Thank you for this thought-provoking article, Ambar. The New Zealand experience, like that of many other countries, shows that systems can be improved to (re)build trust in electoral processes. Independent election administration and independent electoral boundary delimitation are often central to rebuilding trust in elections. It often takes years of lobbying and campaigning for such changes to take effect.
One advantage countries like New Zealand and my own South Africa have is that we can centralize election administration. We can have one set of rules. Elections work exactly the same, no matter where you are in the country. I guess it would be significantly more difficult to implement similar measures in a decentralized system like the United States. I would be very interested in your thoughts on the possibility of electoral management reform in a decentralized system like the US.
I do think it does make things harder in so many ways because of the decentralization factor, but there could be broad conversations to build more public support for changes at the local/state level. After all, the New Zealand example also had a pretty contentious two-party system with a lot of control, but it was citizens that pushed for the change. I think there are some broader level discussions that the country could engage in at the national level, but recommendations on that would be better coming from a non-partisan committee (the way New Zealand did it) that looks at all sides of the issues and finds areas for consensus rather than through any forced nationalization of elections that are done through EOs or laws forced through the congress on a partisan basis. New Zealand worked on a process that made it harder to push things through based on one side controlling the system. I think we need to look at similar options.
I like the way Virginia does redistricting (in normal times) with the sixteen member commission made up of four Ds; four Rs; and eight citizens, that are not in elected office, appointed by retired judges. This system seems to be similar to New Zealand. Perhaps this type of balanced commission could be a model for broader election administration and law making. This and the super majority vote could be the first steps toward election administration sanity.
Thank you for this thought-provoking article, Ambar. The New Zealand experience, like that of many other countries, shows that systems can be improved to (re)build trust in electoral processes. Independent election administration and independent electoral boundary delimitation are often central to rebuilding trust in elections. It often takes years of lobbying and campaigning for such changes to take effect.
One advantage countries like New Zealand and my own South Africa have is that we can centralize election administration. We can have one set of rules. Elections work exactly the same, no matter where you are in the country. I guess it would be significantly more difficult to implement similar measures in a decentralized system like the United States. I would be very interested in your thoughts on the possibility of electoral management reform in a decentralized system like the US.
I do think it does make things harder in so many ways because of the decentralization factor, but there could be broad conversations to build more public support for changes at the local/state level. After all, the New Zealand example also had a pretty contentious two-party system with a lot of control, but it was citizens that pushed for the change. I think there are some broader level discussions that the country could engage in at the national level, but recommendations on that would be better coming from a non-partisan committee (the way New Zealand did it) that looks at all sides of the issues and finds areas for consensus rather than through any forced nationalization of elections that are done through EOs or laws forced through the congress on a partisan basis. New Zealand worked on a process that made it harder to push things through based on one side controlling the system. I think we need to look at similar options.
I like your question….. how could we do this type of reform in our decentralized system?
I like the way Virginia does redistricting (in normal times) with the sixteen member commission made up of four Ds; four Rs; and eight citizens, that are not in elected office, appointed by retired judges. This system seems to be similar to New Zealand. Perhaps this type of balanced commission could be a model for broader election administration and law making. This and the super majority vote could be the first steps toward election administration sanity.