Every once in a while, someone justifies that we shouldn't expect the political system to reflect the will of the people because we live in a republic, not a democracy. Usually the line of reason goes something like this:
1. We elect our leaders, not govern ourselves directly
2. Rights could not exist in a democracy, because the will of the people would always defeat the individual
3. We have a federal system, so we can't be a democracy
4. I belong to the party that calls itself Republican, so republics must be good but I am fed up with the party that calls itself Democratic so democracy must be evil
5. The founding fathers said you can't trust democracy, and they're right
I think the easiest way to deal with these arguments is to first state what my definitions of "democracy' and "republic" are. Democracy comes from the Greek word demokratia "people power." Republic comes from the Latin phrase "res publica" or "from the people" sometimes translated "public affair." These terms originated independently to describe systems of government where power comes from below. The Roman Republic was often more conservative than the Athenian democracy, but the terms were not intended to be opposed.
At the time of the U.S. founding, many of the founding fathers argued in favor of a republic and against what they called "pure democracy." By this they meant they supported what we now call representative democracy rather than what we now call direct democracy. Many of the founders also advocated substantial restrictions on voting rights, so the early republic was not democratic by modern standards because of that.
However, other historical writers as well as the modern consensus do not fall into this trap. Montesquieu, for instance, divides republics between "aristocratic republics" and "democratic republics" based on the level of popular participation. And in modern parlance representative democracies are divided between constitutional monarchies which posses some sort of ceremonial hereditary ruler, and republics, which do not. Therefore, a democratic republic is no contradiction in terms. Let;s build one in the USA.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
State of the District of Columbia?
The budget fight of several years back was just one more example of how Congress currently treats the District of Columbia. When the government neared shutdown, it became clear that a shutdown would suspend local municipal functions. Although DC residents pay Federal taxes, and local DC taxes, the Federal Government receives these payments on behalf of the municipality, and eventually pays them to the District. However, if the Federal Government shuts down these payments that are already designated to go to DC are stopped. Even when payments continue, it gives the impression that DC relies upon Federal welfare even when it pays its own local taxes.
Not only does DC depend on the US for local funding, it suffers an incredible amount of intervention into its internal affairs. Some of this might be necessary for the national interest, however, often it is simply idealogical concerns, for the most recent example, when Congress prevented District funds for paying for abortions. However, Congress has experimented with various education programs and other initiatives without local consent. As long as DC remains under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress no mere act can protect it from the possibility of having its rights trampled upon.
The only way to ensure that DC citizens get a chance to control their own affairs is to give them representation in Congress, remove the District from direct Federal control or both.
One way to do this is through a constitutional amendment, which is notoriously difficult. Another way is through a law to give it home rule and representation. However, this law would likely be unconstitutional and could be revoked by Congress at any time. The two options left are statehood and retrocession, in which the residential areas would be returned to Maryland as an independent city.
The democratic way to deal with this would be to hold a plebiscite on the matter and let district residents choose which way they want to go, then for Congress to enact the result. Most likely statehood would win, and residents would finally have the equal representation they deserve.
Voting Systems and Instant Runoff
In my post on Presidential elections, I mentioned that even if the U.S. moved to a direct election system, it would still have some problems due to the plurality voting system. The reason is that of the"spoiler effect," the tendency for two candidates with similar views to split the votes between them, allowing another candidate to win by virtue of the existence of a third party. Examples of this that are often given are the 1912 election where the Republican incumbent W. H. Taft was challenged by Progressive Republican (Bull Moose) Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The two Republicans split the Republican vote, allowing Wilson to win. A more recent, and more infamous, example is the 2000 Bush v Gore election, where Nader drew more liberals than conservatives and was one of the factors in Bush's win. Although Gore still received a plurality in the popular vote, the spoiler effect in general is likely be a problem in the future.
One solution to this problem is the instant runoff, also called the alternative vote or ranked-choice vote. This system allows a voter to indicate their first choice, second choice and so on. When the ballots are counted the candidates with the least votes are eliminated and the votes re-assigned to the candidate ranked next on the ballot, until one candidate has a majority.
