The Politics of Money in Politics

The recent announcement that Lawrence Lessig was exploring the idea of running for president raises two interesting issues. First, the principal reasoning behind his interest in running for president, in that he feels that present system of democracy in the United States has been flawed for some time now and feels other methods have not produced desired results at remedying these flaws. As Mr. Lessig tells it these flaws are largely born of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010, which changed the political environment to basically allow for an infinite amount of money to influence the democratic process in every election. Due to this new influx of money a number of individuals, including Mr. Lessig, believe that the inherent principal nature of power equality that is representative of an indirect democracy has been lost resulting in the very real possibility that democracy in the United States could transition into an oligarchy.

Mr. Lessig’s concern about this issue is so significant that it raises the second issue, the very nature of his tenure as President. For Mr. Lessig the importance of maintaining democracy should exceed everything else, but he believes, and justifiably so, that the existing field of presidential hopefuls will be unable to exclusively focus on this issue as they would have a number of other domestic and foreign policy issues to addresses as well. Thus, Mr. Lessig’s candidacy and resultant presidency is similar to that of a referendum. His entire platform is that he will devote the entire focus and power of the his presidency to ensuring the maintenance of democracy, which will largely involve eliminating the mass influx of money into the political process either through the repeal of the Citizens United ruling or another method. After accomplishing this goal Mr. Lessig would resign as President leaving the remainder of his term to his Vice President.

The more important of these two issues is whether or not Mr. Lessig is correct to view the unlimited influx of money into the political process as a chief threat to democracy. The trademark notion of a democracy is “one person one vote” implying equal influence from all voting parties regardless of position or standing. There has been no change in this practice regardless of the level of money committed to a given election cycle. However, some would argue that the evolution of the political system in the United States has created an environment where any elected position of significant consequence demands a large amount of money to purchase advertisement and conduct other publicity activities in order to have a reasonable chance at winning. This monetary demand places an additional motivational incentive on potential candidates to abide by the wishes of those that have the ability to donate large sums of money at multiple instances. Also a greater influx of money may influence the candidate pool keeping individuals that might otherwise run for a position from doing so under the belief that they could not raise enough money to be competitive.

So the question boils down to how much of an influence does money have on the ability of an individual to be elected in a given political race? Clearly there have been no significant cases of individuals literally selling their votes, that is an arrangement being made between a voter and a supporter of candidate A that said voter will vote for candidate A for 50 dollars. Therefore, if money is not used to directly “purchase” votes, what purpose does it serve in an election? The principal purpose of money in an election is to maximize information distribution for a given candidate. Basically the real advantage of candidate A having more money than candidate B is that it allows candidate A to take advantage of the interest and time limitations possessed by the electorate.

For example instead of depending on a potential voter taking the initiative to look up the official position of candidate A on issue Y, spending money allows candidate A and his/her supporters to present the position of candidate A on issue Y directly to the voter via some form of media advertising be it television/radio/print/Internet or via direct interaction with a candidate A supporter. In addition to significantly increasing the odds of potential voters knowing the position of candidate A on issue Y, the fact that candidate A and his/her supporters are creating the delivery mechanism of the information allows them to frame the information in such a way that if desired the core message could be prone to misinterpretations or even outright lies that favor candidate A. This action can also be used against competitors framing their positions in such a way that could make them less attractive to voters.

The next question is how important is this information capacity in an election? This issue has two different parts: first, how valuable is information in an election and second, how much information is available? Starting with the second issue first, in the Internet era for modern developed countries there is little ability to “bottleneck” information or control the information stream. Gone are the days when someone could simply spend enough money or favors to shutout another candidate’s message altogether. The principal advantage of money with respects to this second issue is the ability to saturate information on all forms of delivery systems: television, radio, Internet, hiring people to “spread the word” in public areas, etc. However, money is not the limiting factor controlling the actual ability to distribute information, it simply allows for the more efficiency spread of that information.

Even though money is not a limiting factor controlling the basics of information distribution in a political campaign, is it a critical factor that can dramatically increase the probability of winning? This question is the central question in the first issue of the importance of information capacity: how valuable is information? The value of information in a political election is almost exclusively associated with its ability to produce votes for the candidate. Voters will not vote for candidate A based on two central elements: 1) the voter does not have information pertaining to candidate A either as a person and/or political position; 2) the voter’s political values and/or social values are significantly different from those of candidate A.

In the first scenario the value of information is important for on the most basic level (not taking into consideration the specific characterizations of the candidate and the potential voters) there is a greater likelihood of an individual voting for candidate A if they are known versus voting for candidate A if they are not known. While it is certainly possible that a voter will not vote for candidate A after learning of their political/social values, it is also possible that they will vote for candidate A. Therefore, the behavior of the voter changes from a base low value (typically involving whether or not the individual will vote in the first place) to either a slightly lower value (disagreement with newly understood positions of candidate A) or significantly higher (agreement with the newly understood positions of candidate A). Overall it makes sense to inform voters regarding the important positions and traits of candidate A both logically and practically.

However, it must be noted that the importance of expelling anonymity is inversely proportional to the scope of the election because of the validity of that anonymity. Basically if candidate A is running for a position on the School Board for Smith country there is a good possibility that candidate A will be unfamiliar to a number of potential voters because the perceived importance and scope of that position is small, thus information about candidate A is important to dispel that lack of knowledge. On the other hand if candidate A is running for one of the two U.S. Senate positions representing the state of California, it is highly unlikely that potential voters will be unaware of the important elements, both political and social, representing candidate A. Note that social elements must be included when discussing information distribution because a number of voters vote not on the political issues supported by a candidate, but on whether or not they like the candidate, which could have little to do with the candidate’s political positions.

In the second scenario there is little money can do to produce votes for candidate A. If voter y is aware of the political positions and social standing of candidate A and his/her personal viewpoints are in opposition to candidate A’s positions then further information distribution is basically a waste of resources. The immediate question regarding the above statement is why does the distribution of counter information have such little influence that it can be so readily considered a waste of resources?

There are two significant reasons for the above statement:

1) In recent years, in large part thanks to a loud and more radicalized Conservative movement and to a lesser extent similar Progressive movement, voters in general have become much more polarized on a wide breadth of political issues creating a hostile environment to ideas that run counter these opinions, thereby further limiting an already small group of “convincible” middle-ground of potential voters. In fact there are even more party-line voters and single-issue voters that have mindsets so etched in stone that even if valid empirical evidence suggests that mindset is not accurate they ignore that empirical evidence. Basically in general there are more individuals who are less likely to even listen to a viewpoint that opposes their personal viewpoint, let alone debate the fine points of either viewpoint, than there have been in the past;

2) Political insidiousness and desire for retaining power has resulted in gerrymandering various Congressional districts, which has also been indirectly related to the general break of diversity within a number of established communities creating more homogenous neighborhoods leading to the production of group-think single party voting blocs. Due to the presence of these voting blocs it is very difficult for opposing ideas to establish any meaningful foothold, especially due to the greater polarization of political environments as mentioned in reason one. These areas are a significant reason behind why winning percentages are so high for incumbents.

The above discussion produces an interesting question for Mr. Lessig’s position that the potential influence of unlimited money is the principal threat to the equality of democracy (i.e. a representative democracy that represents each person equally). If theoretically money has no direct influence and little indirect influence on acquiring votes and in practice political science studies have produced conflicting results on the total value of money in an election, can the potential influence of unlimited money in elections really be viewed as the principal threat to democracy?

Another concern with studying the issue of corruption via money is what process is used to determine whether a lawmaker is simply voting on their personal ideals (candidate A voting in favor of tax breaks for corporation W because he (stupidly) believes in the validity of supply-side economics), versus whether he is voting against his ideals to fulfill the Faustian bargain to a corporation (corporation W donated 1.5 million dollars to his previous campaign and plans to donate another 1.5 million to his next, so he votes in favor of tax breaks for corporation W)? This important issue is rarely addressed when discussing money and its potential corrupting influence in politics.

Overall one could argue that the genuine problem with money in politics is that the money is being wasted for minimal advantage advertising instead of being spent on improving the domestic economy through investment or charitable donations. Perhaps the false perception of the advantage of money in politics is the real problem not the actual influence of money. For example Mr. Lessig and others that share his position have noted that it takes significantly more money to be elected to a given position of government now than it did decades ago, but is this statement actually valid? For example typically statements like that do not correct for inflation or how increases in population have increased the perceived advantage for more money, which would be a “natural” occurrence. Also there have been a number of races where candidate A has defeated candidate B despite candidate B outspending candidate A by 5, 6 or even 10x.

