Yale Law School professor's suggestion for monitoring election-system integrity hits some marks, misses others.
'The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It,'
by Heather K. Gerken
Princeton University Press, 181 pp., $24.95
Sometimes seemingly little ideas can have a big impact.
In "The Democracy Index," Yale Law School professor Heather K. Gerken proposes that states and local municipalities be ranked based on how well they run their election systems. Such a "democracy index" would evaluate the ease with which voters can register, how long voters have to wait in line to vote, how many ballots are cast but not counted and similar considerations.
Gerken argues that such a ranking - similar to the U.S. News & World Report college rankings - would provide an incentive for state and local governments to implement reform that has, she argues, been stalled by partisan gridlock and parochial local interests.
It certainly can seem like our electoral system is troubled. In 2000, George W. Bush was declared to have been elected president despite the fact that his opponent, then-Vice President Al Gore, received more votes nationwide. After weeks of litigation involving scores of lawyers, the outcome was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2004 it was almost worse. In addition to widespread problems in Ohio, the Washington gubernatorial election was decided only after two recounts and months of litigation. And the 2008 U.S. Senate election in Minnesota sparked the largest recount in American history, followed by the longest and most expensive election contest, which demonstrated that several hundred of absentee ballots for both candidates had been improperly rejected.
Gerken argues that our electoral system is flawed, but only in close elections do the flaws become apparent. Moreover, she contends, because of partisan interests, reform efforts often fail. She suggests that ranking states or counties on how well elections are run will provide an incentive for reform.
While a "democracy index" could be helpful, it's not clear that Gerken has properly identified either the problem or the solution.
For starters, most election administrators work hard to implement improvements every cycle. But the American electoral system largely depends on senior-citizen volunteers working long hours with impatient voters in crowded polling places. Ranking states or counties isn't going to change that or the fact that, in every election, errors will inevitably occur. That's not caused "localism" or "partisanship."
Moreover, most elections are conducted fairly and accurately. Could they improve? Of course - just like every other governmental institution. Long lines, unreliable machines and improperly rejected ballots are unacceptable in any fair system, but those flaws are hardly a secret: they are front-page news and that publicity is far more likely to put corrective pressure on election administrators than being ranked 37 instead of 28 in a composite index of electoral performance.
While Gerken's index is unlikely to hurt, it's a proposal better suited for an op-ed than a whole book. It's difficult to imagine how she could drag out the discussion for 142 tedious pages (not counting footnotes).
Still, it's a good idea. Even if it's a small one.