Washington, DC is in the dark ages when it comes to voting methods. We still do paper ballots AND the pencils they give us don't have erasers. What's up with that? If you make a mistake (as I did once) you can't erase the line you've accidentally drawn in. No, you have to shamefacedly go to the ballot clerk, admit your error and ask for a new ballot.
So while some jurisdictions are worry about electronic systems and fraud, I'm hoping that at some point we might be able to get erasers. Is that too much to ask?
The thing is that the next generation is going to be far more comfortable with an electronic system -- many of them probably haven't even SEEN a pencil. A recent article in the Washington Post bears this out. In "Young VA Voters Go High Tech," Tara Bahrampour tells the story of a student government election at an Arlington elementary school that was done entirely by computer (only kindergartners, who probably wouldn't be able to read the ballot, were given paper ballots with pictures). Most students agreed that it was much easier and less confusing than the old way.
How likely do you think they will be to tolerate our old-fashioned paper ballots? I think a revolution is afoot!
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Reflections on the Elections
In November, 1994 I had the opportunity to be part of history when Republicans took over the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Of course, I was on the losing side of that battle: my boss lost his seat and I lost a job I loved. And I wasn’t alone. Most of the people I knew on the hill – from senior Committee staff to lowly staff assistants -- lost their jobs. Two-income families suddenly become no-income. Staffers with 19 years of experience took jobs as front desk staff to hang on to their pensions. Very few organizations off the hill wanted to hire Democrats and some people were out of work for months. And to top it off we saw dramatic changes being proposed to some of the institutions we’d spent years nurturing – from public broadcasting to welfare. It was a tough time.
Perhaps the Democrats had become arrogant and complaisant and deserved to be taken down a peg. Perhaps Congress needed a shake-up and some new perspectives. Nevertheless, as I boarded the long flight home from the campaign on the day after the election (wearing dark glasses to hide my red, puffy eyes) it was impossible to have such a philosophical perspective about the future. I was unemployed and potentially unemployable, as was almost everyone I knew – it was like the Great Depression had hit.
Today I’ll admit that it’s tempting to gloat. Now the “other side” is going to get a taste of what it’s like to reduce staff levels by 2/3rds and suddenly have everyone stop returning your phone calls. But gloating probably isn’t going to get any of us anywhere. If the American people “spoke” (as many people say they did), they said “let’s stop bickering like 12-year olds and actually do some real work.”
As to the exact nature of that “real work,” well, reasonable people will disagree. Some will consider dealing with the war in Iraq as most important. Others will want Congress to focus on increasing access to health care. Still others will consider ethics reform as the most important matter. The thing about “real work” is that it’s a little like pornography – it’s difficult to describe, but we’ll know it when we see it.
Clearly, it will take some time for the new leadership to sort out their priorities, and that’s where your efforts come in. Grassroots organizations have a golden opportunity in the next few months to let elected officials know what YOU think should be brought to the forefront. Elections serve as important reminders to “those people in Washington” that the people play a critical role in our American democracy. Newly elected members and incumbents alike are thinking about their constituents right now. Take advantage of this time to have your voice heard!
As always, tips on effective advocacy can be found on our resource page at http://www.advocacyguru.com/resources.htm. You can also find the book on effective communication with Congress at http://www.advocacyguru.com/books.htm
Go forth – and no gloating.
Perhaps the Democrats had become arrogant and complaisant and deserved to be taken down a peg. Perhaps Congress needed a shake-up and some new perspectives. Nevertheless, as I boarded the long flight home from the campaign on the day after the election (wearing dark glasses to hide my red, puffy eyes) it was impossible to have such a philosophical perspective about the future. I was unemployed and potentially unemployable, as was almost everyone I knew – it was like the Great Depression had hit.
Today I’ll admit that it’s tempting to gloat. Now the “other side” is going to get a taste of what it’s like to reduce staff levels by 2/3rds and suddenly have everyone stop returning your phone calls. But gloating probably isn’t going to get any of us anywhere. If the American people “spoke” (as many people say they did), they said “let’s stop bickering like 12-year olds and actually do some real work.”
As to the exact nature of that “real work,” well, reasonable people will disagree. Some will consider dealing with the war in Iraq as most important. Others will want Congress to focus on increasing access to health care. Still others will consider ethics reform as the most important matter. The thing about “real work” is that it’s a little like pornography – it’s difficult to describe, but we’ll know it when we see it.