However, for the sake of argument assume for the moment that Mr. Lessig’s point about the dangers of money is accurate. The next concern for Mr. Lessig is what can be done about it? If elected president Mr. Lessig would only have the power of the Executive branch of government in which to act against the Citizens United ruling, a branch that has little to no real power to produce the type of change that Mr. Lessig desires. One could argue that his election would produce a “mandate” to challenge the Citizens United ruling, but what real power would this challenge have?

First, the idea of “mandates” are really only political theater anyways for in the past there was some level of concession by the opposing political party with the acknowledgement that “the will/voice of the people” had spoken and it would be inappropriate to obstruct the plans of the new administration and/or Congress out of petty spite. Of course that was then, the political climate now has certainly revealed that petty spite is fashionable. Mr. Lessig is certainly aware that the Republican Party, which has taken advantage of this new environment more so than the Democratic Party, would be his main legislative opposition to accomplishing his goal? Simply “invoking” the “mandate” of his election will not be sufficient to make them allies or have them “fall in line”.

Second, even if Congress did act against the Citizens United ruling, what could it do that would not be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court by the proponents of the ruling? It stands to reason that the current existing U.S. Supreme Court would overturn any legislative action that sought to weaken the “freedoms” granted by the Citizens United ruling. It has already demonstrated this motivation to some extent in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock rejecting a Montana state law that limited corporate campaign contributions even after the Montana State Supreme Court ruled that the law was narrowly tailored enough that it withstood strict scrutiny.

Realistically it appears that at the moment only two things will allow for the restriction of excessive amounts of money from the political system. First, a change in the political ideology of the U.S. Supreme Court and a re-evaluation of the legal structure of the Citizens United ruling regarding the potential for corruption in the political system due to the influx of money resulting in this new Supreme Court overturning the Citizens United ruling, similar to how Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Second, a new Constitutional Amendment explicitly addressing the issues associated with the Citizens United ruling, with the most popular type of amendment eliminating the ability of a corporation to be considered a “person” in the context of free speech. Outside of these two strategies, what can be done? Mr. Lessig’s emphasis about the advantage of focus, limiting money being the only issue behind his presidency, has little meaning for it is not a limiting factor in accomplishing his goal; the issue cannot be solely resolved by effort and trying hard. The limiting factor is the probability of success associated with the limited number of available strategies.

Another concern is the idea that a single-minded focused mandate, which the election of Mr. Lessig would represent, can be established solely because polling information report that 80% - 85% of those polled, with little difference between political affiliations, believe that the potential of unlimited money in the political system is a big problem or “rigs the system”. Unfortunately, something the environmental movement is intimately familiar with is that just because a vast majority thinks a certain way in isolation does not mean that same majority is willing to work to accomplish that viewpoint. Basically while 80% of those polled consistently want money out of politics, how important is it to them to accomplish that goal, i.e. will they prioritize removing money from politics over various other economic issues, foreign policy issues, environmental issues, etc?

As it currently stands based on previous actions, these respondents and potential voters appear to think the removal of money from politics is not very important because where are the droves of candidates making the removal of money from politics their number one campaign issue because it is so important to their constituents and will dramatically increase the probability of getting them elected? Basically if so many people think that money is rigging the system and that resultant corruption is of the utmost importance to address, there should be no difficulty finding numerous candidates that will vote to eliminate money from the political process on the most stringent level allowed by law versus tying their ideals to the pocketbook of corporation y or donor z. Clearly, and unfortunately, this is not the case. On its face it appears that Mr. Lessig has fallen into the typical single-issue trap of thinking that because the issue is very important to him, it must also be, guaranteed without question, very important to a lot of other people.

Some could argue that an important response is to increase the power of transparency in the contribution system by disallowing individuals to make anonymous donations, produce anonymous pitch material, etc. The general idea behind this belief appears to be that through the creation of a political environment where individuals that donate large sums of money must make those donations in a completely transparent manner and those that use the money must outline how it was used it, the probability of immoral actions will be reduced significantly limiting the overall negative influence of money in politics.

The problem with this strategy is that it does not address the saturation mindset. It stands to reason that most people believe that all candidates are taking money from some form of special interest and/or large corporate donors (even the small third party ones regardless of whether or not they actually are), so no candidate is “clean”. Some could counter-argue that if potential voters are made aware of monetary donations and expenditures then they could seek out candidates who have received no money or significantly less money and characterize those candidates as “not beholden to special interests”. The concern with this reasoning is that receipt of donated money becomes a single issue. It is difficult to envision a scenario where an individual votes against a candidate that shares his/her viewpoint on a wide variety of issues if it is revealed that the candidate has taken a lot of money from special interest groups.

Therefore, ‘taking money from special interest groups’ will be regarded as just one of many issues that is considered by a voter when deciding on which candidate to vote for. Unfortunately due to the fact that messaging and access is heavily influenced by money it seems very probable that very few candidates will refrain from taking special interest money when available to them, regardless of any transparency requirements. If this scenario comes to pass then with every viable candidate feeling it necessary to take money, the previous public psychological assertion become true: everyone is taking money, everyone is dirty, thus it does not matter who takes money. Certainly establishing transparency should be done because it is a logical and fair idea and will help increase the probability of more complete information profiles on candidates for potential voters; however, without offering an effective way to remove money from the system, it is unlikely that any transparency strategy will have any real positive effect regarding money in the political system.

Another option put forth by Mr. Lessig, among other parties with other systems, is the idea of Democracy Vouchers where tax rebates to a certain value (currently $50) are reserved for the exclusive donation to a certain political campaign or issue. The belief is that by resorting to a law of scales, volume will be able to cancel out the influence of the high value low volume donor class, which is viewed as the chief problem in the system. Unfortunately this type of plan is flawed in numerous ways. The chief flaws have already been discussed in a previous post here. Another potential flaw in Mr. Lessig’s personal idea is that because the vouchers are tax-based there would be some question to whether or not individuals who do not pay taxes would also receive the $50 or be shutout. If they were shutout then clearly such a program would not be living up to Mr. Lessig’s idea of an equal representational democracy.

Overall the idea of attempting to defeat “bad money” with “good money” be it from the public or from “good PACs”, etc) is rather foolish because of issues regarding sustainability in that what government programs get cut each year due to the loss of billions of dollars returned to the public to “invest” in politics and simple practicality for the polarization of politics have heavily limited the coordinated influence of volume politics. For example in its initial attempt to influence the political landscape in 2014 Mr. Lessig’s personal Super PAC, Mayday, was a significant failure. Basically plans like Brennan Center-Democracy 21 Federal financing and Democracy Vouchers a more likely to exacerbate the problem of money in politics, not act as a “correcting” force if they do anything at all.

On a side note while the idea of a “referendum president” is somewhat interesting, its general characterization can be looked upon more as a novelty than anything significant especially because without a definitive timeline for when the resignation would take place, voter decision-making becomes complicated. For example it is concerning to think how a “referendum president” would handle a catastrophic domestic or foreign event? Would the Vice-President simply handle those potential events? Who would foreign leaders interact with when addressing foreign policy? Etc.

Overall the idea of removing money from politics in effort to ensure a fair democracy and minimize corruption does not appear to be an effective battle strategy to ensure these characteristics. The concern is both the ability to remove money and whether or not money is actually a real problem. A fair and effective democracy is served by three essential elements: voting access, informed voters and voting power. In this country none of these elements are at what one could say “full strength”.

The first element to a fair and effective democracy is ensuring appropriate voting access where the requirements one must meet to be eligible to vote are fair, universally applied and transparent. Unfortunately this simple requirement is not being met by a number of regions; instead these areas are attempting to circumvent fairness by forcing individuals to acquire some form of governmental issue photo identification at personal cost under the false pretense of preventing voter fraud. Such unnecessary and frivolous demands are much more dangerous to a fair and effective democracy than potential unlimited money because it directly influences who can vote.

The second element to an effective democracy is ensuring an informed and motivated electorate. Recall that the principal role money plays is information exchange. Therefore, the best way to make money irrelevant is to create an informed and committed electorate invalidating the purpose of money. The point of a representative democracy is that voters who vote for the winner feel that their viewpoints are being presented and fought for in the appropriate governmental body. The influence of money is only negative when that expectation is not met; when those who have voted for the winner do not have their elected official arguing in favor of their viewpoints instead that elected official is arguing in favor for viewpoints that contrast or are not important those of the majority at the behest of a wealthy donor minority.

The best way to expose this betrayal of duty is an informed and committed electorate, one that knows what they want out of their elected official(s), not one that simply holds on to old ideas and/or votes a single-party ticket solely because the candidate has a certain letter besides their name on the ballot. If the electorate does not choose to inform themselves then it is difficult to judge whether or not money is corrupting the process; however, the electorate must be given tools to access the appropriate information. Therefore, candidates must be obligated to produce information packages regarding important issues and their stances on those issue that can be distributed via mail, posted online or with existing hard copies at government buildings and libraries. A guaranteed information source will allow voters to inform themselves in a non-bias or “spin” manner.