There are many methods for choosing candidates for a large body by proportional representation, including Single Transferable Vote, a variation of IRV. However, there are not so many for choosing a single official (like the president or a governor). The other option would be a second round election, either by the people or legislature. This is an improvement over current first past the post systems, but relies on the existence of a dominant two-party system. When such a system begins to break down, as it did in the last French election, it can end up elevating candidates who do not have the support of the majority. Therefore, the instant runoff seems the best system to use for executive offices.
One solution to this problem is the instant runoff, also called the alternative vote or ranked-choice vote. This system allows a voter to indicate their first choice, second choice and so on. When the ballots are counted the candidates with the least votes are eliminated and the votes re-assigned to the candidate ranked next on the ballot, until one candidate has a majority.
There are many methods for choosing candidates for a large body by proportional representation, including Single Transferable Vote, a variation of IRV. However, there are not so many for choosing a single official (like the president or a governor). The other option would be a second round election, either by the people or legislature. This is an improvement over current first past the post systems, but relies on the existence of a dominant two-party system. When such a system begins to break down, as it did in the last French election, it can end up elevating candidates who do not have the support of the majority. Therefore, the instant runoff seems the best system to use for executive offices.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Congressional Term Limits
In our current system, unlimited terms allow a few Senators and Representatives who have been elected many times to dominate committees and leadership positions, not only influencing policy but steering huge amounts of money to their home states. Although some of these members may have been re-elected from their own merits, it is in the interest of the people in a state to re-elect the same person many times no matter what so they can have greater patronage. Therefore, there is a pressure to preserve incumbents in office even if their challengers would be better for the country.
The advantage of term limits would be that they would equalize the power of states and districts, decrease the tendency for the leadership to be filled with elderly members who are no longer at the height of their powers, and reduce the time sitting members spend congress more reflective of the nation's opinions. Possibly this would lead the congress to regain some of its powers compared to the president, as presidents are most effective in their first years while congresspeople are in no position to influence policy until later terms, when they have been adapted to the system. It would also give more citizens the opportunity to serve in Congress.
The first drawback is that it would get rid good members along with bad ones. I don't really see this as a bad thing, unless members actually get better over time. It would eliminate the most experienced members, however, new members would likely have experience it state legislatures and they could move on to other elected offices. Also, there may be a tendency toward a revolving door effect where members alternate between public and private offices. However, if they are looking to run for office they are probably less likely to take kickbacks from corporations than if they want to get an executive appointment.
The advantage of term limits would be that they would equalize the power of states and districts, decrease the tendency for the leadership to be filled with elderly members who are no longer at the height of their powers, and reduce the time sitting members spend congress more reflective of the nation's opinions. Possibly this would lead the congress to regain some of its powers compared to the president, as presidents are most effective in their first years while congresspeople are in no position to influence policy until later terms, when they have been adapted to the system. It would also give more citizens the opportunity to serve in Congress.
The first drawback is that it would get rid good members along with bad ones. I don't really see this as a bad thing, unless members actually get better over time. It would eliminate the most experienced members, however, new members would likely have experience it state legislatures and they could move on to other elected offices. Also, there may be a tendency toward a revolving door effect where members alternate between public and private offices. However, if they are looking to run for office they are probably less likely to take kickbacks from corporations than if they want to get an executive appointment.
Even if an individual state chose unilaterally to limit the terms of their own members of Congress, it would be to that state's severe disadvantage, essentially closing their representatives from leadership. Likewise, it would be unlikely for Congress to limit their own terms by law, since it would be against their own interest and they could repeal it at will. Anyway, the courts would likely hold either of these restriction unconstitutional based on precedent.
Therefore, it is likely the only change is going to come form a constitutional amendment. And even this change will probably only come from a constitutional convention, because it would be difficult to get 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to agree to do something that would hurt them. One advantage of this amendment would be that it would encourage Congress to make more similar reforms (ie. public financing) since they would not be damaging to the current members.
The correct number of terms is a tricky question. Two for the Senate and six for the House would allow each member to spend 12 years in each house, three in the House would ensure that the House would have a more rapid turnover of membership. One compromise would be to limit to two consecutive in the Senate and three in the House, but allow members to run again later.
Therefore, it is likely the only change is going to come form a constitutional amendment. And even this change will probably only come from a constitutional convention, because it would be difficult to get 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to agree to do something that would hurt them. One advantage of this amendment would be that it would encourage Congress to make more similar reforms (ie. public financing) since they would not be damaging to the current members.
