Carol Moseley Braun, Electoral Systems, and Politics in America

Last night I attended a lecture by former US Ambassador, Senator, and 2004 Presidential Nominee Candidate, Carol Moseley Braun. Her lecture is part of a month-long series "The First Woman President." What a way to kick off the series! She is such a dynamic and accomplished woman! I didn't pay much attention to her in the primaries, but I was quite impressed with her last night. While I can't say that I agree with all of her ideas and policy plans, I was inspired by her determination, courage, and sense of humor. I hope to follow in her footsteps and give my own lecture about what it means to be a woman in high political office.

One of the main difficulties she discussed in running a presidential campaign as a woman was her inability to raise enough money. She cited an interesting statistic that while over 80% of Americans said they would support a female presidential candidate, only 60% said they thought their friends and neighbors would support a female candidate. This perception gap is possibly more detrimental than it seems at first glance. Nobody wants to vote for the candidate that they think is going to lose. If one thinks that no one they know will support a woman for President, why should they vote for her? Perhaps this is part of the fundraising difficulty. In our society, I have a difficult time believing that most Americans think that a woman would be less capable of being an effective leader simply because of her sex. If a woman is educated, experienced, effective, and has demonstrated loyalty to her country and to the people of the US, then why shouldn't she be elected over a man who may have similar qualifications? Are there still people out there who are so narrow minded to think that women are just not supposed to play that role? I know there are. I also that there are people who are overtly racist. That's why we haven't ever elected a Black, Latin, or Asian President. It wasn't until 1969 that a Black woman was in the Senate.

One of the questions posed to Moseley Braun after her talk was about abolishing the Electoral College. Her response was that if the American public can persuade their leaders to change that institution, then it will happen. While the political will of the average citizen can go a long way, I don't know if changing the Constitution to dissolve one of the oldest institutions in our government is possible. There will have to be some major disjuncture in our electoral system that is reiterated in several Presidential elections before it becomes apparent that the Electoral College is antiquated and irrelevant.

This week in my classes, we're talking about electoral systems. We discuss the pros and cons of the single member district/plurality system we use in the States, and the Proportional Representation systems used in many other countries. I always ask my students to state which one they think is better. Usually, I get several different responses . Then they want to know what I think. After all this discussion, I really have to say that I prefer the PR system. I'm even more convinced after Moseley Braun's talk. She cited another stat that at the rate that women are being elected into office, it will be 2080 before we reach gender parity in government. It's pretty clear that PR systems promote gender equality and minority representation. Changing the electoral system here would be more difficult than abolishing the Electoral College. The Electoral College doesn't have any effect on how I go and cast my vote for the President or my Representatives, but switching from plurality to PR, that's a huge change. It's possible, but highly improbable, I think. Campaign finance reform is really the first step in transforming our electoral system.

In the UK there are regulations on the amount of money spent and on the type of media that can be used in political campaigns. No TV commercials or radio adverstisements, only printed media (billboards, flyers, newspaper advertisements, etc.) are permitted. In New Zealand, candidates are only allowed to spend $25,000 on a presidential campaign. This creates a more even playing field and allows for more candidates to participate. Imagine that! Anyone with $25,000 and a few good ideas can get elected. It would really prevent this stupid problem of choosing between two similar candidates with similar educational backgrounds and experience. It would be amazing to have average women and men running for elected office based on their own convictions and plans. Parties would still play a role. A US President without support of the legislature would be totally ineffective. Parties help people identify their political ideology and provide a forum for developing a cohesive plan for governance. Real campaign finance reform is about opportunities, and expanding democracy, not party dominance and corruption. So instead of placing limits on how much money can be raised from certain types of organizations, place limits on how the money can be used. Elections shouldn't be won an lost based on fundraising; they should be won and lost based on who is the most qualified candidate that represents and serves the will of the people.