A more Diocletiany follow-up to the Diocletian post
We already have one follow-up to the Diocletian post: What would be the core issues for a women’s party?
But while we’re doing that, I’d also like to open a simultaneous thread on government and electoral reform. My original reference to Diocletian was a nod to his ability to trade in an outmoded constitution in favor of a new system more suited to the times. If I were Diocletian (which, for any pointy-headed twits reading, is the same thing as saying “if I had a magic wand”), I would convene a Constitutional Convention here in my study and replace our existing government with a semi-parliamentary democracy. We could have a president for head-of-state purposes, but only a small one. Like Nicolas Sarkozy, but even smaller. I’d want most real power to be in the legislative branch.
Obviously, though, that’s not possible.
But what is possible? Or, more to the point, what is necessary? I’m not talking about a specific platform of issues; I’m not talking about feminism or a women’s party. I’m talking about the mechanics of our government and elections. The stuff that needs to change to make representative democracy work again.
A few things come to mind, but I really want input from other progressives here — particularly wonky types. These are just issue areas:
- Campaign finance reform (I realize that’s vague)
- Senate rules (the filibuster is on everyone’s mind at the moment, obviously)
- Electoral college (always a favorite)
- Ballot access (critical for third-party politics)
- Fusion (part of ballot access, but I’m calling it out separately)
- Term limits (how about one-term presidency for six years?)
I had a list of a bunch of other things somewhere, but I can’t find it. I’m drawing a blank. At any rate: the floor is open.
EDITED TO ADD: Remembered another one:
- Limits on executive power
Yeah, that’s vague, but I wanted to get it up there. It kills me that the “imperial presidency” of Nixon now looks almost restrained.
37 Responses to “A more Diocletiany follow-up to the Diocletian post”
-
Unree says:
This one may be a subset of Senate rules, but maybe not: Representation in the Senate should vary based on the population of the state, or of some other political unit—I’m not wedded to the concept of states in Congress. We could guarantee each state one senator, as we do with representatives in Congress. Sure, it’ll never happen, but neither will most of the Violet list, alas.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm EST -
Violet says:
Speaking of that, I think there needs to be reform in terms of House representation. The ratio of population to representative varies widely across states. Alaska has, like, one Congressperson for every five citizens, whereas in California a million people have to share. I’m exaggerating, of course, but you see what I mean.
I think that would be easier to pull off than changing the Senate.
-
MojaveWolf says:
Voting system — Either instant run-off ballots or some variation (sorry, I don’t remember the exact terms for all the different systems; will try to look up later this week if no one else gets it).
This lets people cast their votes for whoever they want w/out worrying that it will be wasted. Much easier to do w/a computer system and will be a nightmare to handcount on a national scale, but necessary, I’d say (just for the house, it could have a huge impact).
For example, lowest vote getter gets tossed out (or however many lowest ones you want to toss out) then it automatically switches the people who voted for that one to their next choice, and so on down the list until you have two.
And you can always just vote one if you want. There are a bunch of systems like this, each w/their own strong and weak points, and each will have people pointing out to “bad results you could have gotten w/this system”, but this would be the single best way to get a third party on the map, either that or. . .
have people in each state vote for the house by party, with the % of delegates each party gets being dependent on that. Which has the drawback of limiting direct voting, but there are ways around that as well.
Gotta run, someone who remembers the terms better can name what you call this, my mind is blanking right now.
-
Topper Harley says:
@1 The Senate is the way it is for a reason. The Senate is supposed to be the part of congress that is thinking long term and above the heated passions of the moment.
@2 There are only a few fixes. You can either give certain states zero House seats or you can expand the size of the House such that each seat represents a similar number of people. The former would be naturally be unpopular in Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, etc. The latter would be unpopular among the 435 people who currently have the job.
@3 How do you work around Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem? Essentially, it’s impossible for any voting system that expresses preference among more than two alternatives to do so in a fair, deterministic fashion. In a way, it’s much like that Churchill quip about capitalism…
-
stateofdisbelief says:
* Campaign finance reform (I realize that’s vague) — You will have to check the outcome of the C.U. Case current before SCOTUS and determine what, if anything will need to be done legislatively. This decision could go either way and create impetus for change. The bigger problems are the failure to enforce rules, i.e.,whatever happened with all of Obama’s undeclared donors?
* Senate rules (the filibuster is on everyone’s mind at the moment, obviously) - leave it. The people must exercise their democratic right and vote. We did deliver a filibuster-proof majority, however, the ones we’ve elected include stinker DINOs. As voters, we need to correct that also at the ballot box. Amending Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster is not the answer. People need to think before they vote and they need to have the resources to properly evaluate the candidates (see access below). The filibuster is a good check and there are always ways around it. So, again, leave it.
