It's Time For A Change

[This is a rather long essay. I hope it's worth it.]

There's an old saying, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it. “ Well, it's broke. And it's important. It's the American government. There are many who wonder about the ability of our public officials to deal with the problems that face our country. Many even doubt that legislators “our representatives,” have as much interest in us as in their own welfare.

We like to think we have “a government of the people, by the people, for the people,” but we don't. The only part the “people” have is in choosing those “sworn” to represent them, but they're actually ore interested in solidifying their own power. They pander to those who support them, and are aided by those they benefit.

Have you ever been polled? Has your opinion ever been (allegedly) sought in defining the issues of the day? Chances are that after your demographics were carefully defined you were given two sets of questions – binary ones (yes/no, more/less, etc.) and those that ask you to put your interests, or those of the poll, in order. There was neither room nor time for nuance nor opinion about compromise.

That would complicate things. It would make things difficult if not impossible. Our “leaders” could no longer lead from behind. Working groups, task forces, and committees may offer additional information, but they are costly, unwieldy, and reliant on the views of an unrepresentative few, and they are less likely to be employed.

After the vote on some important issue, however, your “representative,” after asserting that he voted just as he said he would, will use all manner of interpretation and nuance to explain a vote that is contrary to your wishes. It will be his way of vindicating all the deals and exceptions he made in an effort to obtain votes on some other issue of more importance to him. He will use nuance to justify the turning of a binary question into a thousand-page bill. The reality is that the agendas of our politicians may differ from ours.

In all likelihood, the Founding Fathers anticipated disagreement regarding policies and there were many who railed against the establishment of political parties, but it didn't take long after the establishment of the republic for parties to develop. Two parties. And that's the problem. They convert all issues to binary questions when they present them to the voters, but leave themselves more room for maneuvering. And all decisions are based on party, not voter, loyalty. It's all “black and white.” “My way or the highway.” Compromise is evil.

I can't fault their approach. In the end, all decisions are binary even if we find it difficult to figure them out. But I'd like to offer a use of that system that might make it easier and more rewarding for us, if not for the two major parties. It's not likely to happen because of the vested institution of government already in place. Those in power would oppose it. But there are those – and Jefferson was one – who favored periodic review and alteration of the Constitution. Perhaps now's the time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We live in the age of the internet and our dependence on it will only increase. We live at a time when people don't hesitate to express their opinion on line. At the moment they're mostly negative comments, but that can change when their importance is demonstrated and when we become more mature. For the same devices that spur comments can also be used to “connect” us. And that's what's happening. Like mail and the telephone before, we assume everyone has, or has access to, a computer – at home or in the form of a “smart phone.” There's always the library for those who don't. Toward what end? Expressing a preference or opinion.

But there's not much room for choice when there are only two parties and representatives hew to the dogma dictated by their leaders. (“You're either for us or against us, and we have long memories.”) So you're really voting for the party-line and can't rely on the “promises” of your “representative.” And for the party there is only black and white. No grays. There's no choice.

What I propose – and I recognize that it would require a great deal of determination to organize – is a multiplicity of parties with shades of difference on different issues. We've had third parties before, but they were mainly reactions to specific problems and not designed to deal with the subtleties of many different issues nor to last for more than one or two election cycles.

Suppose there were seven parties (“seven” is an arbitrary number put up for the sake of discussion and should not be taken seriouslyⁱ – the number might be fixed or depend on percentage in a previous poll of some sort); suppose the voters were polled on what issues were important to them an the different parties gave their views (indeed their reaction to the views might be used to determine which parties could contend); suppose the vote was proportional to the voter percentages: it might play out as follows. The questions could be framed by the participating political parties in order to force their opponents to confront them. I'll give a couple of sample questions. (Remember that since a long list of questions would be given, and the parties would express their opinions on a wide variety of issues, their answers would be limited to 140 characters or some such familiar number.ⁱⁱ) And, while all candidate's views and their percentages would be listed, the “official” responses would be given by the plurality choice within each party.

What are your views on gun control?

Party 1.: Eliminate all weapons.

