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.

Various Thoughts XVII

Variations on a theme.

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

It's become a frequent occurrence. Sports figures fall to their knees or link arms (or both) when the National Anthem is being played at the beginning of one of their games. They're exercising their First Amendment rights – their freedom of expression. I wonder if they display their love of the Constitution and kneel every time they hear the anthem, wherever they are and whenever it's played, or only when they're in the spotlight and can make a political statement (or are showing unity with their teammates). Does a football star kneel at a baseball game when the anthem is played and everyone is standing?

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

I heard on the radio that the Republican action on the ACA (“Obamacare”) will be defeated in the Senate. The merits of the original bill or the proposed replacement are not at issue here. What interests me is the voting in the Senate. The report stated that four Republicans would vote “no” and, joining all the Democrats, they would prevent the bill from passing. The Senate, and, to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, is ruled by “Groupthink” rather than individual decision making. There is a party position to which all are expected to adhere. It's politics. The candidates for whom we voted based on their expressed opinions on a variety of issues, eventually vote in lockstep, supporting what the party favors and opposing whatever the leaders of the party oppose. There's no room for compromise. In this particular instance there are four Republicans who oppose their party's position. They shouldn't expect party support in the next election if they continue to think independently. All the Democrats are hewing to the line.

And that, sadly, is the rule. More and more supposedly independent “representatives,” our representatives, follow the instructions of party leaders instead of what they have promised to voters. Disregard of the party is of greater significance, and potentially more damaging, than disregard of the voters.

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

I used to think that fashion was a term that referred to clothing, changing annually according to the whims of designers. And it was strictly a matter of economics. By changing what was “in” each year, by building guaranteed obsolescence into every garment, it was possible to stop consumers – especially rich ones – from thinking for themselves. It became a competition. And what should have been choice based on individual preference became adherence to what had been accepted as “right,” at least at that time.

Now I realize that my view of fashion was too constricted, too limited. I had been considering the word while blindered. It's clear now that “fashions” – fads – exist in all fields. All that's required is that the individual let someone else decide what's “in,” and that failure to follow the fashion marks you as an outsider.

That's what has always been, and that's what we see all around us now. Certainly clothing fashions – even lower end, like baggy pants and garments that are torn – are involved (although among a different group from those who prefer Paris offerings) as well as slang, sexual mores, television programs, tattoos and the like. Most significant in my view is the readiness of people to protest whatever the “smart” people tell them is evil. Although the protesters are usually opposed to the “system,” they march at a moment's notice, often without any real knowledge about the particular situation to which they are objecting. But it's “in” to be part of the movement. And even more so to be arrested for “exercising your rights.” Especially if you're a lower level politician who needs the publicity to work his way up. It's in fashion to protest. It doesn't matter what the cause is. Everybody's doing it.

Fashions and fads permeate our society. And you'd better adhere to them or you'll be exposed on Facebook.

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

All of these are permutations of the effect that society and conformity have on the individual. And it's increasing all the time. Soon enough we'll all look alike and have the same opinions, or we'll be ostracized.

September 27, 2017

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.