The third element to a fair and effective democracy is currently the one most lacking of the three. Unfortunately there is a significant lack of honesty and logic in the political process, which significantly hinders the total expression of voting power. For example a politician can make statement A to the public, but actually support an opposing position and as long as the public is not able to discover that opposing belief in time, the politician can be elected on a basis of false pretenses. This reality is especially relevant when the position of a corporation and large political donor may be in direct contrast with the position of the general public. How can voting have any real power when a politician can simply lie about his/her position until elected?

Some would argue that if an elected official lies about what they would seek to accomplish the only real response is that the public takes the philosophy of “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” and when the individual comes up for re-election vote him/her out of office. However, what type of display of power is that? Lie and get some number of years of guaranteed elected office? How is that fair and just? Therefore, what type of process can be used to sort out false statements? Should each candidate be expected to produce a “beliefs” contract that if deviated from once elected would produce just cause for termination from that position? If this occurred what would be the process for the candidate to change his/her opinion on an issue if a mistake in reasoning was discovered? It stands to reason that a new system is needed for clearly the existing process of recall is not sufficient to ensure the power and wishes of the majority of the electorate.

Overall the potential candidacy of Mr. Lessig for President of the United States appears inherently questionable because the methodology Mr. Lessig supports for removing money from politics is unclear and the most plausible options are either not viable or are not significantly aided by Mr. Lessig being President. Incidentally attempting to remove money from politics through a direct “limitation” by neutralizing the Citizens United ruling seems very difficult at this point in time and without any real probability of success any attempt would result in wasted effort and resources. Instead of attempting to neutralize money through its forced removal or by countering it with even more money, focusing on neutralizing the influence of money through voter empowerment and ensuring voter influence should be a more viable way of facilitating a legitimate, fair and effective democracy.

Where is my Solar and Wind Only City?

Two years ago this blog proposed a challenge to solar and wind supporters that if solar and wind were indeed the energy mediums of the future and did not require the assistance of other energy mediums (most notably fossil fuels like coal and natural gas) then they should empirically demonstrate this potential by transitioning a single medium sized city (10,000 – 15,000 individuals) to a grid where at least 70% of the electricity, not even all energy, was produced by solar and/or wind sources. Unfortunately despite the passage of two years and the so-called further expansion of solar and wind technology no such experiment has been conducted.

This lack of attention to detail in producing a model city that would empirically represent and support the actual ability of solar and wind to produce the bulk of electricity and even possibly all energy in the future beyond simple hype is troubling. Are solar and wind proponents so irresponsible that they are willing to gamble the future of society on merely their hopes, dreams, and personal preferences rather than raw data? Do they think that incorporation of solar and wind to a grid steadily advancing from 10% to 20% then 30% then 40% then 50%, etc. will run perfectly with no significant problems? If so, then the solar and wind supporters who believe these things should be stripped of all of their credibility and influence; those who do not believe in such a perfect transition should begin immediately petitioning to accept the challenge.

To the solar and wind proponents who object to the above characterization due to the notion that in March Georgetown, Texas (population approximately 48,000) proposed a plan to get all electricity from solar and wind sources, in essence meet this challenge, hold your horses. While it is true that there has been an initial arrangement between the Georgetown Utility Systems and Spinning Spur Wind Farm (owned by EDF Renewable Energy) and SunEdison to purchase 294 MW (144 MW wind and 150 MW solar) from their installations, this is only an initial arrangement, no actual testing or application has occurred yet.

A more pertinent issue regarding the use of Georgetown as an example is that there is no specific information pertaining to the details of how Georgetown Utility Systems will manage this change in supplier. Basically the only public reporting on this strategy have been puff-hype pieces with no real substance or details. Both Spinning Spur Wind Farm and the yet to be identified SunEdison site have not been fully constructed, are not operational and do not have any secondary storage capacity; thus any electricity produced by these institutions will be live and when those institutions are not producing electricity there will be no electricity to provide to Georgetown.

Initially there are at least three major questions that must be addressed to legitimize Georgetown as a model for a solar/wind only powered city. First, where is the detailed analysis of how electricity, and possibly even energy flows, would be properly compensated to avoid brownouts in times when there is insufficient electricity being produced by solar and wind sources? Simply saying “the sun shines in the day and the wind blows when the sun is not shining” is laughable and severely damages credibility. Anyone who thinks that there will not be periods of intermittence from both Spinning Spur and the SunEdison site is harboring an inaccurate belief. Basically show that 100% renewable can be done using math, not flowery words and misplaced hype; note that it is important to also include any transmission and inverter losses in the calculation and separate nameplate capacity from actual operational capacity.

Second, it stands to reason that proponents of a solar/wind only city will not allow the use of natural gas or coal to act in a backup capacity during these periods of intermittence; therefore, during periods of excess solar and wind, electricity must be stored in a battery for use at a future time. So what type of battery structure(s) is going to be utilized to store that excess energy and what is the economic feasibility of using this structure? If no battery infrastructure is believed to be feasible or economical then what type of energy medium will be tapped to act as backup in lieu of a fossil fuel medium and how will it be properly incorporated?

Third, how will consumer costs for energy change from the transition away from fossil fuels over time, i.e. what will costs be in year 1, what will costs be in year 10…? To simply say it will cost less is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that it will cost less both now and in the future and if it will not cost less in the future what forms of compensation, if any, will be provided to the residents of Georgetown?

Overall these are just the three most basic questions that must be addressed before anyone should accept the idea of Georgetown, Texas being a legitimate 100% solar/wind powered city when their plan is put into place a few years from now. If these questions are not answered with accurate specifics that are later properly executed over time then Georgetown loses all significance as both a legitimate and symbolic experiment for the validity of a solar and wind “future”.

Of course it must be understood that the results in Georgetown are only an initial step, success only provides support to the possibility, not any guarantee for national eventuality. So how about it solar and wind supporters are you actually ready to put your theories to the test or are you simply content with the unscientific and irrational belief that everything will magically work out without the need for essential specifics, realistic assumptions, honest economics (which is incredibly lacking in most pro-solar and wind papers) and valid proof of concepts?

Is it time to administer compulsory voting in the United States?

When looking at voting rolls regardless of the election period or environment, highly educated middle-aged working men are the most likely individuals to vote with various declining participation rates among other demographics.1,2 This decline is meaningful for voting in a democracy, either direct or indirect, is a direct representation of political power and influence. In addition as individuals become poorer and less educated their voting probability decreases.1 Not surprisingly research has demonstrated that politicians target their messages and actions towards those demographics that have the higher voting probabilities, regardless of whether or not those actions will produce the best outcomes for society in general.3 In some context politicians view their “constituents” as only those individuals who vote. Therefore, politicians will commonly ignore the concerns and problems of those individuals in demographics less likely to vote producing an environment that increases the probability of both income and social stratification.

To combat this aspect of inequality spread some individuals theorize that the United States should adopt compulsory (mandatory) voting over the current voluntary system. Compulsory voting is certainly not a new or exotic idea as 22 countries in the world already have some form of compulsory system including Australia and most of South America (assurance for those who only think such a system exists in 3rd world countries). Also compulsory voting has demonstrated a shift in public policy closer in line to the preference of citizens alleviating the divergence between citizen and constituent.4 So with the legitimacy of compulsory voting as an idea on sound footing, the question is should the United States change its current voting system as well?

Some voices may immediately suggest that the idea of compulsory voting is a direct challenge to individual freedom and liberty, thus should be rejected without discussion; these voices would belong to individuals who are either overreacting or foolish for the real issue is how one defines the role of voting in a society. This role can be defined as either a duty or a power. If defined as a duty then voting is regarded as a civic responsibility that one should engage in to justify his/her citizenship and contribution to society; therefore, compulsory voting should be viewed as reasonable and appropriate including any penalties associated with not voting. If defined as a power then voting is regarded as a means in which citizens can exert their influence on society, but voting should be regarded as only an opportunity not a requirement to express this power. However, it is important to note that in a voluntary voting structure if one chooses not to vote then one has no legitimacy in complaining about the current state of society.

When taking measure of most public discourse on this issue it appears that a majority would classify voting under the latter definition: a mandatory opportunity that a democracy must offer its citizens where participation is only voluntary. Unfortunately for those who hold this view such a belief is not so straightforward. A number of people appear to believe in the philosophy that individual decisions are made in a vacuum where that decision only affects that individual and not society as a whole. This mindset has produced the idea of a separation from society. For example some individuals have argued that if one does not ride public transit buses then that individual’s taxes should not go towards supporting the operation of buses. Clearly this makes little sense on a social level and if such an idea would be expanded beyond such a simple measure, which some would argue it should be, and applied to society as a whole then society would become extraordinarily complex and in general cease to function effectively producing a net negative to all parties. Therefore, one must consider measuring the voluntary nature of voting versus the good of society.

