TO SAVE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
I hesitate to write this since the most recent election is not even behind us yet. Between the petulance of Dear Leader and the Georgia Senate run offs, this is unfortunately not yet in our rear view mirror yet.
But assuming the obvious results are allowed to stand and a new administration takes office next January, it feels like this is at best a momentary reprieve. Storm clouds have been gathering for quite some time now showing American democracy under siege and hanging by a thread. I feel like we are entering a period, if not already there, where there will be a tyranny of the minority, where the will of the clear majority of people will be undermined and thwarted.
There are a number of factors leading to this and below are some thoughts on steps we should be taking to strengthen and preserve American democracy.
Electoral College
It should be abolished. The history of why we have it in the first place is wrapped up with one of our original sins - slavery. That, and the elites who were the Founding Fathers not really trusting the voting public with the decision of choosing a President. It has outlived any usefulness it may have ever had.
And now it serves as a destabilizing presence that undermines the faith of people in our system of government. We seem to be entering a period where one party can win the popular vote by millions and still "lose" the election. I fear this will become the norm rather than the exception. When it comes to the Electoral College - let it go.
But that requires a Constitutional amendment and will take time. Further in today's divisive political landscape where the current system so favors one party, it won't happen any time soon.
So in the mean time there may be some steps we can take to at least lessen the grip of the Electoral College. One idea would be to eliminate the "winner take all" system where the candidate who gets the most votes in a state is awarded all of the electoral votes. It might be better to award them proportionately based on the percentage of votes received by a candidate in that state.
Maine and Nebraska have something similar in that electoral votes are awarded by Congressional district with the person who took the most votes statewide getting the 2 votes associated with the Senate representation. However since so many state legislatures (looking at you GOP) have gerrymandered Congressional districts to their advantage, that would be a system ripe for abuse.
I think the best thing that can be done short term for the Electoral College can be found under Congressional reforms - namely expanding the House of Representatives.
Congress
Short term - expand the House of Representatives. The number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1929. Up to that point in American history the number of representatives had steadily increased as new states were admitted and as the population grew. Every ten years, following the census, the increase in the country's population was handled by adding more seats to the House.
Capping the House at 435 has meant that now, nearly a hundred years later, the number of people represented per district has nearly tripled in size. It also has meant that when it comes to Presidential elections the voters in rural states with low populations have a much greater influence per vote than voters in the larger, more urban states. Expanding the number of seats in the House would equalize the influence of small and large states.
Long-term - eliminate the Senate. Again this takes a Constitutional amendment. And it will likely never happen. But again the Senate is becoming a source of never ending friction threatening to tear the country apart. Not too long from now it is estimated that at least half the population will live in 8 states. This means in the Senate half the population will have 16 votes. The other half will have 84 votes. Again the Constitution is giving small, rural states an outsized influence over our politics and the government.
There is no rational reason for the Senate to exist. Again its origins are in the compromises needed so that "small" states would feel comfortable joining a national, Federal government without feeling they would be overwhelmed by "large" states. And of course if we go back to the Constitutional Convention we realize that "small" and "large" were just the euphemisms they used in History class for "slave-holding" and "non slave-holding" states.
At best the Senate acts as a brake on the popular sentiment of the day. But at its worse, and with the demographic trends in this country related to geography, it is a prescription for gridlock and thwarting the will of the majority of American citizens. If we have to have a Senate, then let it be a largely ceremonial body akin to the House of Lords in Britain.
Courts
Expand them. At all levels of the Federal Judiciary, but including the Supreme Court for sure.
When the Supreme Court size was expanded from 7 to 9 members in 1869 it was because the number of Circuit Courts had expanded from 7 to 9. One Justice per Circuit seemed to be the formula. Currently we have 13 Circuit Courts. So at a minimum it would appear the Supreme Court should have 13 members.
This would correct a couple of things. Thanks to the Electoral College we have a Supreme Court whose members are way outside the mainstream of the majority of Americans.
Democrats have won 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections when looking at the popular vote. No party in American history has ever put together a streak like that before. Yet only 3 of the 9 current Justices were appointed by Democrats. Of the 6 Republican appointed Justices, 5 were appointed by Presidents who ascended to office while losing the popular vote. Expanding the Court would give an opportunity to have a Court that more closely resembles the American people, including in ideology.
The other positive asset of expanding the Court is that it makes each single seat less important. With the country and the Court so divided (until last month when now we have a clear 6-3 far right majority) any opening on the Court takes on heated significance. Presumably if a seat represented 1/13th of the Court rather than 1/9th each vacancy might not be so traumatic and divisive an event.
Voting and Elections
Let's face it, for a country that has been holding democratic elections for well over 200 years, we suck at it. For national elections we have a haphazard chaotic system. Mostly because we don't really have a national election. We have 51 of them. Each state and the District of Columbia has their own rules and timelines - when can you register to vote and how, when can you vote, how can you vote. No wonder people get confused and think something nefarious is going on.
There is a definite need for some standardization and modernization of our electoral process.
Some suggestions:
Finally, some standards as to redistricting of Congressional and state legislative seats to eliminate the extensive gerrymandering we have in so many states today is in order. In some states the gerrymandering is such that Republicans can hold on to power, sometimes by large margins, while receiving fewer votes than the Democratic candidates in the state over all.
None of the items above are magic bullets. They won't solve everything. And some will be easier to achieve than others. But if we want democracy to survive and thrive in this country, if we want to increase voter participation and trust in our elections and their results, then we have to make every effort to move forward on reforms of our government and our elections.
