One Liners – Part Two

Last week I raised the issue of elections, and the difficulties in our current system – considered to be one of representative democracy. As I noted then, several countries choose parties and their slates, rather than specific representatives for particular districts. It's a system very different from ours – but it might be a way to deal with some of the problems we now endure. The core idea is that currently we tolerate an arrangement that allows the two major parties to fight with each other – to prevent needed legislation as they jockey for position in the next election – and suffer no consequences for it. Since we elect local representatives – individuals who are rarely held responsible for Congressional failures – the swings back and forth don't always reflect the true degree of dissatisfaction with the political parties and their actions,ⁱ as a national vote for parties would do.

It is with this in mind that I offer a proposal to deal with a system based on a Constitution written in the eighteenth century. The proposal would obviously require changes in that document, but that would be a healthy development from time to time anyway. Other changes are included in the proposal in keeping with our present situation and with twenty-first century technology, but it is important to recognize that it only deals with the election of Congress – not with any changes in the Executive or Judiciary branches of our government.ⁱⁱ The goal is to make the political parties more responsive to the wishes of the electorate, while not compromising the rights of the minority. The proposal is meant as a starting point for discussion; I know that many points will be viewed as unacceptable or impractical.

The first area to be considered relates to parties themselves. There is no mention of parties in the Constitution. Representation in the bicameral legislature was to be based on local as well as national needs. Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures to ensure the protection of state needs and congressmen by individual voters. With representation set at one for no fewer than 30,000 voters, it was hoped that these representatives would somehow reflect the populations from which they came, even though a representative could not be expected to know all 30,000 people.

But neither arrangement has really worked out. A constitutional amendment followed,ⁱⁱⁱ allowing the popular election of senators, and representation at present is, on average, about one per 718,500.^iv And that means, of course, that for many districts even larger populations are “served” by a single Congressman. There is no way that such a person reflects the population in his district. In fact, both Senators and Representatives are more likely to respond to party leaders than to their constituents. And the parties are more interested in scoring points than in legislating – unless they fear political repercussions from their tactics. Hence the lack of cooperation between them.

So the reality is that the idea of local representation is illusory, even though members of Congress may attempt to get benefits for local constituents and pressure groups. What is transpiring is a battle of party political philosophies. And the soldiers are representatives of the parties, not the people. It seems logical to acknowledge that reality and use it for our own purposes. If, in a shortened campaign season, the parties presented the voters with statements of their philosophies^v – statements that could be reviewed at the time of the next election – the election could be for the parties directly, and based on vision rather than vituperation, and the parties,^vi knowing that they, rather than local representatives, would be judged, might be persuaded to cooperate with each other and actually accomplish something rather than simply posture.

Since the “representatives” are unlikely to know many of the voters, the continuation of the pretense makes no sense.^vii Parties^viii should present lists of their candidates for the (unicameral^ix) legislature along with biographical information and their proposals, and voters should prioritize the candidate lists in primaries. The answers of all candidates to a set of questions formulated by an independent nonpartisan group would also help in such prioritization. And with no particular constituency, there would be no reason for separate direct appeals to the voters.^x But, based on the information provided in the media, voters should be able to prioritize all candidate lists, irrespective of the voter's party enrollment – a practice that is likely to move the best, most flexible, and least ideological candidates, to the top of the lists of all parties. If a particular candidate is seeking reelection, previous promises, and previous questions and answers should be presented to the voters so that prioritization and voting can be more educated.^xi The voting, then, should be for a party, and the number of seats assigned in the legislature should be proportional to the total party votes.

It would make sense if all prioritization and voting were done by computer.^xii Social Security numbers and passwords could be used for voter identification, and voting could be done at home, or in a public setting established for those who cannot do it elsewhere. Election “Day” should take place over a few days, on a twenty-four hour basis. The need for an Election Day holiday would be obviated – a benefit to our economy.^xiii The election season – the time between the choice of candidates and the final election – should be shortened. Since those who would be candidates will be on a party list, they need not make appeals to voters nor have tiresome debates. And with computer voting the results would be almost instantaneous.

Efforts should be made to increase voting, but it should not be made mandatory. Perhaps a tax discount could be given voters – a discount which increased (to a point) with regular voting. It might mean that some other tax adjustments would be necessary to keep it revenue neutral, but it would encourage participation in suffrage and in the education of citizens both to the issues and to the process of democracy. A method might also be formulated to relate the tax benefit to the reading of biographies and platforms, a linkage that might result in better educated voters.

Another educational tool that might be of value would require the establishment of a non-partisan citizens' commission which could review all proposed legislation and publicize any special benefits received by an individual or group or by a particular geographical entity. No judgment need be made, but voters should know how, and for whom, their money is being spent.^xiv This would be a counterforce to lobbying, and might influence both the party associated with the specific benefit, and the politicians involved – politicians who might be dropped by the party in future elections, or whose priority might be changed by the voters in the next primary.^xv In addition, both the recipients and the supporters of such benefits should be given the opportunity (or perhaps required) at the time to justify the special benefit.

In the end, citizens would be better informed and the voting process would be easier. They would ultimately cast a single vote for a party, and, with a limitation of those parties, if candidates were listed on the final ballot at all they would appear in only one place. They would be one-liners.

Next episode: “Baby Face” – Do they all look like Winston Churchill?

i      See footnote iii in last week's essay.

ii     And it only deals with national government, not state or local administrations. I deal with the Executive, the Judiciary, and other matters, in previous and future messages.

iii    The seventeenth.

  

iv    According to the US Census Bureau, the population at present is about 312,700,000. With 435 Representatives, we average about 718,500 individuals for each one, and 6,254,000 for each state's Senators.

v     Perhaps in addition each party should be able to submit a few questions to the other parties, to be answered in a limited space and published by the media.

vi    It would not be unreasonable for the parties to place advertisements describing their positions, however individual candidates' names should not appear. For the education of the voters, the cost of each advertisement should be included in it.

vii    Local issues can be addressed at the state level. No change is proposed for local and statewide elections. The states should manage their own affairs and systems as long as the Constitution's Bill of Rights is respected. On the subject of the states, consideration should be given to block grants to the states (based on population, unemployment rate, average income, etc.) for local needs to be decided on locally rather than as “pork-barrel” projects slipped into national bills. That may decrease the amount of lobbying and the involvement of national government in local problems.

viii   The number of parties on the final election ballot should be limited, perhaps to three. Voters should have the opportunity in the primary to prioritize the parties with only the top ones listed on the ballot. Party write-ins would be permitted, but individual candidate names would not be listed. A party receiving over a specified percentage of the vote would be on the ballot for the next election, even if that meant more than the usual number.

ix     It does not seem necessary to have separate Senators and Representatives when neither has any particular association with a specific constituency. Two houses could be elected, however, if people were more comfortable with that arrangement.

x      A welcome side effect – however unlikely it may be – would be the decrease in the number of political mailings.

xi    Positions, promises, and performance are likely to be affected by public opinion so it is important that minority rights be protected since there will be the temptation to pander to the majority. The Bill of Rights should be strengthened, rather than threatened.

xii     With safeguards to ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

xiii    Some unions may see matters otherwise, but since only a minority of citizens vote – and that includes union members – a holiday, with all its service disruptions and economic consequences, makes no sense.

xiv    In a previous essay, “The Council Of Wise Folks,” I suggested a slightly different mechanism to achieve this aim. I think both are worth considering. Whatever method is chosen, candidates should be invited to comment on the projects cited, especially if they were involved in bring them about.

xv     In the unlikely event that the act may be approved by voters, those involved would benefit.