The correct number of terms is a tricky question. Two for the Senate and six for the House would allow each member to spend 12 years in each house, three in the House would ensure that the House would have a more rapid turnover of membership. One compromise would be to limit to two consecutive in the Senate and three in the House, but allow members to run again later.
Presidential Elections
The American presidential election is notoriously complex, not least because of the so-called Electoral College system, which lets states appoint a number of electors equal to their total Congressional representation (as well as giving DC three electors even though it is not a state and has only a single delegate to Congress, according to the 23rd Amendment). The way this system is implemented in practice is that states hold direct elections with the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates listed on the same ticket, which actually elects the party slate of electors. Although there are a couple of states (ME and NB) that use proportional systems, they are rarely significant. Generally the effect of the current system is to slightly exaggerate the power of small states, weaken minorities within states and third party candidates, and to make “swing states” (states that might vote for either candidate) extremely influential—but only if they use winner take all rules. However, the unintended consequences of this system are even stranger.
1. Electoral College never really convenes. Electors meet in their own state capitals to vote (12th Amendment). After they mail in their ballots, they are disbanded. Electors from different states never meet in one place for any purpose.
2. States have an incentive to under represent minorities. States that use fairer apportionment systems not only dilute their preferences, they make it less likely that candidates will attempt to appeal to their voters.
3. The Vice President has conflict of interest. As Senate President he receives and reads the ballots for both President and VP, and he presides over the special session of Congress that decides whether to question the results. However, he is usually a candidate for either President or Vice President. The only reason it is not a conflict to read his own victory or defeat is because of the meaninglessness of this role; everyone already knows the electoral result.
4. It over represents small states in a runoff, because presidential runoffs are conducted by the House, but voting by states, not by members. This overrepresentation is much stronger the one inherent in the Electoral College.
5. DC can participate in the general but not runoff election, as it does not have any voting Congressional representation.
6. Outgoing, not incoming, Congress decides election, which means that at the end of the president’s term his party may not have won an election for six years.
7. President and VP still not guaranteed to be from the same party, which was one thing the 12th Amendment tried to prevent.
All these factors make strategic voting more complex. When deciding whether to vote for a third party, one must consider how the candidates are doing in that particular state, not in the country as a whole. Generally, third parties have extremely diluted support and stand no more chance in any one state. However, if a third candidate polls above one of the major parties within a state it might make sense to vote for that candidate. In that case, the candidate would probably do best to ask his or her electors to vote for one of the major party candidates and possibly influence the election that way. However, a candidate might wish to send the election to the House. This would only make sense if he or she had Congressional allies concentrated in several states.
The possibilities for reform are therefore limited. One plan is the Interstate Popular Voting Compact, in which states would promise to give their electoral votes to the plurality winner in the popular vote. This plan would prevent elections from ever going into runoff (except in the case of an exact tie in the popular vote), ensure the person with the most votes wins, and would be about all the states could do without a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment could force states to apportion their electoral votes, however it would be very difficult to get passed, and would destroy any hopes of the Popular Voting Compact or any similar arrangement.
Another possible change would be to have the electors meet together and vote in multiple rounds for both president and vice president. This way, third place candidates could drop out and endorse others, possibly agreeing to vote for the other candidate as VP, allowing a sort of coalition. Also, this amendment could change the wording from "such manner as the legislature shall direct" to "such manner as the laws shall direct," which would clear up some confusion of the type that occurred after the 2000 election. This arrangement, which would be a definite improvement, would also require a constitutional amendment and would be little more than a plug until a better reform could be put in place. It seems unlikely that an amendment would be ratified faster than a compact.
All in all, I think the best bet would be to enact the compact in short term and move to instant runoff voting later in order to correct the problems inherent with a plurality voting system.
Purpose of this Blog
The idea of this blog is to discuss ideas about politics and political reform, on elections, parties, constitutional amendments and such. The main focus is on the United States, but there will be commentaries on other countries for comparison. The blog itself is non-partisan but I will probably take sides on some issues, and of course you are free to challenge me, or bring up new issues for discussion. Anything I post is up for grabs as the name implies; if you want to use it yourself or for your group or party, you're more than welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)