Too many elected officials

In the US, we tend to think that more democracy is better - ie, it's better to have elected officials rather than appointed bureaucrats, because the people get to choose, and the people get to throw the bums out when necessary. It's an open question, however, whether voters are able or interested in figuring out who's a bum.

Yesterday, Jonathan Bernstein wrote about his experience at the Texas primary elections:

Yesterday was election day in Texas, and I voted. And I voted. And then I voted some more. If my count was correct, I voted fifty-two times. I voted for Governor, and I voted for U.S. House and Texas House and Texas Senate...OK, I didn't actually know the candidates for the state legislature, by I did feel a bit guilty about that. I voted for Lt. Governor (which is a big deal here in Texas). I voted for Attorney General, and Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Commissioner of Agriculture, and Railroad Commissioner. I don't know what the General Land Office is, no. I voted for judges -- judicial judges, and the county judge, who is the head of the county government, not a judicial judge at all. I voted for more real judges. We know someone who is running for "Judge, County Probate Court No. 2." I voted for her. I voted for District Clerk. I don't know what kind of district the District Clerk is clerk for. I'm pretty sure it's not pronounced the British way, though. I voted for party chair...actually, Party Chairman, although I voted for a woman, but what do I know?

It's not too different in NY. Over the course of a four year cycle in NYC, I have voted for US President, two Senators, one congressman, one governor, one lt. governor, one attorney general, one state comptroller, one state senator, one state assembly-member, one mayor, one public advocate, one district attorney, one city comptroller, one city council member, a borough president and probably a dozen or more judges for civil court and state supreme court. I also voted for district leaders and state committee members for the Democratic party. This does not count the various times I voted in primaries and runoff elections for most of these positions.

In other parts of New York, it's even worse- you vote for a city or town government, as well as a county legislature. You vote for a school board, a library board, a water board. In California I voted for an insurance commissioner and a secretary of state.

Now, I don't do politics for a living, but I write a political blog and I'm the head of a Democratic club in New York, so I feel like I'm pretty plugged in. However, I have to admit that most of the time I don't know anything about the judges I vote for. The first time I voted for my state assembly member I did so because my dry-cleaner, who I like, had his sign in her window. I don't know what the secretary of state in California does. When I talk to my colleagues, who have law degrees from elite schools, many of them aren't even sure who their congressman is, much less who their state and city reps are.

I wrote yesterday about how the LA city council decided to jack up parking fees, but exempt themselves from getting tickets. They probably are going to get away with this, because people in LA, like people everywhere, are busy doing and thinking about things other than politics... and when they do think about politics, it's usually big stuff like the health care bill or whether we should withdraw from Afghanistan, or things like taxes that affect them directly. Even if they hear about the parking ticket scam, it's hard to keep track of whether your council-member voted for it or against it. Note that I'm not criticizing people for not knowing this stuff - I like politics and I find it interesting, other people find other things interesting that I don't pay attention to (like the Yankees). The question is whether there's a way to streamline government so that there's accountability.

That brings us back to the first question of this post- is more democracy always best? I'd say maybe not, if it comes at the expense of accountability. Think about the elected Insurance Commissioner in California. Nobody really knows what he does, beyond the fact that it has something to do with insurance. That means it's really hard for voters to tell if he's doing a good job or not, because if your insurance rates go up, you first think to blame the insurance company, not some guy you maybe voted for 3 years ago. Absent a scandal big enough to cut through the daily clutter and lodge itself into voters' minds, it's likely nobody pays any attention to him. However, insurance companies really do care about who the insurance commissioner is, because he regulates them. So they'll be willing to put money behind candidates that are pro-insurance, and they'll make sure to call and lobby the insurance commisioner, who will probably take their calls because the insurance companies put him in office.

On the other hand, imagine that the insurance commissioner is appointed by the governor. The governor has an interest in appointing somebody honest and smart, because a scandal in the insurance commissioner's office will make the governor look bad, and consequently will look very closely into the backgrounds of potential insurance commissioners - probably harder than the voters or media will look. The governor also has an interest in leaning on the commissioner to do things to keep consumers happy, because unhappy consumers with high insurance bills often wind up being unhappy voters, and unhappy voters usually vote against the incumbent.

Appointing officials isn't the only answer, but it's an illustration of what can happen when voters aren't paying attention - there are a lot of "special interests" who are paying attention, and who do know who the water board members or the county legislators are, and use their knowledge and access to their benefit.

Obviously you can't just appoint members of congress or state assemblymembers, but maybe we could decrease the number of elected officials out there. Do we need a state senate and a state assembly? Nebraska gets along fine with just one house. Do we need to have (in upstate NY and other places) a city or town government and a county government? Couldn't we just have the various cities and towns send delegates to a bigger meeting whenever issues affecting the entire county come up?

This would also cut a lot of government costs - because for each county legislator or state senator, you're not only paying his or her salary, but salaries and benefits for their staff, paying for their office space, etc. Moreover, it would mean that, instead of having to keep an eye on 25 or 40 elected officials, maybe each voter (and the media) would only have to pay attention to 5 or 10... which would make it much easier to figure out who's a bum that should be thrown out.