governor should have the power to temporarily fill vacant seats by appointment, possibly subject to certain restrictions, such as requiring that replacement officers come from the same party as their predecessors. We already allow two-year vacancy appointments for the United States Senate, which is a far more powerful office than anything in a state legislature.

3. Eliminate the primary requirement for non-partisan races
Primaries make sense where individual parties need to select their nominee, but mandatory primaries are much less useful in a nonpartisan race where all candidates run against each other.
If there is no clear winner in an open election, it makes sense to hold a runoff. But where one candidate captures more votes than all of his opponents combined, having a runoff is a waste of time. The way it works in Massachusetts, if three candidates run with the vote totals coming down split 79%-11%-10%, it's clear that the front-runner has a mandate. The second-place candidate gets to stay in the race even though he was spanked by the front-runner and only managed a few more votes than the third-place candidate. A mandatory runoff in the face of such a huge margin of victory is a waste of time.

4. Explore mail-based and internet voting options
Having a brick-and-mortar polling station may be necessary in order to fulfill constitutional requirements (not everyone has a computer, and homeless individuals might not have a mailbox at which a ballot can be sent to them). But if a municipality wants to consolidate its polling stations and encourage people to vote by remote means, it should be encouraged. Of course, any system will need to have safeguards to prevent tampering and voter fraud, but the future is in cyberspace voting. States and municipalities should recognize the cost savings in such approaches and start moving in that direction.