The United States: a Case for More Democracy

Great Debates
21

Inaccurate Representation
[list=a]
[li] Voting Reform[/li]Increasing the accuracy of our elections is the first step. This means establishing reliable voter lists. Provisional voting is needed when that reliablity is in question. Greater access for military personnal, the illiterate, and the handicapped is needed. Ballot access also needs improved for smaller parties and independants. IRV voting could be considered as well. This also means ( Gasp! ) spending more money.
[li] Franchise Reform[/li]Returning suffrage to felons who have served their debt to society.
[li] The Presidency[/li]Abolishing the Electoral College would allow everyone to vote, and have their vote counted, and have them all count the same.
[li] The House of Representatives[/li]Proportional representation. Doctor Goo Fee doesn’t go far enough here. His/her proposal is fine for states with many Congresspeople but the thin states only have a single Representative or so. The answer is to eliminate the states from the equation all together.
[li] The Senate[/li]Gut it.
[/list]
[sup]Hey, you did ask.[/sup]
Inactive/Apathetic Voting

I disagree with Weird_AL_Einstein about blaming the system ( and obviously also that this discussion is germaine ). Our government, like it or not, has taken the responsibility of educating its citizens. Those citizens aren’t learning that they should vote. QED

I also disagree with Kimstu and Xeno that this situation can’t be addressed.
What a person needs to understand both the need to participate and the issues of the day themselves is a solid grounding in the history of our nation. We do a terrible, even criminal, job of teaching American history in our schools. Here’s an idea- maybe people would have a better grasp of what’s going on if we didn’t fill their heads with comfortable lies to make them patriotic little idiots. If all of us learned that we were going to have to fight for our rights and not that government would simply provide them more of us would take an interest in politics. I also disagree that this would require a large additional investment. We are already spending money to teach misinformatin in history class. We could spend the same amount to teach kids the truth.
( Yes, I’m a big James Loewen fan. )

As I see it these are the 2 largest factors in voter apathy.
We don’t understand why our votes matter because we don’t have a sufficient grasp of the situtation nor do we have sufficient assurance that our votes will make a difference.

Just my 2sense
No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. - John Marshall ( McCulloch v. Maryland )

22

That was supposed to be the other way around. sigh can’t wait for labor day and sleeping in.

2sense, the only thing I agree with you on in the alphabetical list is allowing felons to vote. :smiley: Can’t win 'em all!

23

Excuse me.
You don’t think it is important for our elections to be accurate, or you think they are already accurate enough, or you don’t agree with my proposals for making them more accurate, or what?
If it’s the third then I am willing to argue the point, whenever.
If it’s the first then I have no idea how I would reply.
If it’s the 2nd expect cites.

You were perhaps looking for different kinds of ideas?

Just my 2sense

24

Proportionnal representation has some drawbacks, though, even in a presidential system, a little party actually receive a more than proportionnal power.
For instance, assuming the following result for the proportionnal election (100 delegates):

Republicans : 49 delegates
Democrats : 49 delegates
All Night Party : 2 delegates
What happens? The All Night Party can decide if a law will pass or not each time the republicans and democrats disagree, can trade his votes on a given bill in exchange for some other political favor, etc…It gains an influence totally disproportionnate to the number of people who actually voted for it.

But actually, you could also end up with something like that :

Republican Traditional Party : 13 delegates
Republican Reformed Party : 8 delegates
New Republican Reformed Party : 7 delegates
Christian Democrats : : 11 delegates
Catholic Christian Democrats : 5 delegates
Bouddhist Democrats : 2 delegate
Agnostic Democrats : 3 delegates
Greens : 5 delegates
Affirmative Action Party : 7 delegates
Against AA But Ban Guns Party : 4 delegates
New Confederacy Party : 7 delegates
Open Area 51 Party : 1 delegate

…etc…

Which in theory is fine, but probably means ever changing agreements between parties, no political legibility, no long-term policy, etc…

25

I was. Thanks.

One, I rather both like and approve of the electoral college and the senate. Though we recently had a very in depth debate on it, I will say here that the government doesn’t just represent the interests of the citizens, it represents the interests of the park systems, water resources, etc etc in our interest. Each state has its own particular resources (or lack thereof) and requires its own sort of equal consideration. Hence the senate. I think the electoral college serves a very similar purpose, helping adjust the dictatorship of the majority population with those who spread out and live in less dense areas.

You are welcome to disagree, of course, but I don’t think that the electoral college itself is the Big Problem with citizens not being represented.

