In this week’s lead precis, Scholar Li poses a question about limitations that prevent citizens from achieving a higher level of participation to affect the outcome of policy processes. In “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Arnstein describes the ladder as a conceptual tool to describe levels of citizen participation in policy processes. Each rung refers to citizens’ degree of power in determining the outcome of a policy process, starting at the bottom rung where citizens have little power and culminating with the top rung where citizens have ultimate control.
Arnstein argues that at the lowest rungs of the ladder, citizens are not meaningfully engaged. Those who hold power engage create processes like community meetings to inform citizens. At the middle rungs, citizens may be consulted, suggesting an opportunity to provide input. Bur power-holders may not delegate any actual power to ensure that citizens’ wishes will be honored. At this level, citizens may be invited to make decisions based on a limited set of options. For example, Arnstein describes a situation where poor mothers were asked to give their opinion on potential resources for the community. Surveys revealed a high degree of support for safe places where children could play, but mothers were not informed that free, pre-paid health insurance was also an option. At the highest level, citizens are meaningfully engaged and are able to negotiate with power-holders. Arnstein notes that in cases where power is shared, it was taken by the citizens. For example, community members achieved partnership with Philadelphia city officials around a Model Cities initiative by threatening to mobilize protests against an application that was developed without community input.
Arnstein acknowledges that the ladder is an oversimplification, but it serves as a useful frame for examining relationships between ordinary citizens and those who hold power. Using the voter information and registration system in New York City as an example, this essay will show how an imbalance of power between citizens and political parties affects citizens’ ability to have greater influence in the policy process.
Political parties have considerable influence in disseminating information about elections, in the primary process and around voter registration. In New York City, voter outreach and registration is managed by the City Board of Elections. (City of New York, Board of Elections, 2014) The Board is comprised of ten Commissioners who are nominated based on recommendations from the two leading political parties. Each commissioner is appointed to serve a four-year term by the City Council, which is comprised of elected officials who are aligned with the two political parties. The Board of Elections’ day-to-day operations are carried out by non-partisan staff who are supervised by Board of Election Commissioners.
This structure influences voter choice in important ways. First, only voters who are enrolled members of a political party can sign petitions to nominate candidates and vote in primary elections. Second, if a registered voter wishes to support a candidate from a different party in the primaries, he or she must take an additional step to change his or her party affiliation before registering for the primary election. In the most recent presidential primary, New York City residents who wished to support Senator Bernie Sanders were required to be affiliated with the Democratic Party by October 2015, well before the March 2016 voter registration deadline in order to vote for Sanders in the April primary. (VoteForBernie.org, 2015) In the general election, registered voters can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. But the complex party affiliation process excluded some Sanders supporters from voting for him in the primaries. Voters who felt disenfranchised by this process may be less inclined to participate in the general election or in future political activities.
There are practical reasons why political parties may manage the primary nomination process and voter communication. For example, parties may be better positioned to disseminate election-related information to members than an outside entity. But the party-dominated structure also creates a barrier to reforming the system, which could be seen after New York City residents reported problems at the polls during the 2016 primaries.
In the days leading up to the primaries, about 120,000 Brooklyn residents, nearly 10 percent of active voters, were purged from the registered voter rolls. (Bergin, 2016) Some were removed because they were believed to have moved away or were identified as inactive due to non-participation in the two most recent elections. Following citizen complaints, an investigation and media attention, all of the names were restored. In response to this incident, Mayor de Blasio proposed a plan to reform the Board of Election including increased funding. The plan called for an outside entity to oversee operations, retraining poll workers and developing new ways to communicate with voters such as texting and email. (Bergin, 2016) But the mayor does not have the power to force any changes. Its members are political appointees who do not report to the mayor or City Council.
Assuming the mayor’s plan to revamp the Board did advance. Reform could result in a similarly complex primary system. In “The New Localism, Anti-Political Development Machines, and the Role of Planning Consultants,” Raco et. al. discuss the evolution of development schemes designed to shift policy making from a top-down approach to a local approach where community-based organizations have greater involvement. But reductions in local government funding and changes in complex governance surrounding planning resulted in greater reliance on external consultants who manage the citizen engagement process. Raco et. al. argue that old forms of community engagement have been delegated to experts that treat engagement as a box they have to check. Similarly, an outside monitor that does not shift the balance of power between citizens and the political parties could develop a new process that yields the same result.
I do not claim to be an expert in the political nomination and election process. But I use New York City's Board of Elections structure and the primary process to illustrate political party influence. The examples presented here seem to fall somewhere in the middle of Arnstein’s ladder citizen of participation; voters choose candidates through a framework managed by the political parties. Meaningful change in the system, such as a simpler, more inclusive primary process, is only possible if the power dynamic shifts in favor of ordinary citizens. But it’s difficult to see how citizens can wrest control of the process that overseen by the same entities that benefit from the existing scheme.
Additional Works Cited
City of New York, Board of Elections, “About the New York City Board of Elections” (updated 2014) http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/about/about.shtml.
