A Further Explanation Part II-Reforming the Way We Vote

Last time on this blog I discussed why "something was rotten" in the current state of the Republic. One of the biggest problems noted there was the nature of how both the President and Congress was elected which often served to obscure the opinion of the citizenry then give voice to it. Thus, using examples from other countries, I will attempt to show how the way we elect our lawmakers should be changed. Now, a major criticism will be that this will be fundamental constitutional revision and go against the will of the Founding Fathers who were suspicious of a pure democracy. That is absolutely true, but the Founding Fathers were working in a context where the smaller states had to be appeased in order to sign on to the Constitution, so the nation would stay united which resulted in the Senate. Similarly, the Electoral College was based on the assumption that people's primary loyalty would be to their state and its Presidential candidates, leading to the election regularly being sent to the House of Representatives. However in reality this has occurred has only once. Finally the Founders' suspicions about democracy must be analyzed in the context of the times, considering most of them were wealthy merchants and landowners who feared a tyranny of the majority that would threaten their property. It is quite clear, with the expansion of suffrage (which many, if not most Founders favoured restricting to property owners) that such an ignorant mob has not arisen. In light of these changes, I would suggest the following changes to our way of elections.

First of all, the way we register voters and conduct elections should be changed to increase awareness and turnout, especially among demographics who have low turnout rates such as youths, minorities, and the poor. Many countries such as Germany and Israel, automatically register voters once they're eligible. Similarly, I believe all US citizens over the age of 18 and without a criminal record should be put on the voter rolls without having to sign up. This will not involve compulsory voting, however, as is the case in some countries such as Australia. I believe, in addition, that election laws should  so that the time when polling places are open, early voting opportunities, and voting by mail procedures are consistent nationally. Making Election Day a national holiday would also be a good idea by ensuing that many people who are pressed for time due to work and other commitments have the opportunity to vote. 

With regards to Presidential elections, the Electoral College needs to be abolished as soon as possible joining the powdered wig and the musket as an 18th Century invention. While the obvious replacement is to have the President be elected by the popular vote, a problem arises if we implement the system of making the candidate who receives the most votes the winner as that means a party that had split or had a significant third party leeching off ballots (as was the case with Ralph Nader in 2000) will often lose, even if among the top candidates that party is preferred. As a result, implementing a two-round election system (as France does in its presidential elections) would be a better idea. In such a system, if no candidate received 50% or higher of the vote, a run-off election would be scheduled some time later between the top two candidates to determine the final winner. Ideally this would encourage political diversity by allowing more candidates  With the President elected directly by the popular vote, candidates would have to visit and campaign in all corners of the country rather than just in a handful of swing states. While some may argue that this will lead to states that have few people being ignored due to candidates looking for the most amounts of voters, this is a nonissue as most small states are (with a few exceptions such as New Hampshire) already safely in the camp of one party such as Vermont which is overwhelmingly Democratic or Idaho which is strongly Republican. 

Avoiding the issue of reforming the distribution of powers in Congress for the moment, the structure of House of Representatives also demands change. As pointed out previously, the number of Representatives has not been increased for over a century (with a brief exception when Alaska and Hawaii were granted representatives), the number of people represented by a single Congressman has grown to an average of 710,767. To reform this system, the number of Congressional districts ought to be increased by a large amount-for example were it increased to 800, the number of people in an average district would go down to about 396,485, which still is far higher than most other countries. The 2012 elections for the US House showed another problem, as while Democratic candidates for the House received more votes, the Republicans still retained a safe majority. Part of this was caused by gerrymandering (which should be corrected by establishing a nonpartisan committee to redraw Congressional boundaries on a national level as is already the case in some states such as California) but it was also caused by the way Democratic and Republican voters are concentrated. To ameliorate this, a move towards a German system of a mixed-member proportional system which combines the current representatives elected in geographical districts along with representatives elected on a national level by party. The nationally-elected representatives should be distributed in a manner that will actually reflect the vote totals for Congressional candidates to correct for the geographically elected members. 

As stated previously, this series will continue with addressing other fundamental problems our country has along with proposing some solutions to them. 

A Further Explanation Part 1

Last's week post failed to elaborate fully on my belief that indeed "Something is rotten in the state of America". This post shall point out some of the worst faults of the American Republic to-day and perhaps what can be done to correct this.

As noted in the video below, the United States' income inequality is severe with the top one percent of Americans owning some forty percent of the wealth and roughly a quarter of its income. Yet this was not always the case in the United States-even in 1915 the top one percent earned only about 18 percent of the total income. In between, income inequality was even less, in the process known as the "Great Compression" with it being well under 10 percent from the 1950s through the 1970s. Yet since then, an opposite trend, known as the "Great Divergence" has occurred, reversing any gains made in reducing income inequality in the last century and there is little sign that anything besides recessions and slowdowns of the economy will end this. As a result, today, the United States is one of the most unequal countries in the world, exceeding that of virtually every other developed nation including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan and even developing countries in Latin America such as Venezuela. In relation to this, the United States also has one of the lowest rates of social mobility among developed countries. According to Timothy Noah's exhaustive analysis of the potential causes of income inequality, the biggest factor is that of education (especially for secondary schools) which has failed to keep up with changing times and also with other countries, making college education far more valuable to employers and inflating their wages.

