Carlyn Reichel is the newest member of the By The People blogging team. Carlyn joins America.gov having recently completed a master’s degree in public policy. While writing has long been one of Carlyn’s hobbies, it wasn’t until graduate school that she presumed she had something to say worth sharing – even when she didn’t. She previously worked in public relations and continues to be a political junkie, a history and literature nerd, and a concerned global citizen.

In the United States, there are more than 600,000 elected offices in the United States. Additionally, there are numerous ballot measures and special elections that come up on a regular basis. For some it feels like that on any given Tuesday, someone somewhere in America is probably voting on something. Last week in fact, there was a special election for a federal office, a few states held off-year gubernatorial elections, and several cities including New York City and Atlanta held municipal elections. Atlanta’s ended without a clear winner in the mayoral race, so a run-off will be held in a few weeks. More elections.

But Americans have carried this craze for democracy and elections even further, and it is now a huge part of our entertainment life. Reality television often lets those watching at home vote, online or via phone, for their favorites to continue on the program. From American Idol to Dancing with the Stars, many of these shows rely on democratic fan participation. I am personally a fan of So You Think You Can Dance, and I exercise my right to vote regularly. That show also gets us to vote on Tuesday. At least we’re consistent.

The thing I find interesting though is that these shows sometimes get more voters than off-year Congressional elections in the U.S. It makes me wonder how much is the subject matter and how much is the ease of voting by text message or simply placing a phone call. Would more people vote in political elections if they could do so from the palm of their hand? What about outside the United States – could SMS voting make it easier for people in new democracies to voice their support in elections?

Of course, there are many problems with this – verifying voter eligibility and fraud to name only two – but we are continually looking for ways to make voting easier and more accessible using modern technology. As Stephen Kaufman recently mentioned, “Scantegrity” technology lets voters check online after they have cast their vote to make sure it was recorded accurately. It’s still a paper ballot, but it could help ensure every vote is counted correctly. What do you think about using new technologies to make voting easier?

(I’m listening to “Let the Good Times Roll” by The Cars)

Voting usually involves a sizable time commitment to stand in long lines and get your eligibility checked before finally proceeding to the voting booth. But after it’s over, do you ever get a lingering suspicion that your effort may have been in vain and your vote will not actually be counted?

The recent November 3 election in my town, Takoma Park, Maryland, saw the first-ever use of a voting system that would allow you to verify that, in fact, your vote was counted and your time was not wasted. It also lets you play the role of being your own elections monitor to ensure that your vote went to the candidate of your choice.

The system involves the use of paper ballots and specially designed ink that prints a unique three-letter code once you have marked your choice. The voter writes down the serial number of their ballot and the codes. After the polls close in the evening, they can go online and type the serial number of their ballot and see an image of it. Then they can check that the three-letter codes that were revealed when they made their choice are in fact the same ones on the ballot they see on the computer screen.

Of course, on the technical and transparency side, there is more to it, and I encourage you to check out this article.

Also, in full disclosure, I did not do my civic duty and go to the polls, where our mayor was up for re-election and there were a few contested and uncontested city council representations at stake. Otherwise I would now be able to report on my own test of the new system. Next year I promise to do better.

This week in Africa, Secretary Hillary Clinton discussed women and their struggle to gain equal rights in their societies.  She said,

“Too many women in this country and across Africa and across the world, including in my country, are marginalized, are left behind, are denied the rights that every human being is entitled to…They are often ignored and left out of important decisions in their families and their societies… we must remain committed to the full empowerment of women everywhere.”

Her words made me think of an article I recently read about how Afghan women are playing an increasingly important role in politics in Afghanistan.  In the upcoming nationwide elections, multiple women are running for office, and 38 percent of newly registered voters are women.  According to Vasu Mohan, deputy director for the Europe and Asia program of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), elections represent “the seed of long-term democratic behavior.”   Mohan, whose organization runs projects on democracy in 30 countries, said, “When women are politically involved, they reinforce this behavior because of their influence with the family and in larger society.”

As a woman myself, I definitely feel empowered when I cast my vote or campaign for a cause, especially when I remember that it was less than a century ago when American women were not afforded this right. What do you think about Secretary Clinton’s statement on women and the importance of working towards their full empowerment?  What do you think of women’s role in a democracy?  Are you a woman who is actively involved in your own country?

(I’m listening to “I am Sunday” by The Red Telephone)

Protests against Iran’s June 12 official presidential election results on the streets and online have continued, and the past few weeks have seen a lot of interesting Web activity as Iranians try to keep the world informed of their activities.

