[VIDEO] San Vicente, a small town in Palawan, is on its way to becoming one of the country's hottest tourist spots. This report by Brian Poe aired on CNN Phlippines' "Newsroom," on Monday, March 23, 2015.
Thursday, 26 March 2015
Thursday, 19 March 2015
Opinion: Should Americans be forced to vote?
- William Galston: Compulsory voting could move politics away from polarization and gridlock
- Haydon Manning: In Australia, voters face misleading negative ads and banal sloganeering
- Donna Brazile: We require jury attendance, paying taxes, so why not voting?
(CNN) -- If past votes are any guide, turnout in this year's midterm elections could be about 40% of the voting age population. Australia and some other democracies take steps to require citizens to vote. CNN Opinion invited several political experts to discuss whether the United States would be better off if it had mandatory voting. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.
William Galston: James Madison would be smiling
Let's imagine a future in which Americans must vote, or face a penalty.
It's April 2021. Media outlets around the country headlined major agreements between Democrats and Republicans on the long-stalled issues of tax and immigration reform. Commentators marveled at the momentous shift in American politics away from the polarization and gridlock of the previous two decades.
What happened? Although opinions differed, observers agreed on one key point: The decision to follow the lead of countries such as Australia and institute mandatory voting in national elections transformed the political landscape. As turnout rose from 60% to 90%, citizens with less intense partisan and ideological commitments flooded into the electorate. Campaigns could no longer prevail simply by mobilizing core supporters. Instead, they had to persuade swing voters to come their way. They soon discovered that these new voters preferred compromise to confrontation and civil discourse to scorched-earth rhetoric. Candidates who presented themselves as willing to reach across the aisle to get things done got a boost while zealots went down to defeat.
Both political parties soon realized that they had a stake in a nominating process that produced the kinds of candidates the expanded electorate preferred. They eliminated party caucuses dominated by intense minorities and opened up their primaries to independents. They discovered that maximizing participation in their primaries was the best way of preparing for the general election. Individual donors, who wanted to invest in winners, favored candidates who could command broad support.
Once in office, members of the House and Senate tried hard to keep faith with the expanded electorate that had sent them to Washington. They spent less time in party caucuses and more doing serious legislative work. Congressional leaders returned power to the committees, where members relearned the art of compromise across party lines.
And somewhere, James Madison was smiling. Reforming institutions to change incentives is always the most effective course, and once again it had worked.
William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in its governance studies program.
Gretchen Helmke and Bonnie Meguid: Motive is not what you think
With roughly 40% of eligible citizens voting, turnout in U.S. midterm elections is notoriously low. Compulsory voting offers one possible, if radical, solution. Like any political institution, laws on it have multiple, if disputed, consequences.
Today, compulsory voting exists in roughly a quarter of all democracies in the world, ranging from Western Europe and Australia to Latin America and Asia. Yet few believe that it stands any chance of being adopted in the United States. Why?
Our research suggests that the decision to adopt compulsory voting is largely strategic. While proponents often couch their arguments in terms of public benefits, it appears that parties around the world have been more likely to adopt it when such laws stand to favor their candidates and hurt their opponents.
Changing the electoral rules is not a risk-free proposition, however. Governing parties are unlikely to modify the rules that elected them. Only governing parties with relatively under-mobilized electorates and a growing opposition find compulsory voting an attractive option.
Interestingly, conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th century in Western Europe and Latin America were the first to champion compulsory voting. Expansion of suffrage dramatically shifted the composition of the voting population, while industrialization swelled the ranks of the working class and created new political identities. During this period, the left's organizational ability to mobilize voters was unmatched. Parties on the right countered with mandatory voting, which aimed to bring out their natural constituencies.
Today, the situation in the United States is just the opposite. With unions in decline, Democrats are disproportionately hurt by abstention. A recent George Washington University poll shows that in the coming election Republicans are fully 7 percentage points more likely to vote than Democrats. In other words, the politicians that will likely determine the rules of the game have no incentive to change them.
Gretchen Helmke is associate professor and chairwoman of the political science department at the University of Rochester. Bonnie Meguid is associate professor in the same department.
Haydon Manning: In Australia, politics as usual continue
Technically speaking, Australian citizens are not compelled to vote. Instead, they are required to attend a polling station, and upon receipt of their ballot, decide to vote or discard it. Granted, the failure to attend to one's "democratic duty" may incur a small fine if insufficient excuse is offered.