Clearly, it will take some time for the new leadership to sort out their priorities, and that’s where your efforts come in. Grassroots organizations have a golden opportunity in the next few months to let elected officials know what YOU think should be brought to the forefront. Elections serve as important reminders to “those people in Washington” that the people play a critical role in our American democracy. Newly elected members and incumbents alike are thinking about their constituents right now. Take advantage of this time to have your voice heard!
As always, tips on effective advocacy can be found on our resource page at http://www.advocacyguru.com/resources.htm. You can also find the book on effective communication with Congress at http://www.advocacyguru.com/books.htm
Go forth – and no gloating.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Engaging those 20 Something in Advocacy
One of the chapters of the book I'm writing (E-scapism: We're Not Tuning Out, We're Plugging in) focuses on the relationship between e-scapism and citizen advocacy. And wouldn't you know it, but USA Today did an article on how the 20-somethings (variously known as Generation Y, the Echo Boomers and the Millenials) have been powered by the Internet to become involved in the world around them. The catch is that they're involved in non-traditional ways. Rather than doing boring things like, oh, voting, they might instead start an online petition or join an virtual community of concerned citizens.
Unfortunately, because our current measures of "political involvement" focus on very traditional ideas (being an active member of a political party, signing a paper petition, joining a boycott, etc.), we are inclined to think that the Millenials are disengaged. In fact, they aren't necessarily "disengaged." They're just "differently engaged." Where they are turned off by the negativity of traditional politics, they might be turned on by a social consciousness that is more broadly focused on helping the poor or bettering the environment.
So next time you think to yourself -- gee, those young people just don't care -- be careful. They may care more than you think. They're just expressing it in a new way.
Unfortunately, because our current measures of "political involvement" focus on very traditional ideas (being an active member of a political party, signing a paper petition, joining a boycott, etc.), we are inclined to think that the Millenials are disengaged. In fact, they aren't necessarily "disengaged." They're just "differently engaged." Where they are turned off by the negativity of traditional politics, they might be turned on by a social consciousness that is more broadly focused on helping the poor or bettering the environment.
So next time you think to yourself -- gee, those young people just don't care -- be careful. They may care more than you think. They're just expressing it in a new way.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Making politics fun again!
Over the last several decades, Americans have turned out for elections at a rate significantly less than European countries – or even our own past. In fact, in the 1800’s and 1900’s, turn out rates were around 65 to 80%. Today, we’re lucky fi we hit 40%.
Why is that? Well, part of it is, of course, ongoing dissatisfaction and disillusionment with politics. Negative campaigning turns some people off. Others think that politicians don’t really listen to citizens anyway, and have translated that into an idea that voting doesn’t matter (never mind that they certainly won’t listen to you if you’re not speaking -- but I digress). In still other cases, registration requirements, which were designed to limit some of the, umm, interesting practices of “voting early and voting often” or turning in ballots for those that were no longer among the living, have erected barriers to participation.
But what does it really boil down to? Voting just doesn’t feel fun anymore. Whereas 100 years ago voting on election day was a national pastime, today it feels like a chore. You have to find time to go to your local polling place, face quizzes from the workers as to your identity (are you sure you’re Stephanie Vance? What’s you address?), and then fill out the ballot in a very specific manner or face the humiliation of asking for a new ballot (yes, I’ve done that). No one feels inspired to go to the polling booth and then hit the local bar with friends to speculate, and argue, about the outcomes of the elections.
Perhaps our attention has been distracted by other forms of amusement (television, video games, etc.), and we no longer need to spectacle of politics to keep us entertained. But I wonder how a society that LOVES the World Wrestling Federation and Nascar can possibly find politics boring. Have you seen some of the fights out there lately? It’s better than a night of bare knuckle boxing.
This election day, think about what you can do to really enjoy the spectacle. Invite both donkey and elephant friends over for a party. Set up a system of tracking totals for both the House and the Senate. Award prizes for people who are closest in terms of guessing the final numbers.
Oh yeah, and vote!
Why is that? Well, part of it is, of course, ongoing dissatisfaction and disillusionment with politics. Negative campaigning turns some people off. Others think that politicians don’t really listen to citizens anyway, and have translated that into an idea that voting doesn’t matter (never mind that they certainly won’t listen to you if you’re not speaking -- but I digress). In still other cases, registration requirements, which were designed to limit some of the, umm, interesting practices of “voting early and voting often” or turning in ballots for those that were no longer among the living, have erected barriers to participation.
