-------- Original Message --------
UK ELECTION LAW: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION, by Bob Watt.
LAW AND POLITICS BOOK REVIEW
ISSN 1062-7421
Vol. 16 No. 6 (June, 2006), pp.462-464
An Electronic Periodical Published by The Law and Courts Section, The American Political Science Association
Herbert Jacob, Founding Editor
Wayne McIntosh, Editor
Department of Government & Politics
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
E-mail: wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu
The Law and Politics Book Review is published on two distribution lists from the University of Maryland, College Park. You are currently receiving the full-text, multiple-mailing version, UMD-LPBR-FULL. This is a moderated list and does not accept any messages except via the editor. If you would prefer to receive a more abreviated version of the reviews in a notice format with links to the full-text copy as it is published on the LPBR webpage (located at www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr ), please send the message: subscribe UMD-LPBR <your name> to listserv@listserv.umd.edu . More generally, please send all comments and questions to Wayne McIntosh via E-mail: wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu .
Prospective authors should contact the LPBR Editor, Wayne McIntosh, at wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu .
*************************************************
UK ELECTION LAW: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION, by Bob Watt. London, UK: Glasshouse Press, 2006. 264pp. Paper. £22.95/$42.81. ISBN: 1-89541-916-X.
Reviewed by Lori Ringhand, University of Kentucky College of Law, Lexington, KY USA. Email: lring2 [at] uky.edu.
In a democratic system of government, two types of political questions must be resolved. There are the day-to-day questions of policy preferences: Do I support tougher environmental regulations, or do I believe such regulations would result in an unacceptable loss of jobs? Should my school district raise local taxes to increase teacher salaries? Who do I want to be my Senator? But antecedent to these policy questions is a group of more fundamental questions, involving regulation of the political process through which the day-to-day policy issues are decided: Should political party primaries be open to all voters or only registered party members? How should election campaigns be financed? Who should determine the boundaries of electoral districts?
These latter questions form the heart of election law - the laws used to govern the political process itself. There is a notable variety, however, in the election laws adopted by different democratic nations. This makes comparative work in this area particularly useful. Bob Watt's UK ELECTION LAW: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION provides an excellent opportunity for such comparisons.
Watt sets out to examine recent changes to British election law, including experimentation with alternative voting methods, increased regulation of campaign financing, and new restrictions on political advertising. Much of his assessment is insightful, and there is a great deal here that should be of interest to scholars of election law, inside and outside the UK. Before embarking on his analysis of these specific issues, however, Watt lays on the table his ideological approach to the entire field of election law. Election law, he says, must promote a "democratic" rather than a "market" theory of politics. This dichotomy - between regulations that reflect a "democratic" approach to electoral politics and those that reflect a "market" approach - underlies Watt's entire analysis of Britain's regulatory scheme.
In one sense, there is nothing wrong with this distinction, and there certainly is nothing wrong with Watt's decision to reveal his ideological preferences up front. He states, quite correctly, that "election law is not black letter law; it always has a political purpose" (p.1). Watt's plain statement of this fact is refreshing: too often scholars (and judges) write about election regulations as if they can be evaluated in a vacuum, without any preexisting commitment to a particular vision of what "democracy" entails. But of course the most pressing questions in election law today - questions, for example, about what type of campaign financing "corrupts" the electoral process, or what factors should and should not be considered when creating electoral districts - simply cannot be answered without reference to some background notion of what democracy itself means.
Watt's difficulty, then, is not that he has and states a preferred vision of democracy. Rather, it is that his presentation of his preference presupposes away many of the most difficult questions in this area of law. Consider his choice of terminology. Watt states in the introduction that his ideological preference is for a "democratic theory" rather than a "market theory" of politics. A "democratic" society, he says, "is one in which all members of society have a stake in deciding upon the common good" (p.21). A "market" society, in contrast, is one in which "each person individually takes delivery of what they 'need and want'" (Id.). Thus, markets are "mechanisms for aggregating individual demands and facilitating the fulfillment of individual goods" (p.21), while democracies are "mechanisms for ensuring the collective good" (p.21). A "democratic" theory of politics is therefore by definition one which encourages citizens to work together for the common good of society.
Watt may very well be correct that his vision of democracy - one in which citizens and elected officials work in furtherance of some external, ascertainable public good rather than pursue their personal self-interest - is the vision of democracy that election law should promote. But to a priori attach the label "democratic" to this particular construction of democracy defines away volumes of scholarship debating the relative merits of pluralism versus civic republicanism. UK ELECTION LAW would have been enhanced by more in-depth consideration of the deeply contested nature of the very concept of "democracy" promoted here.
