Oct 02 2009
Reformers as a Barrier to Reform
I’ve already written about localism and partisanship, the two reasons that Heather Gerken identifies as barriers to good election administration. As I stated, election administration is no different than any other area of government when it comes to those two issues. But a few other issues also need to be addressed and the failure of election reform people to address them will be a failure to truly reform.
One of those issues is the actions of reformers themselves. Gerken herself points to the problem at various points, but excuses it more than condemns. To her credit, I quoted her after the last election. “It confirmed my view that we should never attribute to partisanship that which can be adequately explained by inadequate resources.” But in the Democracy Index she devotes dozens of pages to criticism of partisans and little but excuses to the reformers. Samples from her book are quoted below.
Two points are interesting here. First, Gerken’s book begins with an assessment of the problem, partisanship and localism, and then suggests that we start collecting data. She is apparently not willing to wait for the data before making her assessments.
Second, just why do reformers need to “mischaracterize problems”. Why are their opinions “necessarily atmospheric.”? Why the “demonization”? Are election administrators willing and often enthusiastic about sitting down to talk about how to improve the system? Absolutely. Is our enthusiasm curbed at times? Yes. How excited would you be to sit down with Gerken if she had written this broadside about you? “Because people can be deterred by long lines, you will want to reduce the number of polling places or voting machines in areas where your opponent’s supporters live.” She decries the lack of data, but makes this serious charge without one piece of data to support it.
As Gerken says, data can be both a sword and shield. But right now, election administrators are routinely fighting a host of reformers who run the gamut from ill-informed to maliciously lying. In addition, those who are claiming to want data are also pushing ahead with reforms in the absence of data, leaving administrators wondering about the seriousness of the spoken desire of reformers for facts. The tenor of the debate between reformers and administrators can improve today, with data or without. I think the ball is in the reformers court.
Here are a few snippets from the book.
“The problem with reform battles in a world without data is that we all end up acting too much like Lev Tolstoy’s coachmen. When there’s no evidence to analyze, there’s not much left to do but shout. We lack the information we need to be confident that we’ve correctly identified the problem and chosen the right solution. We argue incessantly about which path election reform should take even though no one can even map where we are right now.” Page 57
“Without comparative data on performance we cannot know whether, for instance, well-funded systems tend to succeed or whether the key is centralization, better training or nonpartisan administration.” Page 64
Reformers “have to talk mostly in generalities,” boserves Jonah Goldman of the national Campaign for Fair Elections, because the underlying policy debates seem so “dull”.
Page 67“as jonah goldman points out, debates about paper trails have become salient in large part because reformers came up with a simple metaphor for capturing the problem: if we can get a receipt for an ATM, why cant’ touch screen vote machines generate a paper trail? That frame drives some experts crazy because they think it fundamentally mischaracterizes the problem. But it’s certainly driven policymaking, confirming physicist G.C. Lichtenberg’s observation that “a good metaphor is something even the police should keep an eye on.” page 79
While top policymakers may be reluctant to hold election officials accountable based on the necessarily atmospheric opinions of reformers,…” page 80
“While reformers and bureaucrats in other arenas don’t always get along, relations seem particularly strained in the elections context, a problem that may be partially traceable to the absence of data.” page 83
“ so reformers are tempted to overstate the problem or present solutions as silver bullets.” page 83
“Demonization is just too easy in a world without data.” Page 115
“Do more, do better mantra that reformers must invoke in a world without data.” Page 135
I hear this in my state of NC as well, and yes I am a advocate, possibly a reformer. But over the years I have probably called at least half of the 100 county BoE offices to at least ask one question.
There’s a few I query for their advice and recommendations.
An election official has a really tough job, and in my state, they would not be able to blog like you do, Mark because they have less independence than you.
That is also why a few of them only speak to me completely off the record.
The problem with reforms is that often they are well-intended but do not include a solid feasibility analysis and don’t always include the input of the election administrators.
That is why some of us spend a huge amount of time just trying to undo so reforms and implement others. At least I do my homework, consulting with election officials and national groups that have done a tremendous amount of studying of issues – first before I act.
Thanks again Mark, I WISH more election officials could blog. although I suspect few would match your level of straightforwardness, nor hit on such interesting topics.
Thanks Joyce.
This is where Gerken is right. More data is critical to getting good reform. At the same time, both sides need to be able to come to the table with their biases in check. When I see some of the rhetoric out there, I”m convinced that a good number reformers aren’t prepared to do that.
I’ve had a good relationship with a number of so called reformers here in Champaign County and even in the state. I’ve spent less time on some of the national issues than I would have liked because I just haven’t had that much spare time.
There’s a lot of improvement that can be made. Burying the invective and distortions is a good way to establish a foundation for a working relationship with all sides.
An election administrator is irretrievably tainted with a partisan affiliation. This can be diluted, but not eliminated, by having the administrator appointed by an election commission on which each party is represented. We tried to do this once, without success..
[...] October last year I wrote about Reformers as Barriers to Reform. Here is a portion of that. In addition, those who are claiming to want data are also pushing [...]