The Independent View: National Democracy Slam 2015 Agenda

This is a continuation of a prior post.

This all day event is on April 22, 2015, at the Washington College of Law, American University in Washington D.C.

The concept is to have 17 Ideas for Breaking Partisan Deadlock, Ending Gerrymandering, and Improving American's Politics by advocates who will make their case, be rebutted, and finally be judged and rated after their 5-6 minute elevator speech.

Reform #1: Fix current primary election system with ranked choice voting
Rob Richie of FairVote - on his paper with Stanford’s Larry Diamond why traditional primary rules and California Top Two model should be fixed with ranked choice voting and forms of Louisiana Top-Two model.

I have been posting about this for awhile. I would remove the primary process, allow candidates to get on the ballot through either petition signatures or a filing fee, then have an open General Election with Ranked-Choice voting. To maintain party's right of association issues, party officer and issues should be on a separate ballot just for party members.

Reform #2: Shareholders, not CEOs, decide on corporate political spending
Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen - on reforms for SEC rules to ensure shareholders have a right to know and engage with how their CEO’s are spending money they invest in politics and Jamie Raskin on his “Shareholders United” proposal.

I have put forward this reform since the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court.

Reform #3: Guarantee access for a third candidate to presidential debates
Alexandra Shapiro of Change the Rule - on guaranteeing third candidate in presidential
debates based on ballot access and signature collection with a rebuttal by David Lublin.

I have spoken for this reform since 2001.

Reform #4: Factor women candidates in Voting Rights Act case remedies
Dania Korkor of FairVote - on why representation of women candidates of color deserves
consideration in decisions about Section 2 voting rights remedies.

Reform #5: Reduce impact of money on elections with voting rule reforms
Mark Schmitt of the New American Foundation - on his paper with FairVote’s Rob Richie on why reform of voting rules and ballots should be pursued to reduce the demand for money in elections with a rebuttal by Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen.

I have put forward this reform since the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court.

Reform #6: Free courts from redistricting thicket with fair representation voting systems
Drew Spencer of FairVote - on "Escaping the Redistricting Political Thicket" paper, written with Cam Ferrante, on the legal argument for fair representation voting to free courts from choosing among competing redistricting criteria with the rebuttal by
Trent England, OCPA.

The Supreme Court is looking at this now and seems to lean with the concept that the constitution and state constitutions say that only the legislature can perform redistricting.

Reform #7: Require all citizens to cast a ballot
William Galston of the Brookings Institution - makes the case for compulsory voting and the impact of high voter turnout elections with the rebuttal by Sarah John, FairVote.

President Obama has recently spoke about this issue.

Reform #8: Best state reform of Electoral College is National Popular Vote
John Koza of National Popular Vote and State Senator Jamie Raskin debate
Trent England of Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and Sean Parnell of Impact Policy Management, with audience vote on merits of National Popular Vote and final words from participants.

I would favor this process: If a Presidential candidate gets over 50% they get all the state's Electoral votes. Otherwise, the vote becomes proportional with the state determining how the split is decided.

Reform #9: Government By the People Act Small-Donor Empowerment and Public-Match Financing
Congressman John Sarbanes (MD-3) with rebuttal by Sean Parnell, Impact Policy Management.

Reform #10: Right to Vote Amendment, (HJ Res 25)
Congressman Mark Pocan (WI-2).

The audience, both there and on-line, will vote on the merits of #9 and #10.

Reform #11: Fair representation voting–Lessons from Illinois history with cumulative voting
Rob Richie, FairVote

Reform #12: Ranked-Choice voting – Lessons from civility study of local elections
Grace Ramsey, FairVote

Reform #13: Collaborative policymaking in legislatures – Lessons from 2014 study
Andrew Douglas, FairVote

Reform #14: Forms of Top Two primary – Lessons from California and Washington
Harry Kresky, Open Primaries

Reform #15: Independent redistricting - Lessons from Arizona and Iowa
Aaron Scherb, Common Cause

Reform #16: Structural changes to advance gender parity in legislatures
Cynthia Terrell, Representation 2020

Reform #17: Fixing primaries by boosting turnout in a national primary
John Fortier, Bipartisan Policy Center

Judges will evaluating, from 1 (no impact) to 5 (major impact), the 17 reforms:

- David Lublin, American University
- Melinda Henneberger, Bloomberg Politics
- Heather Booth, Community Organizer
- John Hudak, Brooking Institution
- Norm Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute
- Jennifer Lawless, American University

These proposals will also be evaluated by the judges and fellow presenters from 1 (no impact) to 5 (major impact) on viability and degree of impact for congressional elections:

- Voter turnout and political participation
- Fair representation of parties and political groups
- Fair representation of racial minorities and woman
- Electoral competitiveness
- Alleviating polarization in Congress

Finally, my redoing the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act.

I do not see this ever being resolved in Congress. So I would take it out of Congress's hands by making it part of the Census process.

At the beginning of the Census, all states would be put on preclearance. Then the states would have 90 days to submit their last 10 years of voting records. The resulting review would determine which states would be subject to preclearance. After this process, state's redistricting would begin, with the states covered having to get approval for their plan. , finally, the preclearance format would have to be flexible to handle new forms of of voter suppression.