As mentioned above overall voting rates have fallen steadily and significantly over the last half century among all demographics sans the elderly (65+).5,6 Therefore, the possibility certainly exists that the United States’ democracy could become an oligarchy producing a singular path and set of cultural values. Regardless of one’s political leanings, there exists an extremely high probability that an oligarchy will be inherently negative to society producing significant societal disruption and inefficiency. With this potential reality the idea of voluntary voting could be dismissed in favor of compulsory voting under the idea of “for the good of society”. Understand that this mindset is not designed to produce a certain cultural/societal outcome, but instead to ensure sufficient representation. Basically it is akin to forcing Team A, B and C to play Team D in said sporting event. Forcing the game does not mean that Team D will lose, it just means that Team D will not win by forfeit.

Furthermore to those who argue that voting should be voluntary then it should follow that individuals should be given every convenience and opportunity to vote. Unfortunately the disheartening reality is that over the last decade certain actions have been taken in multiple states to increase the probability that citizens are denied the opportunity to vote or at least are given unjustifiable obstacles to overcome before having the opportunity. These actions raise the question of how could one support the idea of voting as a voluntary expression of citizenry power that is mandated by the government when the government and other private agencies work to limit the ability of citizens to vote? One of the guarantees of compulsory voting is that states and the Federal government would not have the ability to produce these additional obstacles to the process of voting and must produce an effective means to allow its citizens the opportunity to vote. The reality of the situation is that unless government, especially at the state level, can demonstrate an ability to produce appropriate voting opportunity compulsory voting may be necessary to ensure democracy in the United States.

To those who believe that applying compulsory voting is a ploy to increase the power base of one particular political viewpoint, current research demonstrates the uncertainty in the validity of this idea. Basically there is no significant difference between the preferences of voters and non-voters in already existing compulsory systems.7,8 In the United States it is thought that non-voters may slightly lean Democrat, but there is no certainty in this analysis for it is based on extrapolation from polling information and polling in general remains a foolish way for producing information as it is unreasonable to suggest that the views of five thousand people could properly characterize the views of fifty million. Therefore, at the current time there is no rational reason to conclude that compulsory voting in the United States would produce a significant power shift for one party over all of the others. Even if there was evidence to such a shift, what would be the problem for a democracy is supposed to be rule by the majority.

Even if compulsory voting were put into practice there are certain issues of access, functionality and penalties that must be considered. The issue of access is important for if government is going to demand that all citizens vote then it must make arrangement that all citizens have appropriate opportunity to do so. While a number of individuals have championed online voting as a means to produce ease of access, such claims produce equality and security concerns. Too frequently one hears about an individual or group hacking a corporation acquiring personal information and/or credit information to have sufficient confidence in the security of online voting and despite the mindset of certain technophiles not everyone has a personal at-home Internet connection or other means of access to the Internet that could effectively accommodate voting. (i.e. online access at a public library).

Therefore, with the uncertainty surrounding the use of Internet voting as nothing more than a luxury or advanced supplemental medium, local and state government must produce sufficient plans of action for in-person polling stations and voting by mail. Some could argue that in lieu of Internet voting, voting by mail is the next best thing. While having the option of voting by mail would be an important access element, eliminating in-person polling stations would not be the correct response. In past opinion polls voting by mail is constantly favored by wide margins over electrons that are run by mail.9,10

In a compulsory system exclusively relying on mail would also be extremely burdensome for the homeless. In addition there are some that are less confident that their vote will be counted when voting is performed through the mail.11 The Washington State system appears to be a good starting point for a national “vote by mail” system where the ballot is sent weeks ahead of time allowing the voter ample time to inform him/herself regarding the important issues and cast their ballot when convenient versus under a specific time crunch. However, there are still in-person stations available for use if an individual is uncomfortable or unable to cast their vote by mail. Whether or not early in-person voting would still be required under a compulsory system is unknown, but weighing on the side of caution to ensure sufficient voting opportunity in the first few elections it should be expected that counties offer early in-person voting for at least two days prior to Election Day.

From a functional standpoint one must address the mindset of those individuals who have previously not elected to vote. Once those with access issues are eliminated, the principal reason that individuals do not vote is that they suffer from a nihilistic mindset, i.e. they do not believe that their vote will matter. A similar mindset is that of the “forsaken voter”. An example of this mindset is seen in one of the major complaints of blacks and environmentalists, that the Democratic Party does not respect their opinions because Democratic leadership believes that these groups have nowhere else to go if they want to advance their political beliefs; they can’t vote for a Republican because that would be self-defeating, if they are real Democrats, and they can’t vote for a Green party member or other third party because of the infinitesimal probability that the person would actually win. Therefore, both types of individuals can feel that their “expression of power” through the vote is pointless.

So the chief question on this issue becomes how to manage those individuals who in the past decided not to vote because of the belief that it did not matter when they are now forced to vote or accept a penalty? Various other countries handle this issue with the straightforward opinion of allowing voters to cast their vote for a “none of the above”, which is thought to represent the dissatisfaction of that voter with the existing candidates. While this option is viable, it does not appear to be meaningful. On its face it can easily be argued that casting a vote for “none of the above” is pointless because it defeats the point of compulsory voting. What is the point of an individual spending any financial or opportunity cost voting if one is not going to cast a meaningful vote? Note that allowing a voter to merely leave a ballot blank is akin to selecting a “none of the above” option.

Individuals in favor of this option would argue that casting a vote for “none of the above” is a demonstration of dissatisfaction with the existing candidates and their respective platforms. Under this mindset a stronger message is sent to the political establishment by voting “none of the above” versus voting for “the lesser of two evils”. It could be argued that eliminating this option would be detrimental to producing efficiency in democracy because it would restrict choice.

The counterargument to this point is that while hypothetically it is a valid argument, in actual practice the problem with abstention is that it does not send that dissatisfied message or any meaningful message beyond a potential sound bite for the given election season. For example in the current election environment even if 75% of the citizenry abstained from an election those abstentions do not matter because the election will be decided on the votes of the 25% that did vote. There is no rule in U.S. election politics that voids an election if less than x% of the potential electorate actually votes, thus abstaining does not send a message because abstention produces no consequence to the candidates or the system. In essence no one in power would care that x% of the electorate was “dissatisfied” with the existing candidate pool. Realistically a “none of the above” vote will not demonstrate meaningful dissatisfaction with the available candidates, but simply disrespect for the process.

Furthermore there is a legitimate question to whether or not the administration of compulsory voting will lead to greater feelings of disillusionment with voting in general because with more people voting each individual vote has less power/influence. On its face whether or not this change is a significant psychological issue will more than likely be entirely influenced by both which candidate wins and the size of the victory. In this structure there are four possible outcomes for individual A and his vote: 1) votes for the winner in a landslide; 2) votes for the winner in a close result; 3) votes for the loser in a close result; 4) votes for the loser in a landslide;

Of these four possible outcomes the only one that could increase voter dissatisfaction is the third outcome where the preferred candidate loses by a small amount. In this situation the voter may interpret compulsory voting as costing their candidate the election naturally presuming that more “forced” participants voted for the opponent swaying the final result. However, in all other situations compulsory voting should have no effect or a positive effect on the viewpoint of voting. In the first outcome individual A should be inspired by compulsory voting in witnessing how many individuals agree with his viewpoint and the candidate that supports it. In the second outcome individual A could reason that compulsory voting was the reason for victory (the opposite rationality of the third outcome in that the “forced” participants swayed the final result in his favor). Finally in the fourth outcome there should be no change in opinion because the candidate lost big and would have lost big even if compulsory voting did not exist.

Some individuals have the belief that compulsory voting will have a positive impact on non-voting forms of political involvement and understanding. While this belief may be true the overall ability to produce this result would more than likely be marginalized by allowing for a simple “none of the above” option for it allows an individual to put no thought into the process at all and simply use the “I don’t care” option. If the idea of compulsory voting is to maximize the potential political power of the electorate then the process should not allow for the ability to so easily circumvent that idea. In addition the increased probability of political engagement must involve a change in the general human personality involving the “blind” rejection of ideas that are counter to their personal beliefs; if one is unable or unwilling to abandon incorrect opinions when faced with critical flaws of those opinions then increased political engagement is not be positive and very well could be a net negative.