Furthermore, I completely disagree on your “proportional” legislation for the House… how the hell do you suppose you would pull that off? The House reps are already broken up into districts where voters elect their particular man-- do you want to make those districts smaller, or do you simply want people to cast “party” votes and then the party who wins x seats puts x of their people in office?? I don’t understand how what we have isn’t already proportionate voting. I don’t know, maybe that sort of stuff works for a parlimentary government; I will resist any such “equal opportunity electorate” method. At some level in a representative government someone-- and probably a whole lot of people-- aren’t going to get to decide who is in office, or be overruled in that decision. In fact, I suggest you go find my “The New Vote” thread; you might enjoy it (I linked it above in discussing term limits).

At any rate, I think the key problem isn’t that we aren’t putting enough independents in, or that the senate makes smaller states “unfairly” powerful, but that the damn representatives are neither required to serve our interests nor are they particularly aware of what our interests are. I don’t see that voting methods will change either of those.

26

And here I thought I was shading the issue to show erl things weren’t as black & white as he’d portrayed them. :slight_smile:

When did we say that? I think both of us pretty much with you that education of the electorate is key, but we both feel this is hard to implement and no one program is going to do it.

27

xenophon41,

I was referring to your post of 08-27-2001 04:16 PM and Kimstu’s just above it. The statement is sort of a summary of the paragraph that follows which is why I seperated the first line a bit from the rest ( which you may or may not be able to see depending on your screen resolution ). You stated that we couldn’t implement an effective program without “Big Gummint”. I took that to mean a large additional investment. As I explain in the paragraph I feel we could make difference simply by spending our money more wisely. She states that “a better-informed and more engaged citizenry” must come from voluntary interest. I maintain that interest is discouraged by our schools and can change that.

clairobscur,

The first example you use is actually very similar to the present composition of the Senate, where independent Jim Jeffords holds the balance of power. This gives him more power but in most cases no much more than he had before he left the Republican Party. The reason for this is that, outside of divying up power, we don’t have straight party-line votes very often. As a moderate Republican his vote was courted just as hard as it is now. Besides, if at least 2% of the population would vote for a third party ( and I believe that they would, lacking the perception that it’s pointless ) then the Repubs and Dems are currently enjoying disproportionate political power.

As to your 2nd example, I agree that it would take more time and effort for citizens to understand but if that is what it takes for government to represent Americans than it is worth it. The same point goes for long-term policy as well. If our current long term policies don’t survive that means that they aren’t accepted by the voters and should be ended.

erislover,

I see.
I will check out the thread you mention.

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. I meant “proportional” in the same way that Doctor Goo Fee meant it: Proportional as opposed to winner-take-all. There are plenty of voters who are unrepresented in the House of Representatives. Everyone, in fact, that voted for someone who didn’t lead their particular district. I am envisioning something similar to nationwide party list voting though with individual candidates assinging their excess votes as they please to another’s total.

I guess I’m a hopeless reactionary because I’m having trouble discarding the idea that the way to control politicians is by picking. I must admit that I’m tempted to suggest annual elections. Do you believe that the White House would have described an election pledge of Bush’s ( not to “raid” Social Security ) as symbolic if this were an election year as well?

So, erislover = aynrandlover?

Just my 2sense

28

I meant to say, “…I’m having trouble discarding the idea that the way to control politicians is by picking them.”

Just my mistake

29

I agree this is very good at representing individual people’s interests, but I think it is very poor at representing interests of the area in which people live.

I have nothing to say on Florida oranges. I believe that the orange secotr of Florida is important to them. Federal conservation acts could affect Florida orange orchards. I am not fit to elect a representative for Florida. I think this is even more crucial for the smaller states… the interests of the state are important. Perhaps as important as the citizens of the state.

I think everyone who hates Microsoft might have a problem with that statement (or at least what the sarcasm implies ;))

We won’t get honest representation by voluntary methods alone. I think we need to incorporate personal responsiblity into our legislative system in some way, though NOT by being able to sue legislators for making bad decisions.

Voters are regular people with regular jobs and regular concerns. Relying on them to keep tabs on politicians whose obligations are only to be involved in the political process is simply a losing game. We all have personal issue to deal with (children, ec) but our jobs are to do something besides politics. To be actively involved in politics requires more effort on our part than it does on the politicians. Do you see what I’m saying here? Another poster once said something very similar to this in regards to corporate interests vs individual voter interests, but I didn’t phrase it quite as well as s/he did…

Hi! :slight_smile:

Just my 2sense **
[/QUOTE]

30

I see many very sound objections to erislover’s “locked into position” proposal pin this thread, including the idea that conditions and positions change, and the fact that legislation may be considered to support a position in some ways and oppose it in others.

