What laws/amendments do we need to fix the American democracy?

Great Debates
1

It would seem that most dopers agree that the American democratic process is in trouble. Some have gone so far to say that the cause has been lost and that we are on the irreversible track to a fascist, corporate-militaristic dictatorship. Certainly, we have problems.

I’ve mostly ignored politics for years–decades, actually–with the assumption that there’ll be ups and downs but that the basic state of American government would not get much worse. And I was wrong. I don’t like the place America has come to and I’ve decided to put aside other interests (other than the necessity of earning a living) in order to devote all my available time and resources to fighting this good fight. Perhaps one person can’t do much or perhaps he can…but anything I can do at all is better than standing aside and watching the fall.

In the weeks, months and years to come I will be organizing a PAC, maintaining a weblog, kick-starting an organization of political activists, funding candidates and issues. I will be working at bringing back the America where I grew up, the America that dreamed of justice.

But first… :slight_smile:

I need to develop a platform. I have a list of issues, of things that I think need to be fixed…but I need to beat that mental list into a hard, sharpened tool that could be of real use in striking at the problems.

The problems? A war essentially declared and fought by a president who refuses to obey laws and a Congress that refuses to do anything about it. A strengthening theocratic voice attempting to impose its values on minorities. A superficial electoral process that focuses on soundbites and likeability rather than on issues. And so on and on. Judging from discussions in this forum over the last few years, dopers could add to this list almost ad infinitum.

So…what would it take to fix the problems? Specifically, what laws and/or Constitutional amendments would help bring America back?

Let me offer the first suggestion, a Constitutional amendment:

“Only natural persons who are citizens of the United States may participate in elections and the electoral process at all levels within the United States. Corporations, commercial organizations and non-profit organizations that are funded by such corporations or commercial organizations are prohibited from attempting to influence the electoral process in any way.”

Why do I feel this is necessary? All viable candidates for high office, these days, depend on the massive support of corporations, through various channels, to get elected and to get re-elected. Those that don’t, don’t have the money for media advertising and, quite simply, don’t get elected. Even benign, likeable individuals with good ethics are not likely to bite the hand that feeds them…IF they want to get re-elected.

This means that the strongest influences in our electoral process are those that are interested in relatively short-term profits. I’d prefer that the strongest influence be that mass of voters who are interested in the happiness and prosperity of their children and grandchildren. Once this is in place and bringing back respect for the Constitution rather than for the almighty dollar, perhaps we can then turn to other issues.

For a detailed and fascinating exposition of this situation, I recommend William Greider’s Who Will Tell The People, The Betrayal of American Democracy.

How, then, could political campaigns be funded? Perhaps by the Arizona model. And there may be other options, as well. There has to be something better than what we’re using now.

So…

Give me your thoughts. What laws are necessary to fix the problems?

And note that I’m not all that interested in comments that any particular goal would be difficult to achieve. Of course it will be difficult, even damn near close to impossible.

Anything really worth doing …is.

2

This is a violation of the 1st Amendment. While that’s OK given that you prefaced it with the idea that the above is also a Constitutional Amendment and would supersede the relevant parts of the 1st, I’m not too keen on any chinks in that particular wall.

For example: If a particularly powerful and well-known CEO, let’s say Steve Jobs because he’s jumping out at me, comes out in favor of a candidate, does that violate the spirit of the Amendment, if not the law itself? He is inextricably associated with Apple, and would likely be seen as speaking for the corporation itself by the laity that know him for nothing else.

For that matter, interest groups are composed of citizens that have a common point of view. Why do you advocate stifling their interests? Isn’t it better for them to act as a unified group with one speaker and limited donation than to have thousands of people parading themselves about in front of cameras and microphones, gumming up the system worse than it already is? How about if they march en masse on Washington to draw attention to themselves? Does that violate the “influence” part of the proposed Amendment? How does that stand scrutiny when juxtaposed with the Constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceably assemble?

There’s too much trouble in what you suggested. I get the spirit of it, but the mechanics leave much to be desired and are not really practicable in any case.

3

Airman, Steve Jobs is a natural person and a citizen and, as such, is perfectly welcome to donate his personal cash, up to the legal limit, to whatever candidate he chooses and is perfectly welcome to make his personal opinion known. Steve Jobs is not a corporation.

What the amendment would prohibit is Apple spending millions in corporate funds to promote certain candidates who would then feel obligated to support legislation favorable to Apple.

And, by the way, every single amendment after the first ten was a violation of the Constitution before the amendment was ratified. That’s why they call them amendments.

4

What do you mean by massive support of corporations, through various channels?

Are you talking about campaign donations, or something more?

Also…

A bit like enslaving a bunch of people to pass the 13th Amendment isn’t it

5

And, further, interest groups that are composed of and funded by individual natural citizens are not prohibited by my suggested amendment either. PACs and the like would, I suspect become a major source of funding. Emily’s List is something I’d like to keep around.

6

As detailed in Greider’s book (see the OP), most of the research and studies that lawmakers use to create legislation come straight from corporate-funded “think-tanks” that carefully tailor the research to support corporate aims. I find this scary…and would like to see it end.

7

Well, not having the book, it is hard to evaluate that claim. But I think, on the surface, it appears to be false. Think tanks certainly provide some of the research for legislation, but they are by no means corporate pawns. And even if they were, they aren’t the only source of information. Congressional offices have staffs who do research, committees hold hearings with experts, etc.