Brigid Bergin, “Why Voter Rolls Can Be a Mess,” NPR, All Things Considered (June 16, 2016) http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/481921080/why-voter-rolls-can-be-a-mess.
Arnstein argues that at the lowest rungs of the ladder, citizens are not meaningfully engaged. Those who hold power engage create processes like community meetings to inform citizens. At the middle rungs, citizens may be consulted, suggesting an opportunity to provide input. Bur power-holders may not delegate any actual power to ensure that citizens’ wishes will be honored. At this level, citizens may be invited to make decisions based on a limited set of options. For example, Arnstein describes a situation where poor mothers were asked to give their opinion on potential resources for the community. Surveys revealed a high degree of support for safe places where children could play, but mothers were not informed that free, pre-paid health insurance was also an option. At the highest level, citizens are meaningfully engaged and are able to negotiate with power-holders. Arnstein notes that in cases where power is shared, it was taken by the citizens. For example, community members achieved partnership with Philadelphia city officials around a Model Cities initiative by threatening to mobilize protests against an application that was developed without community input.
Arnstein acknowledges that the ladder is an oversimplification, but it serves as a useful frame for examining relationships between ordinary citizens and those who hold power. Using the voter information and registration system in New York City as an example, this essay will show how an imbalance of power between citizens and political parties affects citizens’ ability to have greater influence in the policy process.
Political parties have considerable influence in disseminating information about elections, in the primary process and around voter registration. In New York City, voter outreach and registration is managed by the City Board of Elections. (City of New York, Board of Elections, 2014) The Board is comprised of ten Commissioners who are nominated based on recommendations from the two leading political parties. Each commissioner is appointed to serve a four-year term by the City Council, which is comprised of elected officials who are aligned with the two political parties. The Board of Elections’ day-to-day operations are carried out by non-partisan staff who are supervised by Board of Election Commissioners.
This structure influences voter choice in important ways. First, only voters who are enrolled members of a political party can sign petitions to nominate candidates and vote in primary elections. Second, if a registered voter wishes to support a candidate from a different party in the primaries, he or she must take an additional step to change his or her party affiliation before registering for the primary election. In the most recent presidential primary, New York City residents who wished to support Senator Bernie Sanders were required to be affiliated with the Democratic Party by October 2015, well before the March 2016 voter registration deadline in order to vote for Sanders in the April primary. (VoteForBernie.org, 2015) In the general election, registered voters can vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. But the complex party affiliation process excluded some Sanders supporters from voting for him in the primaries. Voters who felt disenfranchised by this process may be less inclined to participate in the general election or in future political activities.
There are practical reasons why political parties may manage the primary nomination process and voter communication. For example, parties may be better positioned to disseminate election-related information to members than an outside entity. But the party-dominated structure also creates a barrier to reforming the system, which could be seen after New York City residents reported problems at the polls during the 2016 primaries.
In the days leading up to the primaries, about 120,000 Brooklyn residents, nearly 10 percent of active voters, were purged from the registered voter rolls. (Bergin, 2016) Some were removed because they were believed to have moved away or were identified as inactive due to non-participation in the two most recent elections. Following citizen complaints, an investigation and media attention, all of the names were restored. In response to this incident, Mayor de Blasio proposed a plan to reform the Board of Election including increased funding. The plan called for an outside entity to oversee operations, retraining poll workers and developing new ways to communicate with voters such as texting and email. (Bergin, 2016) But the mayor does not have the power to force any changes. Its members are political appointees who do not report to the mayor or City Council.
Assuming the mayor’s plan to revamp the Board did advance. Reform could result in a similarly complex primary system. In “The New Localism, Anti-Political Development Machines, and the Role of Planning Consultants,” Raco et. al. discuss the evolution of development schemes designed to shift policy making from a top-down approach to a local approach where community-based organizations have greater involvement. But reductions in local government funding and changes in complex governance surrounding planning resulted in greater reliance on external consultants who manage the citizen engagement process. Raco et. al. argue that old forms of community engagement have been delegated to experts that treat engagement as a box they have to check. Similarly, an outside monitor that does not shift the balance of power between citizens and the political parties could develop a new process that yields the same result.
I do not claim to be an expert in the political nomination and election process. But I use New York City's Board of Elections structure and the primary process to illustrate political party influence. The examples presented here seem to fall somewhere in the middle of Arnstein’s ladder citizen of participation; voters choose candidates through a framework managed by the political parties. Meaningful change in the system, such as a simpler, more inclusive primary process, is only possible if the power dynamic shifts in favor of ordinary citizens. But it’s difficult to see how citizens can wrest control of the process that overseen by the same entities that benefit from the existing scheme.
Additional Works Cited
City of New York, Board of Elections, “About the New York City Board of Elections” (updated 2014) http://vote.nyc.ny.us/html/about/about.shtml.
Brigid Bergin, “Why Voter Rolls Can Be a Mess,” NPR, All Things Considered (June 16, 2016) http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/481921080/why-voter-rolls-can-be-a-mess.