There is a valid argument that can be made in favor of abstention on the basis that no individual should feel obligated or forced to vote for a particular individual or group just because voting is required. How can this conflict between the negative of allowing a “none of the above” option and forcing an undesired vote be resolved? One possibility is that voting individuals who do not prefer any of the candidates could write a brief explanation (1-2 sentences) regarding why he/she does not want to vote for the available candidates for a given elected position. This way the individual would be successfully abstaining while also demonstrating thoughtful respect for the voting process and increasing the slim probability that the dissatisfaction would actually be noted. Incidentally it would be preferred if these individuals would express this dissatisfaction to potential third party representatives so an individual that they would feel comfortable voting for could properly enter the race.

This aforementioned society-dissociated mindset can be detrimental to a compulsory voting scheme because without a reasonable probability that these “new” voters are properly informed their votes will not properly convey their own opinions or the representative opinion of society. For example suppose Apartment Complex A is having a vote among its 50 residents on whether or not to establish a new more restrictive noise ordinance. 10 residents are opposed to this new ordinance because they commonly have parties that involve loud music. 20 residents are in favor of this new ordinance because they are frequently bothered by the noise from these parties. The final 20 residents have no strong opinions on this vote and are not aware of the grievances of 20 pro ordinance residents because they are far enough away that they do not experience the loud music. Under these conditions these final 20 residents should abstain because of their lack of interest and information.

However, in a compulsory voting environment it is more than likely that they will vote against the ordinance due to reasons of either simplicity or avoiding future restrictions on themselves. Therefore, these 20 “neutral and uninformed” voters could improperly swing the results of the vote because they do not understand how the outcome of the vote affects all residents in Apartment Complex A. So if compulsory voting is applied making sure that all have access to the necessary resource to properly inform themselves of the issues is critical. Again it is fine if these last 20 residents vote against the ordinance if they are properly informed on how it will affect all parties, it is the ignorance that must be defeated.

With regards to penalties, most compulsory voting practicing countries administer a small financial penalty when an individual fails to vote. Interestingly enough this penalty is typically equal to or less than a standard parking violation, which does not send a strong message that voting is important. Clearly administering large fines would be questionable akin to issuing a $10,000 dollar speeding ticket making such a strategy difficult. A better means to “encourage” compliance with compulsory voting would be to administer time penalties that have direct societal duty elements for most people tend to value their time over small generally meaningless amounts of money. For example failure to vote should be met with community service penalties or an increased probability for jury selection. Regarding possible exemptions from voting realistically if the proper access systems are developed, which they should be, then few possibilities remain. One legitimate exemption could be on the basis of religious grounds, i.e for Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. Another exemption could be given for those suffering from mental illness or even at an advanced age (70+).

One potential side problem in a compulsory voting environment is the issue of whether or not individuals will be more inclined to buy/sell votes. With a mandate that every citizen vote the probability of voter fraud will still be low due to proper checks and security measures. However, what cannot be so easily neutralized are individuals selling their votes. Selling votes may not be a large issue now as the rationality behind its absence is the lower voter turnout, thus groups merely have to “rally” the “Parisians” to drive their chances of winning. Under a mandate there will be a much larger pool of potential voters that would be more difficult to directly persuade, thus shortcuts could be taken. It is also important to note that there is a reasonable probability that a number of these “new” voters could be politically apathetic enough to sell their vote. Fortunately due to the privacy associated with voting it would be extremely difficult for the “vote buyer” to confirm that the “vote seller” actually voted the way he/she may have been instructed to, thus without the ability to confirm both sides of the exchange, vote buying and selling should be limited, if any occurs at all. Also there has been no widespread vote buying in other compulsory voting countries.

The idea of compulsory voting should be one of irrelevance for all citizens should be interested enough in the development of society that they at least spend a few moments understanding the pertinent issues and then proceed to vote on their beliefs. However this mindset is far from universal. While this reality is unfortunate it could be sufficiently dismissed as regretful, but not critical if not for two salient points. First, and most important currently, certain agencies are actively attempting to prevent certain groups of individuals from voting by producing unnecessary obstacles. These actions directly threaten the idea of voluntary voting as a sufficient means for citizens to express their power as a citizen of a democracy. Second, there are times when individual privileges need to be augmented for societal good and the preservation of a democracy over an oligarchy certainly meet the condition of societal good. Overall the idea of compulsory voting is not one that aims to force democracy upon its citizenry, but instead protect democracy for its citizenry.


Citations –

1. Kittelson, A. Book chapter: The Politics of Democratic Inclusion. In - The politics of democratic inclusion. Temple University Press, 2005.

2. Blais, A, Gidengil, E, and Nevitte, N. “Where does turnout decline come from?.” European journal of political research. 2004. 43(2):221-236.

3. Verba, S. “Would the dream of political equality turn out to be a nightmare?.” Perspective on Politics. 2003. 1(4):663-679.

4. Fowler, A, “Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: evidence from compulsory voting in Australia.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 2013. 8:159-182.

5. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2008 and earlier reports. Internet release data: July 2009. Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2008.

6. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2008 and earlier reports. Internet release data: July 2009. Table A-2. Reported Voting and Registration by Region, Educational Attainment and Labor Force for the Population 18 and Over: November 1964 to 2008.

7. Citrin, J, Schickler, E, and Sides, J. “What if everyone voted? Simulating the impact of increased turnout in senate elections.” American Journal of Political Science. 2003. 47(1):75-90.

8. Pettersen, P, and Rose, L. “The dog that didn’t bark: would increased electoral turnout make a dif
ference?” Electoral Studies. 2007. 26(3):574-588.

9. Alvarez, R, et Al. “The 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections.” Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States. 2009.

10. Milyo, J, Konisky, D, and Richardson, L. “What determines public approval of voting reforms?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada. 2009.

11. Alvarez, R, Hall, T, and Llewellyn, M. “Are Americans confident their ballots are counted?” Journal of Politics. 2008. 70:754-768.

Outside Perspectives on Black Leadership

While one can raise concerns about numerous issues regarding the perception of the black community in the United States in general, the chief product of this concern stems from a failure of leadership within it. This concern regarding the quality of black leadership does not appear exclusive to one outside the black community for numerous black individuals believe there is a dearth of leadership. For example various surveys of the black community have produced two significant and troubling results: 1) a large number (30-40%) of those polled do not believe anyone of notoriety or power fights for their interests; 2) the most common “leaders” are those with a sufficient level of national notoriety, but limited political power or recent accomplishment like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. This accomplishment deficit may be the chief reason why most blacks do not feel empowered or effectively represented by their current leadership. Unfortunately despite these feelings little is done to address the issue of poor leadership.

The problems that plague the black community can be categorized two ways: intraracial (can be solved exclusively through action by the black community) or interracial (requires cooperation between multiple parties on a public stage, mostly likely political, to produce an effective solution).

From the outside looking in the most important intraracial problems appear to be:


- Lack of stable families as a larger number of black children are raised in single parent households, typically by a mother, than any other race/ethnicity; it must be noted that one point individuals frequently fail to consider is that grandmothers are commonly involved in childrearing as well in these situations so the mothers are not entirely alone. However, there still remains the lack of a positive male figure in the lives of many more black children than other races.

- An artificial accomplishment ceiling that is created among members of the black population due to a limited focus on education. The lack of focus on education produces an inherent ceiling on what an average black individual is able to achieve thereby reducing the ability of black individuals to acquire wealth and influence as well as reducing the probability for happiness and overall fulfillment with life possibly increasing the probability of a nihilistic attitude and/or behavior.

- Lack of financial knowledge and planning. One of the reasons that black individuals have trouble building wealth is that they have less knowledge about how to strategically invest money along with creating and adhering to a budget. A secondary issue in this problem is the concern that without significant knowledge about financial discipline there is a higher probability than normal of over-consumption. Unfortunately the most public rich black figures, entertainers especially musicians, encourage this over-consumptive behavior through flaunting high value, yet frivolous objects like jewelry.

From the outside looking in the most important interracial problems appear to be:

- The disproportionate level of poverty that afflicts the black community versus all other races and ethnicities. While some Republicans and Libertarians like to blame the government for incentivizing blacks not to work due to welfare and other elements of the “Great Society”, this belief is false. The advancement of poverty in the black community is a more complicated issue than “Government motivated laziness” which has almost nothing to do with the reality at all and ironically is simply a lazy excuse to “hand wave” the problem.

- The relationship with the criminal justice system commonly places a disproportional amount of blacks behind bars. However, a vast majority of these incarcerations are legitimate defeating the idea that the criminal justice system is generally racist. Overall there is a difficult relationship between the law and the black community partially based on history and partially based on a lack of psychological evolution by both parties.

- Social reclusiveness is a general problem for members of the black community tend to largely prefer interacting with only each other. While the preference for interacting with a member of one’s own racial/ethnic community is generally universal, the lack of political and influential power possessed by the black community demands more assertive interaction with other races to advance solutions to interracial problems that afflict their communities.