To get some perspective on what has been happening lately in the Persian language blogosphere, I interviewed Mr. Kia Efhad from the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team.  Have a listen.

Term limits for a country’s most important political leader are an essential component of building democracy. This normally means a maximum of two terms, each of which does not exceed five years (seven years at the most). Term limits are usually thought to apply to the office of president. For countries like Ethiopia, where the prime minister holds most of the power, it is more important that the constitution designates term limits for that position. In Ethiopia the president but not the prime minister is subject to term limits.

Term limits can be a frustrating institution, especially for incumbent leaders but even occasionally for the governed. While some heads of government, African or otherwise, can serve their people effectively in a third or even fourth term, there are many more cases where they lead to a syndrome of power in perpetuity. In almost every case, they are a setback for change and fresh ideas. Multiple terms in office also result frequently in increased corruption. Term limits ensure the possibility of policy change and help to institutionalize the democratic process.

The African track record on term limits is mixed. Early in 2008, thirty-three of sub-Saharan Africa’s forty-eight countries had constitutions that contained term limit provisions. Some African leaders have willingly turned over power in compliance with these constitutional requirements. They include recent, former leaders of Botswana, Benin, Cape Verde, Mali, Mozambique, Säo Tomé e Principe and Tanzania. Nelson Mandela in South Africa stepped down after one term. Jerry Rawlings of Ghana and Daniel arap Moi of Kenya complied with constitutional term limits under duress.

Several African leaders tried but failed to change the term limit provision of their constitution so that they could run again. Zambia’s Frederick Chiluba, Malawi’s Bakili Muluzi and Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo ultimately bowed to the will of the political system and accepted term limits.

Other African incumbents managed to change the constitution so that they could have at least one additional term. Current or recent leaders in Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Namibia, Togo, Uganda and Algeria are among those who successfully changed term limit requirements in order to prolong their time in office. In 2008, Cameroon’s parliament eliminated the two-term (seven years per term) limit for Paul Biya. I served at the U.S. embassy in Yaounde when Biya first became president in 1982. He will be able to run again in 2011 after twenty-eight years as president. The president of Niger is currently trying to change the constitution so that he can run for a third term.

The recently published 2008 AFRO Barometer survey of more than 26,000 Africans in nineteen different countries asked the question whether the constitution should limit the president to serving a maximum of two terms in office. Majorities, usually large ones, in all but two countries—Madagascar and Mozambique—replied in the affirmative. When asked if there should be no constitutional limit on how long the president can serve, a majority of respondents in each of the countries surveyed disagreed, most by substantial majorities.

Based on this extensive and highly respected survey, it is apparent that Africans generally see the merit in term limits. It is time for more African governments to include term limits in the constitution and for incumbent leaders to abide by existing constitutional term limits.

While the post-election situation in Iran is still making news all over the world, it was the build-up to the Iranian elections that first caught my attention.  I couldn’t help but notice that some of the details coming out about the issues and the voters seemed very familiar.

I listened as Iranians interviewed by U.S. radio stations said they were looking for change.  Some said they felt their country’s reputation had been damaged and that world opinion had turned against them.  They wanted this trend to stop.  There was talk across numerous media outlets of the importance of the youth vote, as well as talk of the critical role of women on election day. 

Aren’t these some of the same things I heard during elections in my own country?  During the U.S. elections, a lot of Americans were also calling for change.  Many felt that their country’s reputation in the world had also been damaged.  Just as Iranian youth were getting attention as a powerful voting bloc, American youth proved to be a strong organizing and voting force for then-candidate Obama.  And just as the media speculated on the importance of female voters in Iran, so too did it speculate on the importance of female voters in the U.S.

What’s more, social media – most notably blogs and Twitter - are playing an important role in the Iranian election aftermath, much as they were a critical organizing tool for the Obama and McCain campaigns.  We’ve even seen the important role social media played in the recent Indian elections as well. 

Am I the only one who noticed these similarities between the elections of these two countries?  Some of the same issues, the same speculations, the same commentaries, the same public sentiment and the same voting blocs existed for both.

I can always tell when an election in Virginia is coming up because my husband and I start receiving several political phone calls a day. Some callers simply ask us to vote for specific candidates. Others ask for money. Some try to hold conversations with us.

I understand the candidates’ desire to get name recognition and educate potential voters about their positions on issues. I appreciate their desire to “connect” with the electorate. I do wish, however, that my husband and I would not receive multiple calls from each campaign every week. Since the campaign calls are so frequent, they rarely teach me anything new because not enough time passes between the calls. If I’ve contributed money to a campaign, I also resent being asked for more so soon afterward and wonder about the campaign’s record-keeping.

