Election 2000: Can we revitalize the process?

With the elections coming in November, University Week is offering a series of faculty interviews on election-related issues. First up is John Gastil, assistant professor of speech communication and author of “By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections.”

UNIVERSITY WEEK: America is a seeing a very competitive presidential race, with a series of debates beginning next week. So what’s wrong with the system?

GASTIL: There are two problems in American politics. The first problem is that most Americans do not believe that elected officials represent their interests. The second problem is that they are correct.

Neither debates nor term limits nor campaign finance reforms will solve these problems. Such reforms focus on the candidates, rather than the electorate. Our distrust for politicians makes them easy targets, but a more sober approach to political change forces us to look in the mirror.

John Gastil

Most of us are unsure of our opinions on complex policy issues. Since candidate evaluations partly depend on knowing the underlying issues, this makes careful voting very difficult. Most of us do not know much about most of the candidates. Most of us are also too busy - or sometimes too lazy - to remedy these problems.

As a result, we try to make decisions quickly by taking “cognitive short cuts.” For instance, in general elections, most of us assume that a candidate’s political party membership is the best indicator of policy views. In primary elections, voters routinely choose among candidates based on their age, area of residence, sex, or surname. More often than we’d care to admit, we choose the candidate whose name is more familiar or whose face we can recall from advertisements.

Sometimes we rely upon the careful judgment of a trusted friend or an organization that shares our views. We may go over a sample ballot with a spouse or co-worker, or we may carry into the voting booth a guide provided by our preferred political organization. In either case, we’re admitting the depth of our ignorance and hoping that other people’s judgments will be better informed.

UNIVERSITY WEEK: So what’s the solution?

GASTIL: At least for the forseeable future, sound electoral reform must acknowledge these realities: the limited amount of voters’ basic knowledge, time, and energy. To be effective, a reform must improve the judgments that citizens make within these constraints. In essence, what I argue for is a reform that provides the busy citizen with a more compelling and informative cognitive short cut.

I propose that voters should have access to the results of representative citizen deliberation on the candidates and issues that appear on their ballots. Using random samples of the general public, the Washington Secretary of State could sponsor citizen panels on legislative issues, individual candidates, and ballot measures. Over five days, panelists would meet with expert witnesses, deliberate among themselves, and reach judgments about candidates and issues. On the final day, panel participants would vote on candidates and issues and summarize the results of their deliberations

The Washington Secretary of State and county clerks could communicate these results to voters through simple election guides mailed to every registered household. These guides would provide issue summaries and judgments written by the citizen panelists, as well as candidate positions and rationales.

Voters could quickly scan this information to select candidates whose views match their own. Those voters unsure of their views could at least learn which candidates agree with their peers - the legislative panels - on specific issues. Through this process, citizens would give one another valuable voting cues they could use to make decisions.

UNIVERSITY WEEK: That sounds like a radical change. How do we know if it would work?

GASTIL: Washington could test the panels over a limited number of years, only keeping them in place if they proved worth the cost. If the citizen panels produce more deliberative elections and result in the passage of better legislation by elected officials, they will have been worth the effort. If they have this effect, they are even likely to achieve the most elusive goal of all - restoring the public’s trust in government.