some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

[jiimbergin]

Re: Real Electoral reform

I agree with you concerning the origins of the 2 houses in congress. However, one has to ask: Isn't the "disenfranchisement" of the central US merely bringing their level of representation in line with what it should have been from the beginning, in a more fair system? There is no fundamental REASON why small states should have the excessive weight they carry today, other than they were able once upon a time to secure the insane overrepresentation from the larger states in a moment of historical weakness.

In other words, correcting a long-standing historical injustice is not, in and of itself, another injustice. For it to be considered such, there has to be a reason WHY their overrepresentation is beneficial to the nation as a whole. As for "tyranny of the majority" that is a double-edged sword. Right now we have a tyranny of the minority (especially in the Senate.) surely that is even worse. For my part, I am having trouble seeing a benefit to the overvaluation of the agricultural belt. It is why we have ridiculous ethanol subsidies, and other ludicrous agricultural policies. When I try to find a reason for maintaining the current balance of power, I keep repeatedly coming back to the idea that because they were able to get away with an unbalanced, destabilizing, concession once, they are supposed to keep it forever.

It just doesn't hold water.

sorry, this worked for a long time and since the chance of changing it is as close to zero as possible, since 2/3rds of the state legislatures must approve the amendment,I don't see how it is worth discussing.

[astonas]

Re: Real Electoral reform

sorry, this worked for a long time and since the chance of changing it is as close to zero as possible, since 2/3rds of the state legislatures must approve the amendment,I don't see how it is worth discussing.

Fair point.

To be honest, I wasn't really thinking that this was something that could change. I was, however, trying to point out that we, like most nations, tend to fall into the trap of thinking that just because things are a certain way, that that is the best way to be. It's this sort of national cool-aid drinking that has at many points in history prevented needed change from occurring, and the current moment is no exception.

If we are to have any hope of ANY real reforms, whether they deal with government transparency, campaign finance reform, corruption control, the two-party system, or anything else, we have to be willing to sacrifice some sacred cows. THAT is why a critical look at our history, and the flawed compromises that got us here, can be instructive. It is not so much that any one of those compromises can be "unwound." It is that the the understanding that we do not have a perfect system today is a prerequisite to finding a motive and path to make it better tomorrow.

[c1ue]

Re: Real Electoral reform

I agree with you concerning the origins of the 2 houses in congress. However, one has to ask: Isn't the "disenfranchisement" of the central US merely bringing their level of representation in line with what it should have been from the beginning, in a more fair system? There is no fundamental REASON why small states should have the excessive weight they carry today, other than they were able once upon a time to secure the insane overrepresentation from the larger states in a moment of historical weakness.

In other words, correcting a long-standing historical injustice is not, in and of itself, another injustice. For it to be considered such, there has to be a reason WHY their overrepresentation is beneficial to the nation as a whole. As for "tyranny of the majority" that is a double-edged sword. Right now we have a tyranny of the minority (especially in the Senate.) surely that is even worse. For my part, I am having trouble seeing a benefit to the overvaluation of the agricultural belt. It is why we have ridiculous ethanol subsidies, and other ludicrous agricultural policies. When I try to find a reason for maintaining the current balance of power, I keep repeatedly coming back to the idea that because they were able to get away with an unbalanced, destabilizing, concession once, they are supposed to keep it forever.

It just doesn't hold water.

I don't disagree that the unequal representation has been abused, but the major problems we're seeing today have little to do with Senatorial over-representation of smaller states.

The problems have to do with pretty much all the Senators and Representatives doing things which are neither deliberative nor beneficial to either the United States as a whole or to their constituents overall.

As for the fundamental reason - there is one though not explicitly spelled out. This may be just a personal view, but I have always believed that another primary reason for the 'over representation' as you put it was specifically to act as a brake on mob mentality. Just because masses of people in New York or LA want something doesn't mean that what is wanted is right (or wrong) - and the best way to defuse a stampede is to slow it down. People physically and culturally separated are far less likely to participate in such stampedes.

Whether the above objective reason was the cause, or that the Carolinas didn't want New York running everything (much more likely), the end result is the same.