Why does black leadership fail to drive the positive advancement of solutions to the above problems affecting their community? There are three immediate rationalities: 1) Leadership actually tries to solve problems, but are not able to do so due to presently insurmountable obstacles; 2) Leadership wants to try to solve problems, but are aware of insurmountable obstacles so they do not even try until conditions become more favorable; 3) Leadership wants to solve existing problems, but does not want to attempt to solve problems because they could fail and failure would result in lost confidence by the black community in their leadership resulting in lost influence and power; therefore, they find it easier to blame other parties for the problems in an attempt to maintain their influence.

While one likes to believe that the first option is the correct one, if it is then black leadership has done a very poor job of challenging those obstacles and demonstrating that effort to the general public, including their own communities. For example the best way to solve a problem when facing obstacles is to produce a very specific solution pathway that demonstrates why those obstacles should be eliminated. Typically this is done through demonstrating that applying the hypothesized solution will be in the interest of the majority and foster a stronger and more efficient community. Major sources of black leadership do not commonly produce these types of solutions, whether it is spoken or written. This lack of preparation and specificity implies ignorance, laziness and/or a non-genuine effort to solve problems, none of which are attractive in a leader.

The second option is not desirable for individuals in leadership positions that refuse to undertake the challenge of solving problems, or even produce the necessary preparation and strategies, should not be in a leadership position. Waiting is only a valid strategy when influencing factors on a given problem are dynamic, which could make it difficult to determine how one should attack the problem. A vast majority of individuals, regardless of race, would argue that most of problems in the black community have been relatively static, thus all relevant elements affecting the problem are generally known.

Unfortunately it appears that the third option is most likely correct, current black leadership is not really interested in and/or able to formulate strategies to solve problems. Instead these individuals are charismatic rabble-rousers that are able to effectively communicate their outrage regarding the standing of black people in society and the continuation of these problems, but because they have no interest in actually fighting for solutions, the publicity gained from their outrage serves no purpose. Their behavior seems akin to that of Homer Simpson’s slogan when running for Springfield Sanitation Commissioner: “Can’t someone else do it?”.

A similar analogy for this situation is seen in most pharmaceutical companies and their lack of interest in producing new antibiotics. It is difficult to make an antibiotic profitable because while it costs a large amount of money, its application cures a condition, thus typically only a singe dose is taken per infection outbreak. Pharmaceutical companies are more interested in producing drugs that manage, but not cure, chronic conditions so numerous prescriptions need to be filled over the course of a patient’s lifetime, thus producing billions of dollars for the company over decades of use. This principle also appears to be at work by current black leaders in that they are not interested in solving problems in the black community, but they frequently remind individuals that those problems still exist demonstrating that “they care”.

Some would argue that this analogy is not appropriate, that black leaders legitimately fight for their communities. Justification for this position would in part involve the numerous documents that have been produced that supposedly provide a solution. However, the problem with this argument is that most of these solutions lack the necessary specific details in their application to be viewed as serious attempts. Most of these documents do a good job of highlight why the problem is a problem, but the solution is often limited to “make it illegal” or “fix it” lacking real details or commitment by leadership to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Similar behavior is seen on the bevy of cable news/opinion shows.

Above it was suggested that a possible explanation for the lack of fight by black leaders on black issues is that the fear of failure exceeds the reality of the status quo. So why is failure worse than not even attempting to fight? One of the major reasons may be psychological. Unfortunately the black community places a significant level of dependence on racism as an excuse for its failures. Note that anyone who suggests that racism no longer exists is a fool; however, while it is the 21st century many in the black community act as if general Jim Crow laws are still active and those laws are what holds the black community back from achieving parity with other races.

Basically whenever something does not go the way of a black person a common rationality is racism is to blame for the failure, nothing else. This belief could provide motive for black leaders to not assertively move forward in attempting to achieve solutions for if they fail then they must recognize their own shortcomings. However, by not moving forward they can continue to cite racism as the scapegoat for the lack of progress and maintain their power and the benefits that come with that power.

Interestingly this lack of assertiveness is perplexing because while the fear of losing their power as leaders of the black community in light of failure is understandable, it is not a viable fear in the current practical reality. The reason any fear is unreasonable is directly tied to another problem in the black community, the lack of young leaders. Most of these “public” black leaders have few individuals legitimately vying for their positions, especially young “up and comers” so there appears to be little consequence associated with failure.

Therefore, without the validity of this fear it can be reasoned that the current black leadership either does not have the fortitude to actually advance solutions to existing black problems or does not have the intellect/creativeness to produce the solutions. For the black population to address this issue they must focus on producing new leaders to challenge the “old guard” who refuse or are unable to further advance the positive evolution of black society. Unfortunately the development of black leaders seems constrained by three major problems.

The first problem is economic abandonment, not necessarily by society, but within the black community itself. While the black community likes to put on the air that it is one big unified family, an almost “us against the world” type mentality economic abandonment seems rather common. One of the most pressing problems in the black community is the disproportionate level of poverty afflicting black individuals compared to other races and ethnicities. However, there is somewhat of a divide between a number of middle-class blacks and poor blacks and definitely a divide between rich blacks and poor blacks. For most non-poor blacks there almost appears a fear that after “clawing” their way to wealth that interacting with the poor will somehow pull them back down into that environment. Thus, an “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” apathy develops towards the poverty problems of their less wealthy brethren.

Whether or not this above reasoning is accurate, in actual practice very few rich black individuals take the time to fight for those with less money. Once in a while there will be some media coverage of a donation that entertainer x gives to a local charity, but unless there is a camera around and a good reason there is little consistent interaction between rich and poor blacks. Of course this behavior is common to all races and ethnicities, but with the poverty problems and “brother/sister” perceptions that the black community exudes the lack of interaction among black people on economic grounds seems morally worse.

This lack of interaction is problematic because these rich individuals have significantly more power and influence than their poor counterparts on the national stage and can produce much higher success probabilities when advancing potential solutions to the problems afflicting the general black community. Also most rich people, regardless of race, have a lot of free time because either their wealth creates a vast majority of their future wealth (through stocks and other investments), so they do not have to work at all or their occupation is one of “short time high value” where there is significant downtime within their job structure (i.e. an entertainer that works on a movie for three months and then can choose to not have another television or movie engagement for three to seven months).

Individuals with significant influence born from wealth who are typically charismatic with large periods of free time can produce conditions that would increase the probability of applying practical solutions to certain problems. However, to produce change one must be willing to get down in the trenches and work through problems and their possible solutions on a consistent level outside of the glam and flash. Members of professional sports teams appear to frequently attempt to conduct positive charitable work, but as a group this commitment is rather scattershot with a minority applying most of the effort. Sadly few wealthy blacks are actually willing to step into those trenches to help deal with the artery wounds, like poverty, in the black community beyond a very public single-application only bandage.

The second problem for producing leaders ties back into the issue of racism-victimization and its effect on psychological development in the black community. From an outside perspective the more vocal elements of the black community appear to value “street credibility” over intelligence. In fact intelligent blacks are frequently shunned in black society commonly labeled as “not black enough” as if there is some form of racial ceiling on black intelligence.

The sad state of affairs is that if racism is truly the main element behind black failure in society then intelligent blacks are critical pieces to overcoming this racism. These individuals have a higher probability of producing the credibility and wealth to start businesses or develop strategies that can provide advancement to qualified individuals producing more opportunities for black individuals in effort to neutralize racism. However, the inherent aversion towards intelligent blacks in the black community, possibly because they associate with white individuals, ostracizes these individuals making their future contributions to black society less probable. The irony could be that a form of bias may be the biggest problem affecting the black community, but it is not racism towards blacks by other races, but their own bias towards those blacks with intelligence.

This negative view is somewhat perplexing, but not without rationality. Some blacks still have the racist belief that working with white people or even among white people is somehow a betrayal of their fellow blacks, which is obviously a shortsighted and ridiculous way of thinking. Also the idea that black people can accomplish anything on a national scale without working with other races is irrational because blacks only make up approximately 12-13% of the U.S. population. Little can be done in a democracy with only 12-13% of the voting power. For example Barrack Obama was not elected President of the United States on the exclusive strength of the black vote.

However, belief in this negative association may be catalyzed by the aforementioned behavior by rich black individuals. The general apathy of rich blacks towards the black community may be seen as a betrayal born from their association with rich non-black individuals. Unfortunately this characterization is not accurate or appropriate; any cultural abandonment is the fault of the rich black individual not the new environment in which he/she chooses to live.

The biggest loss from alienating intelligent black men and women is that such behavior increases the probability of damaging the bond between those individuals and the community. If this bond is damaged it reduces the probability that these individuals will become leaders and fight for the community instead of simply producing personal success and then withdrawing from public advocacy. Recall from above that getting into the trenches is what produces change, not showing up for a trendy protest march once a year.