In relation to this is the woeful state of our politics. One of the fundamental problems causing the current state of political deadlock is the way both Presidential and Congressional elections occur. While the Electoral College (with a few exceptions) generally follows the popular will in determining who becomes President, it is undemocratic in the sense that large areas of the country  become marginalized when electing a President. As a result the Democratic leaning academics and college students of Austin, Texas or the GOP-leaning wealthy bourgeoisie that reside in coastal Newport Beach both end up casting votes for President that are worthless. At the same time, presidential candidates will essentially focus on a handful of states such as Ohio or Florida which effectively wield disproportionate power in presidential elections. The problems regarding Congressional elections can be separated to those in the Senate and the House. While other countries such as Canada or France have upper houses that look strong on paper and which are decided in a fairly undemocratic manner (such as Canada allocating them by province much as the US does by state), they usually defer to the will of the lower house. In the United States, on the other hand, the Senate has both de jure and de facto equal powers (with some exceptions in regards to treaties, Presidential appointments, and bills of revenue), when at the same time Senate seats are allocated disproportionately by state due to inequalities in state populations. Thus California has one Senator for over 18 million people while Wyoming has one Senator for roughly quarter of a million people. This, along with procedural rules regarding the filibuster, has led to a small minority of Senators representing a small minority of Americans to block or at least delay many pieces of legislation. While the House of Representatives is supposedly more democratic in character, it suffers from having its boundary lines drawn in most cases by partisan state legislatures (with some notable exceptions such as California) who draw boundaries designed to maximize the advantage for their party. As a result, the Republicans have a 12 to 4 advantage of House seats from Ohio, a 9 to 5 advantage in Michigan, and a 12 to 5 advantage in Pennsylvania despite all of them being states which President Obama won last year in the Presidential election. This factor along with variations in the concentrations of voter populations, indeed, led to the Republicans retaining a majority in the House despite the Democratic candidates receiving more votes. Finally the number of House seats has been set at 435 for about a century now, which means that each House member represents an average of 710,767 people. By way of comparison, the United Kingdom which has only a fifth of the population of the American Republican has some 650 seats in its House of Commons.

Needless to say, these are not all of America's problems. One must also discuss the state of our health care system, the lack of advanced infrastructure in both energy and transportation (such as high speed rail or nuclear power), the phenomenon of white flight, problems with our education system, and cultural degeneration. These problems and solutions to them will be discussed in future posts of this series to be entitled "There is Something Rotten...".

President Othello?

There are certain occasions when eerie parallels arise between literature and real life which are obvious to all. Such a similarity may be observed  between Shakespeare's Othello and the current situation in American politics. Much as the Venetians in the play had a man of African descent as a general (while clearly from some area of North Africa, it is unclear whether Othello was intended to be black or simply a darker-skinned Arab), the United States now has for the first time in its history a man of African descent as its President. In addition, much as there was a malignant man determined to bring down the noble Othello in the story, so there is an entire faction of men and women in this country determined to do the same with President Obama.  This faction in question, of course, is the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party especially in the House of Representatives, which in its latest act of fanaticism to stop or at least retard a modest and conservative healthcare reform plan has shut down countless government functions including among other things the virtual entirety of NASA and various government databases that provide all sorts of useful information. Meanwhile these Congressmen have blocked a "clean funding" bill that would resume funding for the government from coming to a vote without having to accept extortion due to the spinelessness of Speaker Boehner and the fear most House Republicans have of being primaried. On top of that, the Tea Party members of the House may even prevent a debt ceiling increase in the middle of this month in order to extort defunding of or delays in the implementation of Affordable Care Act despite the massive potential economic disaster such as an action would entail. 

Similarly to how Iago incited Brabantio and Roderigo through references to the "Barbary horse", the Tea

Party has in many (though to their credit, not most) cases appealed to racial and religious xenophobia to discredit the President in the eyes of the citizenry by stating he was born in Kenya or even a secret Muslim acting as a Manchurian candidate to subvert the country. Of course there are differences, such as the fact that while the motives behind Iago's actions are unclear and disputed by literary scholars, the motive of the Tea Party is clear: to enact the dogma of a reactionary ideology that aims to restore a laissez-faire capitalist paradise that never existed in the United States and as a result to dismantle the legislation of the New Deal and the Great Society such as Social Security and Medicare. Another difference is that while Iago's scheming was subtle and secretive, the Tea Party's actions are out in the open and obvious to the eyes of the world. Let us hope this clarity on the part of the Tea Party leads to popular backlash that will force Speaker Boehner to let democracy take its course by allowing a vote in the House for the clean funding bill and averting catastrophe by passing a debt ceiling increase (or better yet abolishing it completely). Furthermore, let us hope even beyond these immediate problems, the Tea Party members in the House along with their comrades in the Senate and state governments will be voted out in 2014 to completely remove this malign force that has poisoned political rhetoric and caused tremendous suffering to a struggling nation attempting to move out of an economic crisis.