[lektrode]

Re: Real Electoral reform

The problem with this solution is that you've just disenfranchised the entire central United States. Senators exist for a reason - to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority.

That's why there are 2 houses in Congress.

Yes, quite true the nature of Congress reduces the ability to do anything - but that was the goal: to make Congress a deliberative body.

The problem we have today isn't the structure of Congress per se, it is the actions of the players in it. Congress seemed to work more or less fine in the first 200 years of the US, after all.

it may not have worked 'just fine' for everyone, (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Help - this movie made my stomach turn) but it did cover the bulk of the majority - but something occurred starting in the 60's that led to the creation of an entire industry that feeds off highlighting/dividing our social/cultural 'differences' instead of celebrating what brought the vast majority of people to The USA - We The People had a .gov that worked for US, all of us and WE CELEBRATED BEING AMERICANS, period, stop. - now? it clearly works for the minority/special-interests (if it didnt, we'd have a BUDGET and one that didnt depend on trillion dollar annual deficits) - IMHO, it began with the hyphenated PC designations that the political class continues to use against US - bought/paid for with funding by the banksters, the mil/industrial complex, or hey! pick a complex - we got plenty of em to blame these daze - who have hijacked the .gov - but the social-welfare/industrial complex, with the legal/industrial complex (HQ'd inside the beltway, taking direction from lower manhattan) rigging the game every step of the way for whoever can bring them the biggest 'jackpot justice' payout = is getting tougher by the week to ignore
(with apologies to the common barrister, who i believe does play an important role against tyranny of the majority, just too bad that so many - too damn many - of them cant find honest work, so go into politix instead - why i think there ought to be 'equal opportunity' for more/varied occupational background in the election of congress critters - that and term limits to keep them from becoming 'royalty' that we've seen way too much of recently (and wouldnt everybody like their own private 757 to jet tween the coasts on weekends)

and apologies if i tweak anybodies 'sensibilties' in this stuff and didnt make my words more accurately reflect my POV here, i try to keep an open/balanced POV (and appreciate the input from all), but it sometimes takes me a looong time to synthesize my thoughts into words - never mind typing with only 2 fingahs - but hey, at least i try (another problem that needs to be addressed is APATHY on the part of The Citizenry, something that works for the benefit of the political class and their masters (and que broken record: why we need term limits - hell, 200years ago most people didnt even live as long as some have been in/died in office = quite unintended by The Founders, IMHO - new blood every once in awhile allows new ideas to percolate thru - why the Citizen Legislature of NH still shows US what The Gold Standard of politix is really all about (like dcarrigg has mentioned: nobody in their right minds would raise/spend hundreds of thousands/millions to 'occupy' an office that pays 100bux/year ;) and they over there with that itty bitty little 21mile coastline have been gittin'r done now for going on 300years - still with NO INCOME AND NO SALES TAX to burn in buying votes with - and sorry for rubbing it in - but nobody has challenged that little fact, credibly, so far, anyway - anybody? (ok, i'll shutup now and sorry again if i offended anyone, its NOT intentional...)

[lektrode]

Re: Real Electoral reform

I don't disagree that the unequal representation has been abused, but the major problems we're seeing today have little to do with Senatorial over-representation of smaller states.

The problems have to do with pretty much all the Senators and Representatives doing things which are neither deliberative nor beneficial to either the United States as a whole or to their constituents overall.

As for the fundamental reason - there is one though not explicitly spelled out. This may be just a personal view, but I have always believed that another primary reason for the 'over representation' as you put it was specifically to act as a brake on mob mentality. Just because masses of people in New York or LA want something doesn't mean that what is wanted is right (or wrong) - and the best way to defuse a stampede is to slow it down. People physically and culturally separated are far less likely to participate in such stampedes.

Whether the above objective reason was the cause, or that the Carolinas didn't want New York running everything (much more likely), the end result is the same.

