You could also get a Ted Cruz for 30 years.
One way to reduce (though not eliminate) gridlock would be to move to a unicameral legislature. Since the states are no longer the quasi-sovereign entities they were in 1789, and the upper house is no longer appointed as it was for the first 125 years, I am not sure what purpose the separate [del]American House of Lords[/del] Senate serves.
If my vote for my rep will be meaningless because I am living in the wrong district, what good does any of this do? I do not have representation from my district because my rep will not listen to anything I have to say, because he does not have to. A longer term will not fix that. Spending limits will not fix that.
Some possible options:
[ul]
[li]Larger districts that cross state lines, cross urban/rural boundaries and elect several reps from a single slate. The larger districts would reduce the size of the house by probably half or better (quality/diversity over quantity), but more importantly, since a single person does not “win” the district, the bar for third/fourth/minority parties becomes much easier to clear; the process becomes more inclusive, reducing the anger level of the fringies.[/li][li]Proxy distribution, where citizens can provide their personal vote to the one person they think has the best ideology – with a 1% limit on proxies held by any one person; voting in the chamber is weighted by proxy count; and individuals holding their own proxy may not be barred from participating directly (up to a chamber size limit, FCFS).[/li][li]Direct election of the individual presidential electors, so that the electoral college would function like the college of cardinals, picking the leadership from amongst themselves.[/li][li]Tax political spending heavily, so that your opponent can benefit from your largesse.[/li][/ul]
And I would change the election cycle for the house to three overlapping two-year terms, refreshing a third of the body every eight-months.
Assuming, of course, that we could actually make a democratic republic function well, this much has not yet been established.
So ridiculous that it needs to be said twice?
Eight years is a very long time to put up with a bad president.
Sure, bad presidents have been reelected before nonetheless, but with this sort of proposal, the public would not even have the opportunity to vote them out midway at the 4-year mark.
Also, I think that lengthening a president’s term to 8 years would make US presidential elections even shriller, more venomous, and uglier than before. Because now the stakes are twice as high as before.
Both sides would be even more desperate. Politics is already ugly enough when talking about a 4-year presidency as the prize. Now, two sides fighting for an 8-year presidency, to be decided in one election? Yikes.
The obvious problem with this line of argument is that term limits would, logically, allow many people to shine who would otherwise have never gotten a chance because some slug brings enough bacon home to keep getting re-elected. Who was that clown from Alaska, bridge man? Like him.
Aren’t committee positions and such largely allocated on the basis of seniority? I can imagine returning a known a crook who’s been in a long time because replacing him with someone more honest means also putting in someone less powerful.
What does this “unwashed masses” term imply? It seems you’re in the side that would use such a condescending term.
I just don’t like to see candidates get into office when a full 2/3 of the electorate didn’t weigh in.
You can alternate the ballots so in half the precincts one candidates name appears first on the ballot, and the other candidates name appear first in the other half.
The point is, being forced to vote is being forced to care. Maybe one wouldn’t bother to vote if there was no penalty, but they’re still not going to vote for a candidate they don’t want even if they’re forced to be there.
The cause of US gridlock is that the chief executive can be from a different party from that of the legislature. The OP idea does not address the cause of deadlock, since voters can still choose a different party for the president and for legislators.
The cure for gridlock is for a single chamber legislature (or a legislature where the second chamber is weak) to elect the prime minister. Only then will they be on the same page.
We can argue whether gridlock is good or bad. But if you don’t like gridlock, there is proven solution: Parliamentary democracy.
I suggest in this case that the optimal number of major political parties is three, with two or three minor ones around the edges. More than that and you risk paralysis like Italy, with endless coalitions being formed and broken.
The problem is two-fold
-
The system is geared towards electing Democrats and Republicans. It is nearly impossible for a 3rd party to be recognized by states, House districts are gerrymandered into safe districts for D/R candidates and the election rules (like matching funds) are designed for incumbents and if the incumbent doesn’t win, it’ll be someone from D/R parties.
-
The voting public cares more about soundbites than actual voting records. Go up to 10 registered voters and ask these questions:
How did your Senators/Representative vote on the Keystone Pipeline?
Why was the nomination of Victor Allen Bolden so contentious? How did your Senator vote?
In regards to Republicans causing gridlock, what was the vote for the confirmation of Brenda Sannes and Pamela Pepper?
But you can be sure the voter knows the issues brought up in advertisements during the elections.
This is exactly what I was saying above. Gridlock is what happens when one party controls the legislature and one party controls the executive. If you want to get rid of gridlock you have to make this impossible, and have the majority party in the legislature choose the executive.
Playing with term limits or term lengths or districts or campaign spending will do absolutely nothing to stop gridlock, and are completely irrelevant to the problem of gridlock.
Having a legislature and executive of different parties is necessary, but not sufficient, for gridlock. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton all faced legislatures of the opposite party and managed to pass bills. Even the last couple of years of GW Bush saw some laws passed. The current problem is less about the difference between the parties and more about the extreme unwillingness to compromise that comes with uncompetitive and undemocratic elections.
The answer to the current gridlock (IMHO) is not to give one party everything it wants, but to push for ways to reduce extremism. My personal favorite methods are outlined in my post upthread.
No it doesn’t. It simply exchanges one form of dysfunctional government for another.
Italy has had more than60 governments since World War 2.
Japan has had 15 governments since 1989.
The French government has changed twice just this year.
Michael Martin didn’t even wait for a vote of no confidence before resigning as the U.K. Prime Minister in 2009.
An executive who has to dissolve and reorganize the government (or call for a new election) every time a ruling party or coalition has an internal dispute is as gridlocked as one who faces an opposition party.
It is true that gridlock isn’t the only dysfunctional form of government.
France and Italy have semi-presidential systems. Instead I would look at full parliamentary systems such as in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
The semi-presidential systems show that halfway measures against gridlock don’t work. That’s the lesson of France and (not as sure about this) Italy, and it argues against the OP ideas.
As for Japan, I do rate them as having a parliamentary system, and AFAIK you are right about them having a gridlock problem. Having parliament elect the chief executive, who loses office without parliamentary support, makes gridlock much less likely, but there is no guarantee.
Maybe I am missing something, but that’s not what Wikipedia says. In any event, the great majority of time, the responsible government of the UK has more ability to pursue new policies than the average nation with a presidential system.
Another factor, when it comes to gridlock-avoidance, is first past the post. This keeps down the number of parties, and makes it easier to form a coalition. Israel is in the news today because of its unstable parliamentary system, made unstable by proportional representation.
California has legislative term limits, but it took the people finally voting to allow a budget to be passed with a simple majority before gridlock came to an end.
Quite. But the idea is that in these cases the government collapses in order to renew support in the legislature. The fusion of two branches of government means conflict is contained, as a total breakdown ends up with an early election, where the people are asked to sort it out.
Michael Martin was the Speaker of the House of Commons, not the Prime Minister. He is now Lord Martin of Springburn, by the way.
The theory behind it is that if the politicians cannot agree, then elections take place. It means that there is always a democratic means of resolution. The people may not give a clear answer, but it’s seen as better and more fluid than fixed elections.
I’m not seeing how having to re-form a government nearly once a year is a good thing, whether by forming new coalitions or calling an early general election. For one thing, it works against long-term programs. How can the Progressive Democrats maintain a social program when their coalition with the Liberal Democrats falls apart and the Social Democrats oppose the program?