Having established his preferred vision, however, Watt is a persuasive advocate for it, and his book offers a valuable guide to recent developments in British election law. Britain has experimented far more than many countries, including the United States, with certain aspects of election regulation, such as Internet-based or other types of "remote" voting, limitations on campaign spending in addition to campaign contributions, and party control of "spoiler" candidates. Watt's discussion of each of these issues is lucid and informative.
In regard to remote voting, Watt poses important questions about ballot secrecy and social control. For example, he is concerned that employers, spouses, or others will be empowered by remote voting to manipulate the ballot choices of those who are emotionally or financially dependent on them. His discussion of Britain's choice to limit campaign expenditures also is thought-provoking, and highly relevant to U.S. scholars, given that this type of regulation is once again currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in RANDALL v. SORRELL, a case challenging the constitutionality of a Vermont law imposing similar restrictions on campaign spending. Finally, Watt's discussion of "spoiler" candidates, while drawing some very fine lines between candidates a party can properly keep from co-opting its name (candidates whose only purpose is to "trash" or mock the electoral process) and those it cannot (candidates who are merely internal party dissenters) is particularly valuable. The abili
!
ty of political parties to control who appears on the ballot under their name raises numerous complex issues, and comparative study in this area is sure to be useful.
At times, however, it is tempting to wonder if Watt's commitment to civic republicanism leads him to compare an idealized past to what he sees as an increasingly troubling present. The clearest example of this can be found in his treatment of the use of communication technology in elections. Watt opposes the distribution of political information on the Internet. The Internet, he says, atomizes voters, cutting them off from the vigorous public debate that (apparently) occurs elsewhere. The posting of campaign materials on the Web is particularly offensive, because, according to Watt, making political information available on the Internet will lead to a reduction in more traditional campaign communications such as broadcasts and literature distributions, thus reducing the quality and quantity of political debate.
Watt may be correct: the Internet and similar technologies may discourage the type of public dialogue he believes should inform politics. But they may not. It seems at least plausible that the Internet provides a lively, vital forum for pointed and vigorous political debate, a forum far less threatening and far more accessible to many people than the traditional public debate Watt prefers. Watt's vision of democracy seems, unfortunately, to blind him to this potential of technology to distribute information widely and inexpensively, to reach otherwise disenfranchised voters, and to stimulate political discussion among young, web-savvy citizens.
There is one final area in which Professor Watt's book will be useful to non-British scholars. There is an ongoing debate, particularly lively in the United States, about who should have the final say in developing and evaluating election laws: should the regulation of politics be left to politics, or should it be put in the hands of judges, presumed to be removed from the political fray? Watt comes down decisively against the politicians. Election law, he implies, is simply too important to be left in the hands of elected officials. The "most telling criticism that can be leveled against the electoral law of the United Kingdom," he says, is that it is "the offspring of parliament" (p.120) - a product of politics. Many people question whether unelected officials will do any better. Nonetheless, Watt's approach to this issue, like much of UK ELECTION LAW, adds a well-informed and useful comparative aspect to our discussion of these issues.
CASE REFERENCE:
RANDALL v. SORRELL, (#04-1528) (2005), Argued 02/28/2005.
*************************************************
© Copyright 2006 by the author, Lori Ringhand.
LPBR Reviewer Database
In the interest of identifying appropriate reviewers in a timely fasion, The LPBR maintains a database of members and respective interests. If you have not done so already, please take a few minutes to complete the form located at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviewer.htm . Simply copy and paste the questions with your responses into an email to the LPBR Editor, Wayne McIntosh, at wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu .
LPBR Revew Essays
The Law and Politics Book Review will consider for publication thematic essays that address important substantive, theoretical, or methodological issues of interest to its subscribers. An essay may rest on one or several books to develop its theme. The books may be recently published or out-of-print as long as they as are readily available in university or college libraries. The essays should appeal to the broad concerns of the Review's subscribers. Individuals who wish to write an essay are encouraged to contact the Review's Editor regarding the subject, orientation, and books that will be used for the essay. Manuscripts should run approximately 2500-5000 words in length, and essay drafts will be subject to review by the Editorial Board. Prospective authors should contact the LPBR Editor, Wayne McIntosh, at wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu .
Readers may redistribute these articles to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this notice remain intact and unaltered in any way. No LPBR article may be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior permission from the author. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact Wayne McIntosh, Editor, THE LAW AND POLITICS BOOK REVIEW ( wmcintosh@gvpt.umd.edu ), Department of Government & Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, or by phone at 301.405.4156 or by fax at 301.314.9690.
All previously published reviews may be obtained at the Law & Politics Book Review web site: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr
Editorial Board
Charles R. Epp, University of Kansas
Roy B. Flemming, Texas A&M University
Nancy Maveety, Tulane University
Wayne D. Moore, Virginia Polytechnic Institute University
Jennifer Segal Diascro, American University
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org