+1
oh mr c1ue - you've done it again!
its The Selling of The Office (the access to the office) to the highest bidder that IS The Problem, IMHO
they (some of em) used to be called Statesmen for a reason (and some of em were called much worse, rewarded with much deserved 'all expense paid vacations' at club fed for selling it a bit too hard) and it was for the good of ALL THE STATES that they acted, made things happen and THEN WENT HOME and back to work, like The Rest of US - and now?
not so much and they spend too much time insulated from the realities that the majority are facing.
and i agree, its ALL of them, on BOTH sides of the aisle (with little to fear, when - what, 98%? - are returned to office every year - or whatevah that stat is, you get my point)

[astonas]

Re: Real Electoral reform

I don't disagree that the unequal representation has been abused, but the major problems we're seeing today have little to do with Senatorial over-representation of smaller states.

The problems have to do with pretty much all the Senators and Representatives doing things which are neither deliberative nor beneficial to either the United States as a whole or to their constituents overall.

Agreed.

As for the fundamental reason - there is one though not explicitly spelled out. This may be just a personal view, but I have always believed that another primary reason for the 'over representation' as you put it was specifically to act as a brake on mob mentality. Just because masses of people in New York or LA want something doesn't mean that what is wanted is right (or wrong) - and the best way to defuse a stampede is to slow it down. People physically and culturally separated are far less likely to participate in such stampedes.

It's not central to my thinking, but this part I don't agree with. Instead of masses in LA and NY deciding too many things, we now have tiny collections in the midwest deciding too many things. Neither is more desirable, or less tyrannical, than the other. Neither people in LA and NY, nor people in the midwest, are less susceptible to following the latest fad, or being selfish, or otherwise unreasonable, american "heartland" mythology notwithstanding. (Once again, corn ethanol? Farm subsidies?) But at least with proportional representation one could argue that there existed an element of fairness in the process. One person, one vote, no weighting based on where you happen to live. But in any even, this is a tangent.

The simple fact is that the mosaic of tiny, fractured parties, linked to location, that the founders envisioned did not happen. Instead, we have the two-party system, which would have horrified many of them. I do not feel that it is unpatriotic to say that at least in this respect, they failed to anticipate the future adequately.

Whether the above objective reason was the cause, or that the Carolinas didn't want New York running everything (much more likely), the end result is the same.

I think you've hit the nail on the head concerning both the motivations of the day, and the point of this conversation. The US subcultures then, as now, have great distrust for one another, and would rather maintain the status quo, seeking to work it to their advantage, than work in the interests of the nation as the whole. It is the anti-Federalist's imprint, but writ large to the point of illegibility. Through their fear of government corruption, they implemented structures intended to counteract it, but which over time served to guarantee that same corruption. Their understanding of human nature was advanced, but not perfect.

This distrust and antipathy is thus the universal obstacle to good governance, and an essential ingredient of corruption.

And THIS is why the subject is still worth discussing, even though we can't change this particular aspect of the constitution. We need more people to see that corruption in our government is not an accident that depends on WHICH politician is elected. It is a consequence of human nature interacting with the structure of the constitution itself. We may either seek to change the former (unlikely), the latter (very hard) or accept the current problems as inevitable, the very best we can do (devastating).

Thus constitutional change is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of continued survival. And yes, it will be very hard. And people will be upset. And it will still be the right thing to do.

We have learned a great deal about human nature over the last 200+ years. And as we have done so, we've adapted the Constitution, through amendments, to take that into account. Sometimes (prohibition) we were wrong to do so. But mostly we got it right.

It's time to be right again. But not about representation. As others have said, that subject remains, for now, closed.

It's time to be right about corruption.

[lektrode]

Re: Real Electoral reform

Agreed.
...
......
...
It's time to be right about corruption.

+1
must say, mr A, that when you get goin, you get goin.
i esp appreciate the mode=verbose (and the tone)

[astonas]

Re: Real Electoral reform

+1
must say, mr A, that when you get goin, you get goin.
i esp appreciate the mode=verbose (and the tone)

Heh, thanks, lektrode. I do tend to go heavy on the rhetorical flourishes when I get worked up, don't I? Ah well, I'm glad you enjoyed the conclusion, in spite of that.