This approach goes back decades, having been adopted in 1924 for national elections. But the idea itself is even older, having been debated in 19th century colonial parliaments. While views vary as to the ultimate cause of its introduction, there is no doubt that concerns over low voter turnout, in a nation only two decades old, drove the decision.
Shepherding people to vote in this way might seem odd to some, but government loomed large in colonial Australia -- in sharp contrast to the American experience. This tradition of state paternalism did not wane when the Federation of Australia was formed in 1901 (i.e., when the six separate colonies became one nation). So, it was not surprising that the decision to compel voters to attend to duty was ultimately a bipartisan decision.
How successful has this approach been? In recent decades, about 5% of voters are typically asked to explain their absence on polling day. Surveys consistently indicate that about 70% say they favor compulsory voting, and 80% say they would still vote even if voting was not compulsory.
A decade ago, the conservative coalition government of John Howard controlled both houses of parliament, and its Senate leader proposed abolishing compulsory voting. In the end, old habits die hard, and the proposal failed to gain traction.
Political parties here may have good reasons to keep the current system. After all, "mandatory" voting makes it easier for politicians to keep the focus on attacking opponents, without being distracted by the task of encouraging a sometimes disillusioned party base to turn out.
I've been a supporter of "compulsion." But in the contemporary campaign setting, I doubt its virtues. Turning the vote out might not be a problem, but wooing disengaged citizens now requires banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising. To me, this can diminish the democratic experience for those who take the time to think through the issues.
Haydon Manning is an associate professor at Flinders University's School of Social and Policy Studies in Adelaide, South Australia.
Ari Ratner: Ill-suited for America now
Should voting be compulsory? No. Should voting be far easier? Absolutely.
The arguments for compulsory voting seem persuasive. At least 38 countries have— or have had— some form of mandatory voting laws. U.S. turnout, in contrast, falls short of most advanced democracies.
Low turnout imposes real costs on our political system. It both reflects and helps drive an eroding sense of democratic legitimacy. It negatively impacts the representation of groups with low turnout levels, like younger voters and minorities. And it magnifies the power of special interests.
Yet, mandatory voting is ill-suited to America's current realities. First, it's impractical. Congress is currently incapable of passing a mandatory voting law. The federal bureaucracy and court system, moreover, are unlikely to be able to enforce any such law.
Would we impose sanctions on those who fail to vote? Would there be an exemption system? Is the voting system even equipped to handle a rush of new voters? (Remember the long lines of 2012 and the butterfly ballots of 2000?)
Mandatory voting would be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare. Not to mention that refusing to vote itself can be an important form of protest.
Far more important than the red herring on mandatory voting would be to make it far easier to register and cast a ballot.
Options available to facilitate voting include: making election day a national holiday or a weekend; expanding early voting and same-day voter registration, both of which Republicans have cut back in many states; creating an opt-out rather than an opt-in voter registration system; and increasing opportunities for remote voting via absentee ballots, vote-by-mail, or online voting.
Voting rights remains an important issue, especially given the rising cacophony about largely nonexistent "voter fraud." (One recent investigation found 31 credible incidents of voter impersonation in 1 billion ballots).
But the way to increase voter participation isn't to mandate it. It's to build a system capable of accommodating our citizens' voting needs.
Ari Ratner is a fellow at New America Foundation. You can follow him on Twitter: @amratner
Donna Brazile: You have to pay taxes, so why not have to vote?
Mandatory voting requires citizens to present themselves at the polling place and either cast their votes on the candidates and issues, or spoil a ballot, indicating their disgust with the entire lot.
I've come to favor mandatory voting. It will sink the role of big money in our elections. Campaign spending is becoming a scourge and a scandal in our self-government. Millions are even spent for the anti-democratic purpose of reducing voter turnout for the opposition.
All that money, from secret contributors — guaranteeing greater influence for those who have money, over those who do not — cannot possibly have a healthy effect on the candidates on whom it pours. Are things better since the Supreme Court allowed big money to be introduced?
In the United States, voter turnout for midterm elections has been under 50% since the 1940s. This means that less than half of the American electorate gets to decide which party will control Congress. This can't be a good thing. In places that have mandatory voting, like Australia, there are indications of less polarization and dissatisfaction in the electorate.
I know some bristle at the idea of having to cast a vote, even a protest vote for Lassie. Yet, voting is the essential, central and indispensable feature of democracy. We require jury attendance, paying taxes, and public education attendance because those are also essential functions. Is voting less important?
