After publishing my piece advocating for a uniform system for conducting federal elections, I was prepared for pushback from the usual suspects (read that as libertarians). I expected arguments along the lines of “the Constitution leaves it up to the states”; Tenth Amendment; federalism, blah, blah, blah. Much to my surprise, the pushback was minimal. Overall, the initial response was positive. It was not a testament to my brilliant advocacy but a recognition that the election chaos we witnessed in 2020 cannot be allowed to continue.
Whatever happens with the election, it is absolutely clear that mass mail in voting and early voting was a disaster that should not ever be repeated
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 19, 2020
Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for conservatives to fall into the usual traps which have made them perennial losers in the battles against the Left. Instead of countering Democrat proposals, the GOP retuned to the old talking point that elections should not be federalized. States and local governments should have the exclusive right to run elections as they see fit.
Refusing to implement federal standards gives Democrats an edge. It allows them to further consolidate blue states. Democrats also control most of the large population centers in red states and are able to supply votes needed to flip the state. We have seen this in Georgia, Arizona and Texas could be just around the corner. In 2020, Donald Trump won the state by roughly 630,000 votes. The Houston area alone can easily deliver a million additional votes for Democrats. It doesn’t even have to involve fraud – just loosening standards will do.
Another reason the GOP should establish federal standards is to lessen the influence of Corporate America. It has become customary for large corporations to flex their economic muscle to impose their agenda on red states. It happened in Indiana when California business leaders threatened boycotts because they objected to the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Recently, Major League Baseball pulled out the All-Star Game in Atlanta to protest Georgia’s election laws. Clearly Corporate America doesn’t believe in federalism. If the GOP were to adopt federal standards, what is Corporate America going to do? Boycott the entire country?
Anyway, here are two additional proposals:
REDUCING THE INFLUENCE OF MEGA-DONORS
Confidence in our representative form of government cannot be restored until the influence of wealthy donors is reined in. Don’t let politicians stroke your ego by telling you that “We the people” have the power in this country. We don’t. While the people’s priorities are repeatedly stymied in Congress, the donor class never has a problem finding veto proof majorities for its agenda. How many times have voters elected presidents promising a less bellicose foreign policy only to see America involved in new military conflicts? For how long have voters in border states voted for candidates promising to crack down on illegal immigration and yet the stream of migrants into the country continues unabated? How many times have Democrat voters elected candidates promising a single payer healthcare system or raising the federal minimum wage? Yet both items remain unfulfilled.
It was the landmark Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision that opened the way for the billionaire class to make a mockery of our democracy. The decision essentially held that money equals speech. If money equals speech, then billionaires like Bill Gates have lots of speech while a poor man has none. Still think “We the people” have power? Thanks to Buckley v. Valeo, George Soros was able to install District Attorneys in key cities who allowed BLM/Antifa to riot unimpeded while the McCloskey’s faced charges for waving guns in an attempt to protect their home. In 2020, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated $400 million to fund election infrastructure – e.g. polling places, drop boxes, workers – to maximize turnout in Democrat leaning areas.
One way to reduce the purchasing power of mega donors is to enact laws – ideally at the federal level – that only allow residents of the district or state to contribute to political candidates (H/T: John T.) Said restriction should also apply to funding grassroots efforts related to elections, i.e. registration drives, turnout operations. anything election related.
Under my proposal, Zuckerberg would only be able to fund “Safe Elections” in the state where he is registered to vote. Soros would not be able to drop millions into District Attorney elections around the country. Mike Bloomberg could not fund Stacey Abrams’ drive to turn Georgia blue. The foundation of our form of government is “We the People” electing candidates to represent our communities. Requiring candidates to raise funds exclusively in their districts or states will result in a system more responsive to the voters instead of the donor class.
BAN PUBLIC OPINION POLLS
I can hear the howls of “What about the First Amendment???”. As with any other right listed in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment is not absolute. Slander is not protected speech. Neither is yelling “Fire” in a crowd theater. Obscenity laws have long restricted content on radio or television. Banning opinion polls is consistent with the First Amendment provided it is shown that they are harmful to the common good.
A cost/benefit analysis of public opinion polls quickly reveals that costs to our body politics outweigh the benefits. Other than the pure entertainment of following a horse race, what benefits do public opinion polls provide? The harm, on the other hand, is quite substantial.
To begin with, public opinion polls are the primary propaganda means used by the donor class to manufacture consent. Although Americans think of themselves as individualists, they are subject to the herding instinct like any other human group on earth. And it is exactly this instinct that propagandists or even simple marketers prey upon. Humans like to be part of the herd. The bandwagon effect is real. From pet rocks to viral TikTok trends, the masses simply cannot resist the pull of being part of the crowd.
In recent years, opinion polls have squeezed out discussions about issues, record or policy proposals. Much easier for lazy reporters to focus on who is up/down than to do an in-depth analysis of healthcare policy or investigate the background of candidates. Political consultants use polls to create a sense of inevitability around their candidate. This has several negative effects. It could dissuade potential challengers, even better qualified candidates, from entering a race. It can lead to less voter participation. If the outcome is preordained, why bother to learn about issues or candidates’ record? In that case, why bother voting?
Let me be clear. My proposal does not affect the private use of opinion polls. If a candidate wants to gauge public sentiment to sharpen his/her message, no problem. Poll away. However, there is absolutely no need for public polls. Issues and records must be the focus of the conversation. That is, if the goal is to rescue American democracy.