[lektrode]

Re: Real Electoral reform

Heh, thanks, lektrode. I do tend to go heavy on the rhetorical flourishes when I get worked up, don't I? Ah well, I'm glad you enjoyed the conclusion, in spite of that.

but non, mon ami - i enjoyed the conclusion BECAUSE of yer verboseness (since you are much better than i, when it comes to kranking out concise thot - quite quickly it would appear - in the form of fully developed sentences/pgphs, while i type really slow and compose even slower..

[astonas]

Re: Real Electoral reform

but non, mon ami - i enjoyed the conclusion BECAUSE of yer verboseness (since you are much better than i, when it comes to kranking out concise thot - quite quickly it would appear - in the form of fully developed sentences/pgphs, while i type really slow and compose even slower..

Heh, Thanks for the kindness 'lektrode. And don't misunderstand me, I'm glad you liked it. But I'm afraid I know overwrought writing when I read it. I should, I've produced far more than my share.

For example: Parallel clauses can be a nice, even illuminating, touch in writing. But eight times? In as many paragraphs? And not just one or two, but THREE of those were triples? Plus one triple and two doubles were also either nested or overlapping!?

I was definitely letting my emotions lead my writing. Unless I was writing a state-of-the-union address for an extremely skilled orator, it was overdone. And even then it would be bad form.

Ah well, that's what I get for getting excited. I suppose I should be glad the internet offers a modest measure of anonymity.

[c1ue]

Re: Real Electoral reform

It's not central to my thinking, but this part I don't agree with. Instead of masses in LA and NY deciding too many things, we now have tiny collections in the midwest deciding too many things. Neither is more desirable, or less tyrannical, than the other. Neither people in LA and NY, nor people in the midwest, are less susceptible to following the latest fad, or being selfish, or otherwise unreasonable, american "heartland" mythology notwithstanding. (Once again, corn ethanol? Farm subsidies?) But at least with proportional representation one could argue that there existed an element of fairness in the process. One person, one vote, no weighting based on where you happen to live. But in any even, this is a tangent.

From my view, I don't see either the coasts or the inlands dominating the other.

Yes, the inland states have greater representation than population, but ultimately the inland states' agendas aren't dominant. There are any number of issues where the inland differs vastly from the coasts - not the least including religion, homosexual marriage, abortion, isolationist foreign policies, climate change (or lack thereof), and so forth.

As for your assertion that one vote equals some element of fairness, I can't say I agree. For one thing, you've repeatedly harped on the ultimate unfairness of majority voting dynamics in the 2 party system. From a game theory perspective, the evolution of the 2 party system up to this point is precisely what is expected from exactly proportional representation. The only real difference then is instead of Republican or Democrat dominating, it will be Republican + Libertarian or Democrat + Green + Socialist party dominating - which is what you see in those European countries which have the type of 5% representation you've advocated. This in turn often leads to situations where the much larger representation parties are held hostage by the smaller partners due to the need for meeting minimum majority rules.

In some sense this is better - the really small parties can at times get their agendas uplifted - but in another sense is an even far more egregious case of disproportional representation.

I still think you're missing the whole point of the Senate/House split - it was modeled upon the British Parliament where the House of Lords was filled with all manner of 'unequal representatives' - which in turn allowed many of them to act as moral outliers against otherwise highly popular movements. The US, since there was an abhorrence of royalty, chose to create its own via state representation.

Through their fear of government corruption, they implemented structures intended to counteract it, but which over time served to guarantee that same corruption. Their understanding of human nature was advanced, but not perfect.

This distrust and antipathy is thus the universal obstacle to good governance, and an essential ingredient of corruption.

And THIS is why the subject is still worth discussing, even though we can't change this particular aspect of the constitution. We need more people to see that corruption in our government is not an accident that depends on WHICH politician is elected. It is a consequence of human nature interacting with the structure of the constitution itself. We may either seek to change the former (unlikely), the latter (very hard) or accept the current problems as inevitable, the very best we can do (devastating).