2. Eliminate firearms as opposed to other weapons.
3. Register all firearms and exclude ownership by those with histories of mental disease, drug use, or crime.
4. Register all firearms and their users (who have been vetted for any suspicious activity).
5. Eliminate all automatic weapons.
6. Eliminate all firearms but handguns and they must be visible.
7. Leave laws as they are.
8. Another answer.
   Other parties would also give their views. – 9 and up.

And

How do you feel about DACA (Normalizing status of “dreamers” – children of illegal immigrants).

Party 1.: Tighten borders. Prosecute all illegal immigrants.

2. Prosecute both parents and children. They have violated our laws.
3. Prosecute parents but deport children.
4. Leave both parents and children in place but prosecute other illegal immigrants.
5. Leave both parents and children in place but deport other illegal immigrants.
6. Deal with parents as you would deal with other illegal immigrants but provide a path for citizenship for children.
7. Deal with other illegal immigrants as you would normally do but provide a path for citizenship for DACA parents and children.
8. Provide a path for citizenship for all “illegal” immigrants.
9. Legalize all residents.
10. Another answer.
Other parties would also give their views. – 11 and up.

On the basis of responses to these questions (gun control, illegal immigration, and all the other issues of significance to the politicians) the public would both choose the “seven” parties that would run. The “twenty” (or whatever number) questions that would be considered for election itself might be from among these, or new questions determined by a voter poll. (Since it would be a proportional election with party slates rather than voting for individual candidates, they, and their order on their party's candidate list should be recorded so that voters would have a rough idea of for whom they are voting but) Each person's vote should be for a party based on a consideration if it's positions on all the issues which would be formulated. Listed (remember this is this internet so there's room) would be a distribution of candidate views and choices of answers. There would be a short view but also a hyperlink to a longer (but limitedⁱⁱⁱ) view for each for each candidate who desires it. Included might also be a description of the party's performance on the issue to date.

Two (at least) results are likely – the voter would have a truer sense of the issues about which he's voting, and the representatives would be more free to choose their own ways – indeed almost forced to by the on-line statements they made – they'd be less under party control and more likely to compromise on issues important to the voters. Congressional decisions would be based on plurality vote, or by another formula decided separately. All sponsors of bills presented for consideration would be listed, as would any connection of those who would benefit (excluding those who contribute up to a stated limit) to the party or its candidates.

The results of “off-year” elections – every four years not divisible by four (eg 2018, 2022, 2026) – would be used to determine presidential choices. The three parties with the most representatives could put up candidates and the one with a plurality (or whatever) would be elected. There would be no Electoral College. Votes would be made over the internet based on the same short and hyperlinked longer responses to questions of significance at the time of the election. Those questions would be decided beforehand by the voters, and voting results, though done over a period of days or weeks, would not be revealed until a specific deadline is reached. Since the material necessary would be available to all voters simultaneously, there would be equal significance to every vote – not just the ones on the east coast. At issue would be issues. Negative advertising would have far less impact.

Admittedly the process would be complex and require a lot of reading, but this would ensure the greatest participation of those most interested in the process and the results. Knowing of the importance of the results to everyone, translations to all languages would be available on line if requested.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's another consideration that shouldn't be overlooked – especially now. Do we trust those whom we've elected. Responses from previous elections would remain on line and we'd be able to compare promises and performance more easily – especially if the new computer system was programed to do so. The program would also flag exceptions voted for, and which exceptions aided donors to, or supporters of the party in question. That would allow us all to judge the reliability of the promises and votes (all would be recorded – no acclamation or votes by hand). In short, we'd know what they offered and what they delivered. And to whom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's not likely that the two established parties would support such changes since it would cost them control of the government, but We The People are supposed to run things and the representatives are there only to serve as our agents.

December 30, 2017

iAs with “seven,” all numbers should be viewed as arbitrary. They are simply listed to provide room for discussion. Obviously they ar subject to change. The only condition that the increased numbers provide the voters with room for nuance.

iiSee below.

iii These would be longer, but not so much that they wouldn't be read or understood.