Sometimes the candidates try to appeal to my ethnicity, asking me to vote for fellow Asian Americans. I find this tactic somewhat offensive. I don’t vote for people based on their race; I judge people by their public stance on issues and their record of effectiveness. I also dislike calls that try to scare me away from voting for political opponents.

Ironically, the frequent political calls are having the opposite of their intended effect; the more I hear from a campaign, the less I want to vote for its candidate because I feel as though I’m being harassed. But I would much rather keep receiving these calls than not have a choice at the polls, or not be able to vote at all.

As Michelle and Michael have written, sometimes Americans wonder whether or not to vote. But for some Americans, the issue is being able to vote in the first place.

In a video of an April 7 state legislative hearing, Texas lawmaker Betty Brown and Organization of Chinese Americans representative Ramey Ko discuss proposed voter identification requirements in Texas. Ko notes that some people of Asian descent have had trouble voting in a number of states because some of their identification papers use legal names transliterated from Asian languages while others include nicknames adopted for everyday use. Others have had problems because of variations in how their names are spelled on documents. Both Brown and Ko agree voters should present proof of identity to participate in elections.

During the discussion, Brown asks Ko if “it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here.” She immediately adds that she is “not talking about changing your name,” but then later asks “if there were some means by which you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that was easier for Americans to deal with?”

Brown’s comments have generated a lot of attention in the Asian-American community, including the blog Asian-Nation, the Asian American Action Fund, the Asian American Journalists Association and the Organization of Chinese Americans. I personally find Brown’s comments troubling. The United States is a land of immigrants, and the diversity of our names is a part of our cultural heritage. People of any background – Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Latin American or European – should not be asked to adopt different names for identification purposes because others find their true names hard to spell or pronounce.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that many immigrants and naturalized citizens do adopt nicknames for daily use that often are included on common forms of identification such as student IDs, work IDs and driver’s licenses. Should people be allowed to use these documents to register to vote and, when necessary, prove their identity at the polls? Or should they be required to show additional documents that list their legal names, such as naturalization certificates or passports? When there are variations in spelling, how much discretion should voter registration and poll workers have in verifying identification? How can these workers certify people as eligible to vote without unduly burdening anyone?

With national elections in the world’s most populous democracy, India, coming to an end earlier than had been predicted, the blogosphere is buzzing with analysis of the results.

Gaurav Mishra at Global Voices lists election reactions and observations that Indian voters posted on Twitter.

Kanishk Tharoor at OpenIndia talks about how the Indian media failed to correctly predict the election results.

Dr. Karan Thakur at India Times draws parallels between the 2009 Indian elections and the 2008 American elections.

At indianelections.blogadda.com you can see how social media tools such as YouTube and Flickr were used to discuss and document the 2009 Indian Elections.

What are your thoughts on the 2009 Indian elections?

My son is 6 years old — old enough to have strong opinions about everything, but not old enough to have reliable judgment, especially when it comes to clothes.  In some families, parents completely control what their children wear, from their shirts to their shoes. My husband and I, on the other hand, let our son have some say in what he wears because it makes him happy and because it teaches him about making good choices.

“Do you want to wear your blue shirt or your red shirt today?” we will ask. Usually our son is satisfied picking from the options we have laid out.  Occasionally, though, he will ask to wear a green shirt instead of a red or blue one. If the green shirt is clean, if it matches the slacks we want him to wear, and if we’re not in a rush to get out the door, we usually let him have his way. If we do not feel the green shirt is suitable, we try to explain why. We also force him to choose from what is already laid out when we are pressed for time.

I think of these parent-child interactions as a metaphor for how different countries govern. In some places, citizens have no say in who is in charge, much as some children have no say in what they wear. In others, the selection process for leaders resembles dressing my son. In the United States, for example, we review political candidates to see if they are “clean” — free of corruption and political liabilities — and if they match our values and goals.  Time is also a factor; if a candidate starts campaigning too close to an election, he may not win, no matter his qualifications.  Like the clothes my husband and I preselect for our son, Democratic and Republican nominees also have an advantage over those from smaller political parties. But, like our son’s preference for green shirts, people in this country sometimes reject the suggestions of major parties in favor of Libertarians, Greens or other third-party candidates — and sometimes those independent choices win.

In giving our son small freedoms now, we hope he will learn to make good choices about bigger things. Some day he will vote for lawmakers and presidents. Some day he may even become one.