Although I am in full agreement on the subject of present day political corruption in the US - though I would term if failure to execute on fiduciary duty, I again have to rebut your assertion that the Founding Fathers were militating against corruption.

The Founding Fathers were militating against undue concentration and subsequent abuse of power. That is the point of the three way split in executive, legislative, and judicial branches. I've not seen so much written by the Founding Fathers on the subject of corruption per se so much as the tyranny which England's monarchy was exercising over the American colonies.

If you're arguing some other method of splitting governance will improve results, I'm all for hearing that out.

Precisely proportional legislative representation - much in the European model - as you've proposed, doesn't seem like it would fix the issue, however, since already the entire Congressional (and in a real sense, executive and judicial) branches are effectively being manipulated already.

If instead of 60 bankster loving Senators split between Republican and Democrat parties, we have 60 bankster loving Senators split between 5 parties, I'm not sure I see any difference whatsoever.

[Polish_Silver]

Not disenfranchising=-just the opposite

The problem with this solution is that you've just disenfranchised the entire central United States. Senators exist for a reason - to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority.
.

My system would mean every vote had equal weight, where ever it was cast from.

If you are really worried about the least populous states getting hurt, then leave the senate as it is, and have proportional representation (on a nationwide basis) in the house.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Real Electoral reform

ts The Selling of The Office (the access to the office) to the highest bidder that IS The Problem, IMHO
they (some of em) used to be called Statesmen for a reason

Complaining about corruption is not a solution. A fundamentally different electoral system, which involves multiple parties, each of which actually wins seats, is the solution.

Virtually every government in Europe runs on a proportional election system.
Majority take all on a regional basis results in two party demublicans. It sucks!

Compaign financing should run on the same principle: the more votes a party gets, the more of the tax funded kitty it gets, with a threshold around 1%.

Also, parties getting 5% or more of the vote would get some prime time TV, radio, maybe internet space.

Could financing become more transparent? I am not sure. The obvious thing would be to require every ad/bumper sticker to reveal a funding source.
But what if GE buys a TV network, then runs a bunch of pro-wind power and pro Obama news articles. That's not compaigning, it's free speech!

One could try to restrict the ownership of media outlets, but that might have other difficulties. The FCC used to be much more "public interest" minded than they are now. Radio stations were locally owned, not part of national communications conglomerates.

[c1ue]

Re: Real Electoral reform

If you are really worried about the least populous states getting hurt, then leave the senate as it is, and have proportional representation (on a nationwide basis) in the house.

I'm guessing you mean by party. The House is already proportional by population.

How would that work exactly? Which districts get to be the Libertarian districts, the Socialist, the Communist, etc?

Virtually every government in Europe runs on a proportional election system.
Majority take all on a regional basis results in two party demublicans. It sucks!

Given what has happened and what is happening in most European nations, I hardly think proportional representation has a wonderful track record either.

Corruption by bankster isn't exclusive to a two party system.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Real Electoral reform

I'm guessing you mean by party. The House is already proportional by population.

There are 435 representatives, so each one is 1/4% of the vote in a nationwide election. If libertarians get 5% of the vote, they would get 20 seats.

If we keep state level elections, California has about 40 reps. So each seat would be 2.5% of the California vote. In fact, states could elect representatives this way, if they wanted to.

How would that work exactly? Which districts get to be the Libertarian districts, the Socialist, the Communist, etc?

The whole point is to get away from districts. Right now you have to win 51% in a district to get into the house. Only demublicans can do this. It's a virtual monopoly on state power. Only votes for demublicans are "not wasted" so people
are not motivated to make real choices.

Given what has happened and what is happening in most European nations, I hardly think proportional representation has a wonderful track record either.

Europe's record:
Health care is much more cost effective than ours. Prescription drugs 1/10 the price of ours.
Food purity: better than ours (according to my wife).

Wars: bosnia et. al. are much smaller than Vietnam. So they've had much less military adventurism.

Their response to terrorism is also much more responsible than ours.
Military spending is much smaller than ours.
Foreign entanglements ("Israel obsession") much smaller than US.

Crime rate and incarceration rate are much lower than in the USA.