Ballot measures 2-5 don't go far enough - but it's a start.
Next week there is an election in Ohio. Turnout will undoubtedly be low. Most Ohio State students that I've talked with about the election are not even aware of it. Nonetheless, the election will happen, and once again we have a set of ballot measures to deal with.
Last time we endured an embarrassing and unnecessary ballot measure to ban gay marriage driven by special interests, which manipulated the politically ignorant. Now, among mounting tales of political corruption - both within and without the state - here come more poorly-understood measures. This time, measures 2, 3, 4 and 5 are supposedly designed to reform elections in Ohio.
Issue 2 seeks to change absentee voting rules. The new rules would allow absentee voting for anyone who desires to do so without having to give any specific reason. Proponents of the issue say that this change would bring more eligible voters into the election process. Opponents say that the issue will open the door to voter fraud, and cause undue hassle for local election officials. The real reasons, I suggest, are slightly different. Proponents who are unhappy with the fiascos and results of the last election, wish to improve turnout. Opponents want to preserve the status quo, which benefits their interests.
Issue 3 seeks to restrict financial contributions from both individuals and organizations to political candidates, and opens the process to increased public transparency. Proponents say that money is compromising the ethics and representativeness of Ohio elections. Opponents say that this measure is unconstitutional and ineffective, and will benefit labor unions and wealthy candidates. Once again, reality looks a bit different. The proponents want to alter the balance of power in the state, while the opponents want to preserve it.
Issue 4 deals with redistricting of legislative districts with the intention of creating more competitive elections. Currently, the majority of Ohio legislative seats are considered safe seats by the political parties that control them. Issue 4 proposes an independent redistricting commission to redraw legislative district on a formula to make the districts more competitive. Opponents argue that unelected commissioners are not accountable to the public, and that the new formula would produce worse results than the current system. Again I suggest the opponents simply want to preserve the current political balance that favors their interests.
Issue 5 seeks to take election supervision authority out of the hands of the Ohio Secretary of State, and place it in the hands of an appointed board of elections supervisors. Proponents say this would remove the appearance of partisanship in election decisions. Opponents argue that this is unnecessary, and would end local control of elections. In this case, I don't really see why this is necessary. The driving force for this is some of the nonsense in the last election involving Secretary Blackwell. However, if this is necessary to restore faith in the process for many people, it probably won't do any harm.
The proponents of these measures are undoubtedly motivated by the results of the last election, as are the opponents. The underdogs are trying to level the field, and the other side does not want to give up a beneficial situation. But the ballot measures would not, in my opinion, benefit any individual candidates from either party unfairly. The field would be leveled to some extent. Right now, the deck is stacked against the people of Ohio, instead favoring corporate interests and narrow and manipulative partisan agendas.
Curiously, some organizations claiming to be Christian based oppose reforming the government. This is ridiculous, Christianity is meant to be based on the example of Jesus, who was executed for opposing a corrupted social and political system. A true Christian would not support rigged systems and politicians dedicated to preserving an apathetic and diseased political structure. These leaders are not speaking from the teachings of Jesus; they are corrupted and have prostituted themselves to power.
I believe that the measures probably don't go far enough, reform is absolutely needed at all levels of government. And starting from the elections themselves is sensible. If we can get more people involved in government, decrease partisan loyalties and take some of the money out of the equation, the only losers would be the partisan bosses and leeches that feed on the system. Legislators facing more competitive elections would be more accountable to their constituents.
The public will gain and invested interests will lose some of their control. With a deteriorating system unwilling to change itself, perhaps these measures even with shortcomings in their apparently partisan origins, are sensible and will help provoke further reforms to create a better and less corrupt government.
David Hutchnson is a graduate student in the School of Communication. He can be reached for comment at hutchinson.102@osu.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!