Losing this bond to the black community in general also reduces the probability that black leaders have a connection to both the small-scale and large-scale problems of their brethren. Some significant elements of this lost connection are already seen in modern black leadership for while one can suggest that a leader like Al Sharpton cares about economically poorer blacks, he is not poor himself thus does not really understand the daily realities for a poor black person because he does not experience them. A similar analogy can be made for a football sportscaster that has never played football for while intricate study can produce meaningful analytical knowledge of football the lack of actual experience leaves certain holes in that knowledge born from a lack of understanding specific nuances of the game. Additionally one cannot suggest understanding based on one being poor in the 70s, but not now, for being poor in 2010s is sufficiently different physically and psychologically.

Another potential sub-problem encapsulated by both the first and second problems is that under the current version of capitalism practiced in the United States there is significant divergence between the priorities of the rich and the poor, i.e. policies that help the poor limit the amount of money that can be made by the rich. Therefore, a strong social bond will increase the probability that rich blacks sacrifice their maximum wealth potential for the interests of their fellow poorer blacks. Whether or not the current national black leadership is willing to make this sacrifice is unclear.

The third problem in developing leaders is the negative relationship that blacks have with the criminal justice system. It is difficult to cultivate quality leaders when a significant portion of a demographic is incarcerated. Some are quick to use a disproportional incarceration rate to suggest that the criminal justice system is racist. However, this accusation is not founded on solid logic, which has been previously discussed on this blog. The reality is that both parties have marred the relationship, but in order for the relationship to improve one side must take the first meaningful and honest action.

This first step to resolve this problem is to develop a better relationship, so what limits the ability and motivation of the police to take the first step in improving the relationship with the black community? Unfortunately a legitimate rationality is safety. Regardless of how one wants to view the relationship between the black community and the criminal justice system the fact remains that a disproportionate amount of legitimate crime is committed by blacks, especially violent crime. Combine this reality with the general negative view that the black community has of police and it is reasonable to assume that a reduction of vigilance will increase the probability of bodily harm to police officers.

What limits the ability and motivation of the black community to take the first step in improving the relationship with the police? Unfortunately the answer appears to simply be distrust and pride. The outward impression generally expressed by the black community is that from cradle to grave individuals are instructed to not respect the police, not trust the police and not assist the police in their investigations. With this mindset one should not be surprised that the police are inherently wary and quicker to utilize violence, whether justified or not, against black suspects.

What stops black individuals from simply working with and respecting the police? Are they concerned that by respecting the police they make themselves somehow more of a target for “trumped up” or false criminal charges? That rationality makes little sense for cooperating with and respecting the police is not equivalent to rolling over and abandoning one’s rights or expectations for fair treatment. In fact it stands to reason that a positive relationship will improve the probability of not having false charges levied against one versus an antagonistic relationship.

One thing the black community needs to accept is that some of its members commit crimes. As mentioned earlier for a number of blacks, and some non-blacks, there seems to be this idea that the criminal justice system is grossly racist and a significant percentage of the blacks in jail are not guilty of the crimes they were convicted for, a belief that is not correct. Almost all police departments and the associated court systems for their jurisdictions are not racist.

Once this reality is accepted predominant black communities can create community action committees to work with police to ensure fair and equitable treatment for black suspects increasing the probability that those who are guilty receive appropriate sentences and those who are not guilty are not inappropriately convicted. These community action committees would also be another environment to cultivate black leadership for members would have to interact with both the black community and law enforcement acting as a unifying force to produce cooperation as well as appropriate and just action by both parties.

Furthermore an element that the black population must accept about the criminal justice system is that it still functions on evidence and logic. There are a number of situations where a non-black individual is involved in a potential criminal altercation with a black individual and a number of individuals in the black community expect a conviction and if one does not occur a racial conspiracy is viewed as the only valid reason for that failure. What must be realized is that there are times where insufficient evidence exists to produce a conviction and the rules of law must be followed regardless of what one emotionally wants.

One of the greatest elements that increases animosity between non-blacks and blacks regarding the criminal justice system is that the magnitude of public response by the black community to crimes committed against blacks appears to be dependent on the race of the assailant. For example black assailants commit the vast majority of violent crime against blacks. However, these criminal actions do not produce the types of wide-scale public protests by the black community that accompany violent action against blacks by non-black assailants, especially when the incident is a police shooting. Instead the black community tends to suggest that intraracial (black criminal black assailant) violence is dealt with through small low publicity events and church-based small group discussions.

Unfortunately this strategy has produced a significant drawback; the perception that the lack of black publicity attributed to protesting intraracial crime characterizes the black community as insincere with regards to their ideology of “black lives matter”. This behavior leads a non-black individual to believe that for black individuals black lives only matter when non-blacks do the killing. Now one could protest the accuracy of this belief, but understand that perception is what matters here. At the moment the black community needs to amply the publicity of their outrage regarding all violent crime against blacks to truly live up to the creed “black lives matter.”

Note that in the media back and forth on this issue the term “black-on-black” crime is commonly utilized and is commonly attacked. The problem with the black community and its allies rejecting the idea of “black-on-black” crime is that the black community typically initiates the discussion of race as an element to crime when they engage in these large demonstrations protesting the death of a black individual at the hands of a non-black individual. While some could argue that the motivations of these protests originate because the assailant is a police officer, thus assigning the negative reaction to the abandonment by that officer of his/her duty; one must ask the question: would these protests be of similar size and intensity if an Asian or black officer committed the shooting over a white officer? While sad, it is hard to believe the answer would be yes. Overall it is logistically peculiar to suggest that “black-on-black” crime does not exist as the term is simply used to categorize criminal activity when the assailant is black as well as the victim just like “white-on-white” crime categorizes criminal activity when the assailant is white as well as the victim.

A lesser problem facing the black community when developing leaders is that no major national individual or organization seems to be interested in doing a lot of legwork to develop those leaders. The philosophy appears to be: hope that quality leaders “magically” evolve on a local level then these local leaders move on to the national stage, driven by their own pride and ambition, and produce a wealth of new strategies to solve problems in the black community. This belief is almost laughable because without any support from the national leadership it is almost impossible to expect local leaders to become national leaders. There are a few black centric leadership conferences like the Whitney M. Young Jr. Urban Leadership Development Conference or the National Black MBA Association, but those cater more to individuals already in some form of leadership position.

There seems to be a lack of focus on developing young leaders like those only in their teens without any professional experience or ties. This strategy is troublesome because it limits the ability to develop leaders by relying on early self-determination to produce the candidate pool, which for all races and ethnicities is not as large as one would hope. If this mindset is correct then the good news is that such a situation is easily correctable. For example an organization like the NAACP could establish an independently managed non-profit organization that could fund annual leadership conferences for high-school students (14-18), including travel vouchers for attendees, in a variety of states. These new conferences could inspire new confidence in aspiring leaders in addition to giving them a place to refine their skills.

As noted above the loss of solution potential is not the only concern with the leadership development strategy in the black community. The loss of future leaders also hurts the community because there is no one to replace leaders that are unable to produce breakthroughs or even try to produce breakthroughs; this lack of a viable replacement pool is one of the major reasons why leaders from the 60s and 70s are still wielding a large portion of black political power in the 00s and 10s.

One of the most important elements of leadership in the black community is marshalling enough political power to produce positive solutions to existing relevant problems. However, available political power appears in short supply leading the black community to frequently lament being treated as political pawns. Black individuals generally seem to believe that the Democratic Party neglects their value where as on a general policy level voting for the Republican Party is self-sabotage. Despite some past dreams the idea that blacks could form a viable third party is instantly defeated due to the lack of demographic power. Faced with these conditions how can the black community exert political power?

This question is a difficult one in a democracy for any group with a significant minority. One way to produce more efficient political power is to frame solutions in the context of how they help society, not how they specifically help the black community. Sadly the reality of debate will preclude the ability to argue for certain solutions from a black perspective. There may be too many individuals who when hearing the framing of a solution from the black perspective will simply think, “black people are complaining again” and ignore the remainder of the solution. Therefore, even if the solution is ideal for a vast majority of the population, framing will affect how many individuals not already aligned with addressing the problem will hear the solution and thus be convinced.

Another, potentially risky strategy, is that the black community could take action to demonstrate their value to the Democratic Party by “sitting out” an election cycle. For example in a non-Presidential election cycle the black community can place the bulk of its voting power behind a third party candidate that innately supports its solutions. Understandably in all national elections along with a number of local and state elections this candidate will lose, remember the lack of voting power.