But that’s also an oddly specific complaint, and it’s not at all related to elections. What is your beef, specifically, with the current electoral format?

FWIW, I think the biggest problem in contemporary American democracy is gerrymandering. But I’ve yet to hear a good solution to it.

8

I’m a bit skeptical of calls for reform bases mainly on complaints about what the current political process has produced. People seem to think there was some golden of age of American politics, but I can’t remember there ever being one.

9

I don’t quite follow what you’re saying here. Are you saying that corporations would be enslaved?

Aside from their legal status in commerce, corporations aren’t people; cut them and they do NOT bleed. Neither do they vote. And if they were persons, they’re already enslaved to the stockholders. Have we heard of an abolition movement to free the corporations?

I’m aware that the courts have held that corporations have all rights that a natural person has. That’s why I’m suggesting this as an amendment. Let corporations keep all the rights to commerce that a natural person has…but keep them from voting either by casting a vote in their local precinct or by donating millions to a candidate who will give them no-bid contracts when elected.

Gentlemen, I find it necessary to quit for the evening; work comes early in the morning. Also, I work for a financial corporation that, for security purposes, severely limits my access to the Internet when at work. I will rejoin you Monday evening and attempt to respond to all questions then.

Good night!

10

No. The 13th Amendment banned slavery. So it would be ironic to campaign for the 13th by enslaving a bunch of people.

Similarly, it would be ironic to campaign to ban corporations and non-profits funded by corporations by forming a corporation. Depending on the structure of the non-profit or PAC you start to fight for your amendment, your amendment would ban your own organization’s ends.

A corporation is just a legal structure. The ACLU is a corporation. Your amendment would ban its participation in politics.

11

As far as problems with the electoral system go, I’d say the voting process itself is in more urgent need of reform than the financing of campaigns. Our system was designed in another era, and it doesn’t fit well with the modern world of party politics.

My first amendment would require that all elections for any federal office be conducted with approval voting rather than plurality voting: it uses the same ballots but allows voters to choose any number of candidates, making it much easier for third parties to gain ground.

My second amendment would abolish the electoral college and choose the president based on a national popular vote.

12

The entire campaign financing reform is all hogwash. The purpose as far as the politicians are concerned is not to control the flow of money but to hide it. Look with suspician upon any “reform” or restriction they want, because, just like McCain-Feingold, it will not do what its public intention is. Instead, it will serve to protect incumbents and increase the power of money in politics.

13

I would have to agree with this assessment. Money and power have always tried to influence elections, and always will. Nor is this unique to the US. It’s futile to try to prevent this. The correct approach is to try to keep everything above the table, subject to public scrutiny. Aggressive campaign finance laws are likely to just push things beneath the table.

As an outsider looking in, I’d say the one area that should be a real concern is the actual voting method. What you’ve got right now is an ad hoc mix of a gazillion different systems. Legislation to require uniformity in voting methods with fully auditable paper trails would not be amiss, though if I understand correctly that would require an amendment because the constitution specifically puts elections in the jurisdiction of the various States. That was all well and good in the 18th century when there were no truly national elections, but these days it oughtn’t to fly.

14

I would like to see some kind of “right to vote” amendment enacted. People should be assumed to have the right to vote unless proven otherwise. And they should only be disenfranchised under the narrowest possible circumstances and there should be a high burden of proof.

15

I definitely think we need some kind of instant-runoff voting. Something to make it possible to vote for a 3rd party candidate, to show support for that party so that party can show “hey, look, we got 15% of the vote, we are a real thing” without have to give up your ability to vote for a major candidate.

Having viable 3rd parties would do a world of good.

More radically, I say we throw out the idea of geographically-based voting districts. If 10% of the people in California are passionate members of the KookooGranola party, then 10% of California’s congressional representatives should be from the KookooGranola party, regardless of whether those 10% of Californians happen to all live in the same place or not. Location is increasingly irrelevant in the internet age.

16

But honestly, is disenfranchisement of felons a national crisis?

Here’s the thing. If everyone thought disenfranchisment of felons was such an injustice that you could pass a constitutional amendment banning it, then the constitutional amendment itself would be unneccesary.

Proposing consitutional amendments is just masturbation unless you think there’s a slim chance they might somehow succeed. If step 2 is “then a miracle occurs”, then why not just wish for world peace in the first place?

17

The multi-member district form of proportional representation – or practically any other form of PR, for that matter – would make gerrymandering impossible/irrelevant.

Assuming we decide to be dumbasses and keep the single-member-district winner-take-all system, another solution is to take redistricting away from the state legislatures and put it in the hands of an independent multipartisan commission – but that tends to run up against obstacles. :mad: :mad: :mad: [foams at mouth, smashes furniture, roars to bring down the heavens]

18

It enabled W to “win” in 2000; that alone makes it a national crisis.

19

Except here in the 21st century there still are no national elections. Even the presidential elections aren’t truly national, because people don’t vote for a presidential candidate, they vote for a slate of electors to represent their state.

Sure, the electoral college is a relic, sure it would make sense to get rid of it, but is it really in the top ten reforms you’d push for? Is this the reform that will remake American politics for the better? It’s a marginal (albeit logical) improvement that won’t change much of anything.

20

Because the wrong candidate won? Really? Come on.

Look, if the future of American democracy depends on the right candidate being elected every time, then we’d better give up because in that case we’ll have proven that liberal democracy is a failure.