But what does it really boil down to? Voting just doesn’t feel fun anymore. Whereas 100 years ago voting on election day was a national pastime, today it feels like a chore. You have to find time to go to your local polling place, face quizzes from the workers as to your identity (are you sure you’re Stephanie Vance? What’s you address?), and then fill out the ballot in a very specific manner or face the humiliation of asking for a new ballot (yes, I’ve done that). No one feels inspired to go to the polling booth and then hit the local bar with friends to speculate, and argue, about the outcomes of the elections.
Perhaps our attention has been distracted by other forms of amusement (television, video games, etc.), and we no longer need to spectacle of politics to keep us entertained. But I wonder how a society that LOVES the World Wrestling Federation and Nascar can possibly find politics boring. Have you seen some of the fights out there lately? It’s better than a night of bare knuckle boxing.
This election day, think about what you can do to really enjoy the spectacle. Invite both donkey and elephant friends over for a party. Set up a system of tracking totals for both the House and the Senate. Award prizes for people who are closest in terms of guessing the final numbers.
Oh yeah, and vote!
Monday, October 16, 2006
Perhaps this is a Dog Bites Man kind of story...
... but, it appears that campaign ads are getting nastier and nastier. A recent article in CQ indicates that a number of factors have converged in 2006 to make this the most negative campaign ever. First of all, there's the fight between Republicans and Democrats for control of the House and Senate. Second, there's all the fodder that both parties have thrown toward the campaigns (either willingly or unwillingly) in terms of scandals and ethics problems. Finally, of course, there's the ongoing disagreement over the war and whether as a country we're doing OK or whether we're on the verge of a horrific terrorist attack or economic collapse. For the party in power, that's a fine line to walk. For the party out of power, it's been difficult to deliver a cohesive message on what their candidates would do differently.
Unfortunately, negativity seems to work, especially when campaigns are sophisticated enough to "narrow-cast" their messages in such a way as to reach segments of the population with specific negative messages that focus on what those individuals care most about. Campaigns have the ability to run ads that, for example, tell people who have self-identified as "concerned about security" how the "other guy" will leave them open to terrorist threats and attacks. That "gets them where they live" as it were, and is tremendously effective.
Check out the article online here: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/
midterm_meanness_negative_ads.html
Unfortunately, negativity seems to work, especially when campaigns are sophisticated enough to "narrow-cast" their messages in such a way as to reach segments of the population with specific negative messages that focus on what those individuals care most about. Campaigns have the ability to run ads that, for example, tell people who have self-identified as "concerned about security" how the "other guy" will leave them open to terrorist threats and attacks. That "gets them where they live" as it were, and is tremendously effective.
Check out the article online here: http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/
midterm_meanness_negative_ads.html
Friday, October 06, 2006
The Politics of Marriage
Did anyone else see the really interesting USA Today article a few weeks ago on the "marriage divide" in politics? Turns out that the 25 districts with the highest percentage of married people are ALL Republican held and that the 25 districts with the lowest percentage of married people are ALL held by Democrats. Only ONE of the top 50 districts with the highest rates of married couples (and that's, ummm, traditionally married couples), is represented by a Democrat. That's pretty astounding and clearly indicates a "marriage divide."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-marriage-gap_x.htm
Further, the Democratic-controlled seats also tend to have fewer traditional two parent households than the Republican-controlled seats, which explains why the parties talk about children's issues differently. Chris Cannon from, not surprisingly, Utah, has the most number of children in his district. The vast majority of them (84%) are in two parent households. In another district with a high number of children, Jose Serrano's in New York City, only 29% of the kids live in two parent households. This fact offers startling evidence as to why the two members talk about "family issues" in completely different ways.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-fertility-gap_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-marriage-gap_x.htm
Further, the Democratic-controlled seats also tend to have fewer traditional two parent households than the Republican-controlled seats, which explains why the parties talk about children's issues differently. Chris Cannon from, not surprisingly, Utah, has the most number of children in his district. The vast majority of them (84%) are in two parent households. In another district with a high number of children, Jose Serrano's in New York City, only 29% of the kids live in two parent households. This fact offers startling evidence as to why the two members talk about "family issues" in completely different ways.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-fertility-gap_x.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)