However, in a number of races without the support of black voters various Democrat candidates that could have won will also lose. This method utilizes the idea that sometimes one has to fail in a battle to win a war for the winners of these elections will more than likely not support positive solutions to black problems, but the extent of black voting importance will be demonstrated. The above strategy is risky because it may damage trust between the black community and other members of the Democratic Party. Other members may view such tactics as unnecessary strong-arming producing significant damage for little reward.

Outside of political power what are other solutions that the black community could apply with strong leadership to solve the above major problems affecting them?

Poverty:

Black poverty is a complex issue that is influenced by numerous elements. A significant element of poverty can be attributed to racism, but the most influencing aspect is not current racism, but past racism. Racism in the past significantly hampered the ability of black families to generate intergenerational wealth. Most rich individuals, regardless of race, do not produce most of their wealth within their own lifetime; note that most who did largely relied on significant over-evaluated Internet companies or irrelevant consumer products, but instead the wealth was built starting with a great grandfather who passed down some of that wealth and opportunity to the grandfather who built on it and passed it down to his children, etc.

For blacks, even after the passage of various civil rights laws in the 1960s, acquiring a high enough paid job to produce intergenerational wealth was difficult. In general less wealth means less opportunity, thus reducing the ability to produce wealth, which is why most people that generate large amounts of wealth over a short period of time require non-traditional avenues like a hot, yet more than likely socially unimportant Internet or consumption product. With less ability to produce intergenerational wealth, the black community has had a more difficult time producing overall wealth, outside of entertainment occupations (actor, singer, professional athlete).

As tempting as it may be to some to simply say racism, it is not solely to blame for this situation. Black alienation of intelligence has also played a significant role in the larger poverty rates, especially as mechanization and outsourcing eliminates lower skill set jobs and competition for those jobs increase due to changing ethnic demographics. Black education and growth opportunities have also been negatively affected by the lack of cohesive family structure. However, contrary to the beliefs of some a new large wellspring of marriages and stable families will not produce significant positive movement in black economic opportunities.

A popular talking point in both political parties has suggested that the unemployment and underemployment problem in the U.S., regardless of race, can be eliminated solely though education. This idea is laughable for education by itself merely makes one a potentially more attractive applicant, but does not directly create new jobs. The simple fact is that with technology and outsourcing the total number of well-paying jobs ($45,000+) are falling out of favor replaced by $20,000-$30,000/year service jobs. The best paying jobs are difficult to acquire because they are almost reserved for individuals of privilege that have the right connections, specific education, and resources. Noting this point of reality is not to say that good jobs do not exist, but to combat the simple-minded idea that if only members of the black community get educated and married they will be greeted by a multitude of new jobs.

Overall the black community should be looking first for an economic solution to poverty, not a “race” solution because the poor are severely disadvantaged in the U.S. regardless of race or ethnicity. One of the best means for blacks to produce positive economic opportunities appears to be fighting for a guaranteed basic income. A guaranteed basic income will mitigate some of the disadvantages associated with the lack of intergenerational wealth acquisition and increase the probability for establishing new businesses that could produce new job opportunities to make expanding education financially meaningful. However, when has any black leader ever even mentioned the value of a guaranteed basic income?

Societal reclusiveness:

This solution is rather easy; the black community simply must accept the fact that it is in their best interest to work with other races and ethnicities. They need to get over the idea that interacting with other races, especially whites, in a political or economic way is “selling out”. The question is why doesn’t the NAACP, Urban League, and/or National Action Network partner with organizations like AFL-CIO or the RAND Corporation to improve their chances of producing high-quality solutions and getting those solutions implemented? Do these institutions believe that such an alliance will cost them credibility in the black community? If so, why not be assertive and through selection of an appropriate alliance dispel the “sell out” myth?

Relationship with the Criminal Justice System:

Based on the above analysis regarding the risks of engagement, the black community needs to take the first step to mending the rift between police and their community by accepting the reality that the core of the justice system is not racist; it may have some racist officers, but the system as a whole is not racist. Characterizing the police in general as racist due to a very small percentage of racist officers is akin to and as equally foolish as those who characterize blacks as nothing but criminals because a small percentage of blacks break the law. Blacks do not like being stereotyped as criminals, so why are so many willing to paint the police with a similar stereotyping brush?

The biggest issue between the two sides appears to be trust, thus as mentioned above the formation of small organizations to act as a liaison and work with police should significantly increase the level of communication and thereby trust between police and black communities. This interaction would help to reassure blacks that their rights were protected by what could be interpreted in their community as a less corruptible “checks and balances” system. This organization could also act as a go-between for black individuals who want to report criminal behavior, but may be apprehensive to talk directly with the police. Note that the liaison structure should not be a single person, but an actual organization with multiple individuals who have legitimate relationships with members of the police department.

The lack of positive male and female influence in the black family –

Of all the concerns facing the black community this one appears to be the one that black individuals are most aware of and want to fix. Certainly one cannot cite a lack of trying to resolve this problem. However, how to ensure positive influence from both sexes remains unclear otherwise such a problem would have already been solved. One obstacle could be economic in that without jobs black men are not confident that they can be good parents or mentors (i.e. the thought process may be that what kid wants to look up someone who does not have a job). Another obstacle may be emotional arrogance where black men do not feel any inherent responsibility for caring for children. A third obstacle could be the lack of a father figure in their own lives when growing up, which limits the ability and/or knowledge possessed by these men to transmit to children as fathers. Basically they do not know how to be fathers, thus they do not bother to try.

If these above obstacles are genuine then one helpful strategy would be to expand the level of adult mentoring. Instead of simply bypassing adults to mentor children directly, a more effective strategy could involve mentoring adults that lack sufficient confidence or skills to be quality mentors and/or parents. Pride can be a stubborn thing, thus there are times when one simply should ask if a person would like assistance rather than waiting for that person to ask. Another strategy could be for famous black individuals with stable families to occasionally preach the value of families when they hold autograph sessions or have other interactions with the public instead of passing that buck to the church.

General negative attitudes black youth have towards education –

One of the chief failures of the current black leadership is the lack of publicity associated with black intelligence. This failure largely entails the lack of emphasis on the positive elements of education and intelligence. Basically most black youths receive the standard messages that it is important to do well in school, that being smart is cool, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, etc. However, the generalities of these messages limit their usefulness, especially when intelligence has been passively associated with “selling out” and “not being black enough”. Therefore, black leadership needs to apply faces to the message of education being important.

An example of this failure can be applied to be emergence of Neil degrasse Tyson. Mr. degrasse Tyson did not become a popular figure in science due to initial popularity and respect in the black community that was later noticed by non-black communities. Instead Mr. degrasse Tyson become popular in non-black communities, most notably white, and appears to still lack significant popularity in the black community. Despite individuals like Mr. degrasse Tyson being valuable icons of intelligence that later produces significant success, black leadership groups like the NAACP do not appear interested in exemplifying this reality in effort to dispel the idea that blacks cannot be smart or smart blacks only sell out.

In addition to the above strategy, leadership needs to focus on invoking pride in black youth to do their best to achieve success in society, in school, in athletics, etc. not just one single aspect. For example when do black youths ever see innovative science projects or poetry crafted by other black youths? Also there needs to be more effort applied to demonstrating the end result of education. Basically young students, regardless of race, need to know that learning “subject matter x” is valuable in the career they want to pursue. Having this knowledge will increase the level of interest and motivation for education.

In the end while there are significant problems, both intraracial and interracial in the black community, an important step to solving these problems is ensuring that black leadership has credibility and an important element to establishing credibility is accountability. Without accountability, i.e. the ability to lose their leadership position and influence, leaders can behave however they want without repercussions and typically that behavior will not end well for those they lead.

In addition to producing new leaders to ensure accountability, black leaders must increase the level of specificity in their solutions, especially on a quantitative level. When proposing a solution, specifics, including all relevant assumptions, are critical because it demonstrates two important features to providing legitimacy. First, specifics demonstrate that the authors have thought about the issue and the ramifications of developing and executing a particular solution beyond simple pleasant focus group approved sound bytes. Second, specifics demonstrate a willingness to be proven wrong. Whether or not the authors accept errors in their analysis and change accordingly is unknown, but at least by providing specifics the authors produce the means to allow others to expose errors without the protective cloak of ambiguity.

Overall in order to solve the problems facing the black community, especially the intraracial ones, black leaders must start to lead by example. Leading by example does not involve participating in protest marches, but actually producing detailed strategies and ideas on how to address the above problems plaguing the black community, publicizing them with vigor and discussing them in public forums to maximize their potential validity, and be willing to withdraw from their leadership positions if they are unable to make sufficient progress. In association with a new assertive leadership the black community must be more engaged with their leadership beyond a simple protest level and be willing to move on from a particular leader if he/she cannot produce at least templates for positive solutions.