Donna Brazile, a CNN contributor and a Democratic strategist, is vice chairwoman for voter registration and participation at the Democratic National Committee. A nationally syndicated columnist, she is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and author of "Cooking With Grease: Stirring the Pots in America ."
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.
Friday, 6 March 2015
Opinion: What does justice mean for Ferguson?
- Grand jury hearing Michael Brown case; some believe there won't be indictment
- Mark O'Mara says it's important to let the process play out
- Case should be decided on the facts, not as a proxy for racial justice issues, he says
Editor's note: Mark O'Mara is a CNN legal analyst and a criminal defense attorney. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) -- The Michael Brown case has great significance because it is yet another in a growing line of tragedies that further demand a conversation about our civil liberties within the criminal justice system.
It has highlighted a massive lack of trust that exists between police and minorities. We must face the inconsistencies and the biases that remain if we are ever to move towards a system worthy of the trust it needs to succeed. Only by doing so can we end the devastating loss of life that is becoming an all-too-common occurrence.
We have another opportunity to become focused on and vocal about the changes that are necessary. It is only by bringing those problems to the forefront and into the harsh light of constant and public critique that we can hope to make a better system.
I still contend our criminal justice system is the best in the world for dispensing true justice, but, like every facet of the American democratic experience, it can use polishing. However, I reject the notion that the system is incapable of dispensing justice in cases where young, unarmed black men and women are killed.
With my experience representing George Zimmerman as a backdrop, I've been following a number of cases that have overtones of Ferguson, and I know that we have made progress:
Earlier this month, Michael Dunn received a life sentence for the murder of Jordan Davis in the so-called "loud music" trial.
In January, a grand jury indicted Officer Randall Kerrick on voluntary manslaughter charges after fatally shooting unarmed Jonathan Ferrell.
And on August 7, a jury in Michigan convicted Ted Wafer of second-degree murder for shooting Renisha McBride on his front porch. The verdict came just two days before the Michael Brown shooting. Black victims, white shooters.
Certain commentators have suggested we should skip the grand jury and that Officer Darren Wilson must be tried before a jury.
While I laud the idea of having open trials, thereby allowing the public to view that the process works fairly, it is dangerous to short-circuit justice because of media attention or social pressure.
We gave the Ferguson shooting an enhanced social significance before we knew all the facts of the case, facts we still don't know. The grand jury should not consider the broader social issues; they should focus on the facts. And if they decide, solely on the facts, to indict Wilson, only then should he stand trial.
But in light of the recent press leaks regarding evidence in the case, most now suggest an indictment is not likely.
I fear that those who equate justice with nothing other than an indictment of Wilson are allowing deep-seated predispositions against the system to infect how they define justice.
We should not be asking for reparations at the cost of putting a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of convicting, or even charging, someone who does not, based upon the facts as viewed dispassionately, deserve it.
I do not suggest trust in this system merely to quell the voices of criticism or to forestall the feelings of frustration. Rather I contend it is the only answer.
So, what happens if the grand jury decides not to indict Darren Wilson? District Attorney McCullough committed that he will release all of the transcripts of the proceedings. This will give all the witness testimony, forensic evidence, and other information presented from which they decided not to indict. Transparency here is absolutely necessary. The Federal officials should not interfere with that release.
If Wilson is not charged, there will, undoubtedly, be a backlash. Many people consider an indictment as a step for justice -- not only in this individual case -- but in the larger effort of balancing the racial inequities in our justice system.
Conversely, a failure to indict Wilson will be seen as an indictment of the system. But that point of view is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
I fear that pinning significant civil rights issues to the facts of this case may serve only to foster more mistrust in the system. It will create a greater racial divide, and it will create another generation of disenfranchised young black men and women who are less willing to become police officers or legislators or attorneys or judges at the very time that we need their leadership most.
If the grand jury decides not to indict, they will do so because they concluded Officer Darren Wilson's shooting to be justified based upon his and Michael Brown's actions. While it is considered callous and insensitive to review the actions of a deceased person, it does none of us any good to ignore facts, should they exist. By doing so, we lose the lessons that may be learned from a dispassionate analysis of what actually happened that day, not what we as individuals, or we as communities, want to believe happened.
The decision to indict or not can be a catalyst for us to move further apart, or it can be seen as an opportunity to critically analyze how these tragedies are occurring and how to stop them in the future. That choice, no matter how it may go against the grain of our emotions, is a voluntary one, but we must decide on the latter.
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.