But the most significant objection is that the government of the United States is a government entirely based on compromise. Almost every piece of legislation that is passed is developed through give and take, until a compromise that will satisfy enough legislators to pass is reached.

Our entire Constitution is one big compromise. The Constitutional Convention was completely stalled when some delegates demanded representation by States, while others would only accept representation by population. Then the “Great Compromise” was proposed – a Senate by States, and a House by population. Of course, at that point the delegates began to argue about what constituted population, and another round of discussion and compromise resulted, and so on and so on, not only with the Constitution but also with every law that has been passed since its ratification, not only on the Federal level, but on the state, county, and city level as well.

Compromise doesn’t always mean horsetrading (you vote for my water project, and I’ll vote for your tax increase), although that can be part of it. It also means being a little untrue to your principles in order to get something done. Suppose your sworn platform says that you support liberalization of drug laws? Do you support a bill that provides stiffer penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana? Suppose that the supporters of that measure offer to legalize marijuana? Rigid adherence to principle vastly limits the amount of legislation that can be passed, because legislators will only vote to support their particular causes.

There are other issues to consider as well. The two-party system doesn’t just apply when there’s an election. Sometimes a party member goes along with legislation which he (and his constituents) find objectionable because it will help the party retain control, or because it will allow their faction to gain control of a particular committee.

Finally, there are implementation issues to consider. Legislative bodies can’t just pass laws and hope that someone will be able to carry them out. If you have sworn to support adequate housing for all U.S. citizens that’s all well and good, but who is going to provide it? What are you willing to give up in exchange. What if you’ve sworn to support massive tax cuts as well? There is only so much government money and so many government resources to go around. You can’t always have it your way.

Which brings me back to compromise. It’s the grease that makes the wheels of government turn. Hamstringing representatives is the quickest way to bring the government to a standstill.

31

Hi erislover,

I must confess I only now checked your profile.
Y’know, I had the same reaction to you now as I did when I first remember reading your stuff- bright, a bit straight but bright.

Your Microsoft remark when right by me. I have no idea what you mean. There is no sarcasm in my last post. I considered some comments like Eldridge Gerry’s “mules and horses” or Monty Python’s “SHRUBBERY!” but dismissed them because I’m trying to play nice. Besides I realized a while ago that I was in the wrong thread here and they might fit better in the “New Vote” thread. I referred to myself as “reactionary” in part as a pun because I continued to reply ( react ) here despite that knowledge.

I think that the document you propose would be a good idea, though I agree with SpoilerVirgin and the others that attempting to hold the pols to it is a bad idea. You don’t believe we can stop them from taking bribes, but you think they can’t weasel around this restriction? Are you still maintaining this proposal? Anyways, the info may be out there but it would be nice to have it all in one place for comparison and maybe have some type of nonpartisan commentary on the track record of the official on each issue once in office.

Just my 2sense

32

No, I think I remember rescinding the idea of “locking” politicians into their views… which is why I am now at a loss in ensuring accountability.

The idea is, we vote for Candidate X on the grounds that he does x. Then he gets into, say, the senate and switches his opinion to y. Six years of such switching go by.

Oh, great, now we simply don’t reelect him. :rolleyes: That does what to rectify the six years he just spent acting different to the interests we put him there for? Now, I grant this is a bit exaggerated, but the principle is still there. If we don’t agree with a senator or other rep we don’t reelect him, but what he did was still there!

Now we have to elect someone to get rid of that AND still act on what the first one was supposed to do in the first place.

Would law death help this? Possibly, but after a while the voting on reinstating laws would simply bog congress down and no new laws could ever be passed (not that all people would find this to be a bad thing-heh).

So what can we do to avoid this-- and I do see it as a very real problem. How do we let reps know what we want after he vote? Lobbyists? Sorry, they’ve got more time and resources than us. Writing letters? I don’t think we can rely on enough people being acive for such a thing to be effective. More education? If the ability of many of my previous high school classmates is indicative of anything, this is currently unrealistic (but we should impliment somthing anyway-- the amount of education necessary on what the government is all about is appalingly small).

And the OP was what I came up with. Overlooking the obvious problem of politicians finding a stance they took was uneducated I think it can still work— through more direct democracy.

