Page 152 - Freedom in the world_Neat

Aided by a vigorous press, an energetic civil society, and the determination of whichever
party comprises the “loyal opposition” at each level of the system, today’s American is free
to choose who holds political power and has at least as much influence on the workings of
government as citizens in any other democracy. The process through which citizens
compete for political office, and more generally for influence over government actions and
the substance of public policy, is relatively transparent and accessible to those who choose
to take part.

Yet, as the world famously learned in November and December 2000, the United States
has a remarkably decentralized and diverse set of electoral arrangements in which a
closely decided contest can lead to political firestorms and diminished public confidence in
the integrity of the process. Controversy continues about how the country can compile an
accurate registry of eligible voters, ascertain that these persons each vote only once in
elections when they desire to participate, and be confident in the announced results.
Several major efforts have been undertaken to find solutions consistent with the American
federal system. A bipartisan commission led by former President Jimmy Carter and former
Secretary of State James Baker produced one of the more compelling proposals as part of
a comprehensive set of recommendations in September 2005.1 Yet efforts to improve
electoral administration are often stymied by partisans who insist that the main issue is
either voter fraud or voter disenfranchisement. Dismayingly, because the most consistent
demographic correlation in voting habits is that African Americans tend disproportionately
to vote for Democrats, partisan scuffling for advantage in this regard often veers into racial
stereotyping and race-baiting that complicates resolution.
Other aspects of the national political process are problematic or controversial. In late
2007, the rules of the game are still being established for the presidential contest that is
already well under way, as conflict simmers within the political parties and among the
states about the calendar of primary election dates.2 As in much of American society, the
proper boundaries between private and public responsibility are difficult to discern and
often disputed. (Are the primaries an internal matter for privately organized political
parties? Or does the public interest in the large sums of money spent on elections at every
level of government, and the interest in fair elections that extends well beyond party
members, mean that these are matters of public policy?) The role of money in politics—
who gets to spend how much on which aspects of the electoral and governing processes—
is hotly debated. The power of incumbency is much studied and analyzed: while some
argue that the institutionalization of constituency service by legislators confers an unfair
electoral advantage on those already in office, others see the same dynamic as proof that a
democratic system makes officials responsive to citizen demands.
The predominance of two political parties that have successfully established barriers to
entry for independent candidates and third parties, draw most electoral boundaries for the
protection of incumbents on both sides, and control the electoral machinery itself, is also
noteworthy. Opinion surveys suggest popular disquiet with the existing system, though
voters also tend not to support alternatives when they appear. Moreover, major third-party
bids for the presidency, even when relatively well-funded and successful in attracting
voters, have generally been highly personalized epiphenomena rather than the products of
lasting political organizations. In the current presidential election season, a new effort
called Unity08 has brought together prominent campaigners from both the Republican and
Democratic establishments who seek to launch a bipartisan ticket, avoiding both the

Page 152 of 168