In national and state-wide elections, some ballots encourage straight party-line voting, a really stupid way to vote. I am talking about jungle ballots - ballots on which 40, 50, 60 or more elective offices and propositions are listed. Voters, even some of the most intelligent ones, cannot be expected to familiarize themselves with all the candidates when there are so many offices to vote on.
A case in point is this year's presidential election ballot for Harris County (Houston), Texas. There are at least 114 candidates (57 Democrats, 57 Republicans) to choose from, including 76 judges (38 Democrats, 38 Republicans). And there are additional candidates representing other political parties for some of the offices on that ballot. When you have that many candidates, many voters are likely to vote a straight party-line ticket. Since not all candidates in one party are good and not all candidates in the other party are evil, those who vote that way are voting to elect some really sorry ass candidates.
A big part of the problem is that in many states like Texas, all candidates, regardless of what position they are seeking, are chosen in party primaries. That is not the way it shoud be! There are many elective offices that should be non-partisan. As a matter of fact, the only candidates that should be chosen according to party affiliation are those that are running for legislative or executive positions - candidates for the U.S. Congress, state legislature, city council, county commission or board of supervisors, U.S. President, state governor, mayor and county executive.
There is really no good reason why any law enforcement officials and judicial office holders should be elected accoring to party affiliation. There should be no such thing as a Democratic or Republican sheriff, constable, or dog catcher for that matter. Their job is to enforce the laws that have been legislated, and to do so without regard to any political philosophy. The same goes for prosecuting (district) attorneys and city or county attorneys.
There are those who believe that judges should be appointed rather than elected. I don't have a problem with electing judges as long as they are chosen in a non-partisan manner. It is a judge's responsibility to make judicial decisions based on objective interpetations of laws, absent of any political bias. The laws in our land are not Democratic or Republican laws, they are federal or state laws enacted by Congress or state legislatures.
There are other elective offices which should be non-partisan - district (county) clerk, treasurer, tax assessor or collector, etc.. Will a Democrat or Republican do a better job of collecting taxes? That question is no more ridiculous than electing the tax collector according to party affiliation.
I have a friend who told me he was going to vote a straight Republican ticket. He is a little pissed off at me because I told him that was stupid. I pointed to some Republicans who definitely do not deserve election or re-election to office, but he is so disgusted with the Democrats that, while he agreed with some of my opinions, he still intended to vote a straight party-line ticket.
Voters, whether Democrats or Republicans, should be encouraged to make intelligent choices. Jungle ballots, like this year's Harris County ballot, have just the opposite effect. I have long maintained that America has a lot of ignorant voters (See my blog "Clueless Voters in Harlem" 10-12-08). Jungle ballots may lead even intelligent voters to make stupid choices. We can eliminate jungle ballots by electing law enforcemnet officials and judicial officers in one state or local primary open to Democrats, Republicans and independents alike because then their offices would not be listed on the general election ballot.
EDITOR'S NOTE (11-7-08): Prior to the election, all of the Harris County District Court Judges, the equivalent of Superior Court judges in California and Supreme Court judges in New York, had been Republicans. With Democrats in the majority this go-around, 80% of those judges were swept out of office, some having been outstanding jurists. That means only 20% of the Democrats voted intelligently. The other 80% voted the straight Democratic ticket.
No comments:
Post a Comment