But where should this pressure be? What is going to ensure people vote more? I think that is unreliable. No, the process itself needs some form of accountability. And I am unaware of how to bring this about, now.

Am I simply trying to address an unsolvable problem?

33

erislover -

Yes, getting Americans to vote more is an extremely thorny and intransigent problem. I know – I wrote a major paper on voter apathy.

The solution that we’ve come up with for dealing with the fact that most people just don’t want to spend the time researching the issues is to allow our elected representatives to do that work (or have their interns do that work, when they’re not running around having busy social lives).

As far as I can tell, the system seems to work fairly well. Not that every candidate votes on every issue exactly as promised, but overall, anti-crime candidates are anti-crime, pro-environment candidates are pro-environment, etc.

Do you have specific examples of legislators whose voting record differs substantially from their campaign platform?

By the way, there are any number of sources (now easily available online) that can tell you all you want to know about a candidate’s positions on the issues, and how he or she votes once elected. In fact, most candidates for major offices routinely issue their own position papers to lay out their views.

You might also want to check out “a nonpartisan political organization that encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government” which was founded in 1920 and is still one of the best sources of public policy information.

The League of Women Voters

34

erislover I have a few thoughts on how to provide for more accountability. I was going to put them in this thread, but decided against it because A: I think I’d like to start my own thread…I’ll put a link here, and B: I’m real tired right now. There was something I needed to do, I had to stay away from here for a while to get it done as this place is too distracting. Now I need to catch up. I will get to it though.

35

Well…there is another theorical (but actually impractical) way to insure that representant will vote as their electors intended them to do. It’s allowing the said electors to dismiss their representants (for instance, if at least 10% of the electors ask for it, a new vote takes place and a new representant [or possibly the same] is elected). Of course, it’s impractical, since elections would take place all the time.

Another possibility is to shorten the mandates. But since politicians have usually a short-term policy, one could be worried if they were elected for only, say, 6 months.
By the way, imperative mandates (not sure of the translation…but it’s what you would want to be implemented : the representants must vote as they said they will, or as their electors told them to ) have been proposed as a posible basis for a representative democracy during the XVIII° century, but as far as I know never implemented in any democratic system due to their impracticability (as it has been pointed out by previous posters)
Also, some people do believe that someday an electronic direct democracy will be possible, but I strongly doubt that the average citizen will be able to vote on thousands of obscure technical issues without the help of a staff of advisors (well…of course, parties could act as advisors)

36

Our elected representatives are ideally supposed to do what’s best for the country. Not what the majority wants, also known as tyranny of the majority or mob rule.

Our surveyed public might think it’s a great idea to send everyone a check for $150,000, too. But the surveyed public isn’t always right.

A majority of people felt the US should stay out of World War II as well. You can debate whether we should have entangled ourselves in the war, but the bottom line is, our elected representatives are supposed to make informed, rational decisions on what’s best for our long term interests.

And that’s exactly why a direct democracy is an extremely ill advised idea.

37

Yes, but this lack of party discipline is often considered as a result of a two party system. Since everyone must find its place in these two parties, they must accomodate people with very different views and must accept they express divergent opinions, and vote accordingly.

Not nearly as much disproportionate as the power a little party can obtain in a multi-party system. Take a look at the influence of the religious parties in Israel, for instance.

38

What you’re envisionning is more or less the system used in Germany. Roughly, the citizens cast two votes. One for an individual candidate, one for a party. Once the individual candidates get elected, the parliament is “completed” by adding other candidates appearing on the parties lists, in order to obtain a proportionnal representation. If I’m wrong on this one, I suppose a german poster will correct me.

39

I think it is a matter of principle. I strongly support a representative democracy, and even more stronly support the electoral college (which is sort of a meta-representative form of presidential election).

But regardless of that, our representatives are elected directly from a result of voter’s interests. If everyone voted, even a representative democracy would become the mob-rule you propose. So, effectively, I am at a loss to understand your position.

clair, yeah, I also feel that shorter terms will not have the desired effect. I suppose, after further thought, that the best way to go would be to have the effect that any laws which were not a part of a candidate’s platform need to have automatic death in them, subject to further consideration. How does everyone feel about that?

40

oh! And of course, another solution would be that one chamber (say, the senate) would be composed of members elected on an individually basis in geographical districts, while the other chamber (say, the representants) would be elected on a proportionnal basis. It seems to me that such a system would make sense, but AFAIK, it has never be implemented anywhere. Since I don’t think that the people who write constitutions are complete morons, I suppose there’s some flaw i can’t figure out with such a system…