'Strong argument' for military aid
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
- Daniel Treisman: Ukraine is much weaker than Russia, needs aid to hold its own
- He says there are powerful arguments on both sides about whether to send military aid
- Aid could lead to Russian escalation but doing nothing would condone Putin's actions, he says
- Treisman: Argument for arming Kiev is stronger than it has ever been
Editor's note: Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of "The Return: Russia's Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.
(CNN) -- As Western leaders gather in Newport, Wales, for this week's NATO summit, the Ukrainian army is taking a pounding from Russia-supported rebel fighters in the country's east and south. The central question now confronting President Barack Obama and colleagues is whether to supply Kiev with heavy arms.
So far, Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the two key decision makers, have been reluctant. But with Ukrainian forces reeling before what many are calling an overt Russian invasion, pressure is growing on them to reconsider.
Already NATO has announced plans to strengthen the defense of its frontline members in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. The alliance is planning to create a rapid reaction force, made up of 4,000 troops, to respond within hours to any future Russian incursion.
Whether that will be enough to deter President Vladimir Putin, it will not help Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Under fierce attack from the rebels, supported now by up to 2,000 Russian troops, the Ukrainian army has been reduced in recent days from seeking victory to merely trying to avoid defeat.
To fight back, it needs anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, drones, spare parts, fuel -- and, most of all, intelligence and strategic advice from Western military planners. Should NATO -- or just the U.S. -- oblige?
There are powerful arguments on both sides.
Equipping Kiev with greater firepower might well provoke an escalation from Russia, whose forces grossly outnumber those of Ukraine. To send more arms into a war zone is cynical if it will merely increase the scale of killing without any realistic prospect of ending the conflict.
Both Obama and Merkel believe their current strategy of graduated economic sanctions will bear fruit in the longer run. Unwilling to contemplate direct military involvement, they worry about getting dragged in inadvertently.
Yet to refuse the kind of military support that might enable Kiev to reclaim its eastern territories would allow Putin's violation of the principle of state sovereignty to stand, at least for now. The international order depends upon respect for borders and a rejection of territorial conquest.
The world is watching. China is surely monitoring events in Ukraine closely as it sizes up the South China Sea. Iran may take comfort from the West's divisions as it negotiates over its nuclear program. North Korea may be tempted to disregard U.S. warnings.
And if Putin perceives his Ukrainian gambit to have worked, this may embolden him to push further. The other day, he appeared to boast to European officials that he "could take Kiev in two weeks."
Four times in a row, Putin has upped the ante in the face of Western rhetorical and economic pressure. He sent special forces into Crimea, then annexed the region to Russia, then engineered the rebellion in the east, then, more recently, dramatically increased military support.
In between -- and especially whenever the West looked ready to act -- he floated "peace proposals" and "ceasefires" that have always come to nothing. A new "Seven Point Plan" revealed on Wednesday may or may not turn out to be something more serious.
With more than 750,000 active-duty forces, Moscow's military superiority over Kiev is obvious. But would Putin choose to escalate if the rebels faced a better-armed adversary? Of course, a complete defeat of Moscow's proxies would be embarrassing. But more direct Russian involvement would also carry domestic costs.
At present, Putin's ratings at home are off the charts -- 84% approved of his actions in the latest independent, Moscow-based Levada Center poll. Yet, at the same time, the surveys show the post-Crimea euphoria to be fading and doubts about military engagement growing.
Since March, the percentage of Russians who say they would "support the Russian leadership in the situation of an open military conflict between Russia and Ukraine" has fallen from 74% to 41%. That's less than the 43% who now say they would not support this. The share favoring the incorporation of eastern Ukraine into Russia has fallen from 35% in April to 21% in mid-August.
Russians remain delighted by the annexation of Crimea. But the proportion that say they are ready to bear at least some of the economic cost associated with the territory's incorporation has fallen from 59% in March to 50% today.
Fighting a disorganized and poorly equipped adversary, Putin can have it both ways. He can keep support to the separatist rebels relatively limited and covert, while denying to the public back home that Russia is involved at all.
All this is not to say that Putin would stand by if the West sent arms to Kiev. He may feel strong enough to disregard the hints of growing public anxiety. Nor is it clear that additional weapons would turn the tide.
To win the war, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko needs to build a more effective state, introduce economic reforms and offer potentially loyal citizens of Eastern Ukraine a comprehensive deal that recognizes their minority rights and -- while excluding the thugs and Russian agents that have streamed across the border -- gives local Ukrainians some real autonomy.
For the leaders in Newport, this will remain a tough call. But the argument for arming Kiev is stronger than it has ever been.
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel Treisman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)