But assuming the obvious results are allowed to stand and a new administration takes office next January, it feels like this is at best a momentary reprieve. Storm clouds have been gathering for quite some time now showing American democracy under siege and hanging by a thread. I feel like we are entering a period, if not already there, where there will be a tyranny of the minority, where the will of the clear majority of people will be undermined and thwarted.
There are a number of factors leading to this and below are some thoughts on steps we should be taking to strengthen and preserve American democracy.
Electoral College
It should be abolished. The history of why we have it in the first place is wrapped up with one of our original sins - slavery. That, and the elites who were the Founding Fathers not really trusting the voting public with the decision of choosing a President. It has outlived any usefulness it may have ever had.
And now it serves as a destabilizing presence that undermines the faith of people in our system of government. We seem to be entering a period where one party can win the popular vote by millions and still "lose" the election. I fear this will become the norm rather than the exception. When it comes to the Electoral College - let it go.
But that requires a Constitutional amendment and will take time. Further in today's divisive political landscape where the current system so favors one party, it won't happen any time soon.
So in the mean time there may be some steps we can take to at least lessen the grip of the Electoral College. One idea would be to eliminate the "winner take all" system where the candidate who gets the most votes in a state is awarded all of the electoral votes. It might be better to award them proportionately based on the percentage of votes received by a candidate in that state.
Maine and Nebraska have something similar in that electoral votes are awarded by Congressional district with the person who took the most votes statewide getting the 2 votes associated with the Senate representation. However since so many state legislatures (looking at you GOP) have gerrymandered Congressional districts to their advantage, that would be a system ripe for abuse.
I think the best thing that can be done short term for the Electoral College can be found under Congressional reforms - namely expanding the House of Representatives.
Congress
Short term - expand the House of Representatives. The number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1929. Up to that point in American history the number of representatives had steadily increased as new states were admitted and as the population grew. Every ten years, following the census, the increase in the country's population was handled by adding more seats to the House.
Capping the House at 435 has meant that now, nearly a hundred years later, the number of people represented per district has nearly tripled in size. It also has meant that when it comes to Presidential elections the voters in rural states with low populations have a much greater influence per vote than voters in the larger, more urban states. Expanding the number of seats in the House would equalize the influence of small and large states.
Long-term - eliminate the Senate. Again this takes a Constitutional amendment. And it will likely never happen. But again the Senate is becoming a source of never ending friction threatening to tear the country apart. Not too long from now it is estimated that at least half the population will live in 8 states. This means in the Senate half the population will have 16 votes. The other half will have 84 votes. Again the Constitution is giving small, rural states an outsized influence over our politics and the government.
There is no rational reason for the Senate to exist. Again its origins are in the compromises needed so that "small" states would feel comfortable joining a national, Federal government without feeling they would be overwhelmed by "large" states. And of course if we go back to the Constitutional Convention we realize that "small" and "large" were just the euphemisms they used in History class for "slave-holding" and "non slave-holding" states.
At best the Senate acts as a brake on the popular sentiment of the day. But at its worse, and with the demographic trends in this country related to geography, it is a prescription for gridlock and thwarting the will of the majority of American citizens. If we have to have a Senate, then let it be a largely ceremonial body akin to the House of Lords in Britain.
Courts
Expand them. At all levels of the Federal Judiciary, but including the Supreme Court for sure.
When the Supreme Court size was expanded from 7 to 9 members in 1869 it was because the number of Circuit Courts had expanded from 7 to 9. One Justice per Circuit seemed to be the formula. Currently we have 13 Circuit Courts. So at a minimum it would appear the Supreme Court should have 13 members.
This would correct a couple of things. Thanks to the Electoral College we have a Supreme Court whose members are way outside the mainstream of the majority of Americans.
Democrats have won 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections when looking at the popular vote. No party in American history has ever put together a streak like that before. Yet only 3 of the 9 current Justices were appointed by Democrats. Of the 6 Republican appointed Justices, 5 were appointed by Presidents who ascended to office while losing the popular vote. Expanding the Court would give an opportunity to have a Court that more closely resembles the American people, including in ideology.
The other positive asset of expanding the Court is that it makes each single seat less important. With the country and the Court so divided (until last month when now we have a clear 6-3 far right majority) any opening on the Court takes on heated significance. Presumably if a seat represented 1/13th of the Court rather than 1/9th each vacancy might not be so traumatic and divisive an event.
Voting and Elections
Let's face it, for a country that has been holding democratic elections for well over 200 years, we suck at it. For national elections we have a haphazard chaotic system. Mostly because we don't really have a national election. We have 51 of them. Each state and the District of Columbia has their own rules and timelines - when can you register to vote and how, when can you vote, how can you vote. No wonder people get confused and think something nefarious is going on.
There is a definite need for some standardization and modernization of our electoral process.
Some suggestions:
- Universal automatic voter registration
- Universal vote by mail allowed
- Election Day is a national holiday, or election day is spread out over a weekend
- Early voting allowed
- Paper ballots, or voting methods that require an audit trail and people being able to see the votes being registered for them
- Uniformity in the handling of mail in ballots and the compilation and certification of results
Finally, some standards as to redistricting of Congressional and state legislative seats to eliminate the extensive gerrymandering we have in so many states today is in order. In some states the gerrymandering is such that Republicans can hold on to power, sometimes by large margins, while receiving fewer votes than the Democratic candidates in the state over all.
None of the items above are magic bullets. They won't solve everything. And some will be easier to achieve than others. But if we want democracy to survive and thrive in this country, if we want to increase voter participation and trust in our elections and their results, then we have to make every effort to move forward on reforms of our government and our elections.
RSS Feed