* Electoral college (always a favorite) - This is a waste of time to focus on as a priority IMHO. Changing it requires a Constitutional Amendment I believe and that has been attempted before.
* Ballot access (critical for third-party politics) - This is CRITICAL. We need to study European models. Public funding and equal media access are also important.
* Fusion (part of ballot access, but I’m calling it out separately) - not sure what you mean here.
* Term limits (how about one-term presidency for six years?) - No term limits. We the people must decide term limits on a case by case basis at the ballot box. Shame on the voting electorate if they waive that right.
I think we should focus first on Primaries.
1) Get rid of Caucuses in Primaries - #1 #1 #1.
2) Get rid of “delegate” in Primaries
3) All primaries held on the same day, over in one day.
4) A review of state by state open/closed Primary rules should be undertaken. Should they be open? or should they be closed. -
Violet says:
Amending Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster is not the answer.
Why not? The current filibuster situation is the result of fairly recent changes to Senate rules (last few decades): changing the majority to 60 instead of 67, and the introduction of double-tracking. But now, suddenly, no more changes are allowed? Really? And why would that be?
The filibuster was never intended to replace simple majority voting, but that’s what has happened. And it’s happened just during the past few administrations, with Republicans using the threat of filibuster (enabled by double tracking) to stall any legislation. I call bullshit.
-
Violet says:
@1 The Senate is the way it is for a reason. The Senate is supposed to be the part of congress that is thinking long term and above the heated passions of the moment.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re addressing here. Yes, the upper house is supposed to be of a different order, and the equal representation by states is part of the balancing in the Constitution. I have no problem with that.
Senate rules, on the other hand, are things like the filibuster: a contemporary sitution that has emerged out of obstructionist mis-use of procedure. None of the parliamentary rules governing the chambers are set in stone, and they change with some frequency.
-
Aspen says:
The debates for big ticket elections are controlled by the two major parties. They get to dictate the style and the questions asked. Get rid of that. How about at least 1 - 2 of the presidential or other major debates include the major third parties, such as the Greens and Libertarians, as well as popular alternate candidates in the major parties who don’t concede the primary (such as Kucinich or Ron Paul in 08). I’d like to see a panel of question-askers from the different parties/ideologies, to include groups like single payer advocates, tea partiers, the NWP, etc. as well as “regular people”. This could be an all-day event on C-SPAN, ha.
Of course, as we learned in 04 and 08, winning the debates does not mean winning the election. But I still would like to get as much information as possible. Of course, after what happened with Single Payer, I’d also like to increase exposure to issues black-listed by the major networks and major parties.
-
Violet says:
No term limits. We the people must decide term limits on a case by case basis at the ballot box. Shame on the voting electorate if they waive that right.
Interesting. Would you revoke the current two-term limit on the presidency?
-
Seth Warren says:
The electoral college could not be easily abolished as it is enshrined in the constitution. However, if we could get each state to tally electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska, who do it proportionally rather than “winner take all” I think we’d be a lot better off immediately.
Another reform that I’d love to see and the two major parties would hate is instant run-off voting. Rank your candidates from most preferred to least preferred and be done with it. Votes are tallied in such a way that no third parties are “stealing” votes from anyone else anymore. An example: in 2000 with IRV, any votes for Nader would have been ranked #1 while those voters could have chosen Gore as #2 and Bush as #3. With Nader unable to get enough votes to break into the main electoral pool, his earned votes would have “run off” to Gore.
All primaries should be closed. Note I said primaries - not caucuses; no more caucuses! Political parties are useful in that they provide (or at least they should provide) a “cheat sheet” for what a candidate’s core values are. As such, independent and unaffiliated voters whose core values may be undefined at best and at worst questionable, have no business mucking about in an organisation with which they have not allied themselves. If you want to influence the direction of a party (and vote for jagoffs like Obama), then join the party. Otherwise, piss off and wait for the general election.
The big hurdles to any reforms are the big Ds and Rs of the nation and the fact that elections are in the hands of individual states. Any reform would have to be made state by state, unless the Constitution were to be amended (which would be equally, if not more, difficult).
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Why not? The current filibuster situation is the result of fairly recent changes to Senate rules (last few decades): changing the majority to 60 instead of 67, and the introduction of double-tracking. But now, suddenly, no more changes are allowed? Really? And why would that be?
I didn’t say no changes. As you mentioned, the rules change all the time. The Senate has the ability to manipulate and change it to suit their whims. Harry has the power to pass Healthcare legislation — good legislation, but he’s choosing not to use it.
That’s the problem, not the filibuster. The Republicans didn’t have 60 and look what they accomplished.
That’s what I meant by changing the filibuster rules is not the answer. The answer is limiting the impact of big money donors and electing the right people. Now, how to do that…
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Why not? The current filibuster situation is the result of fairly recent changes to Senate rules (last few decades): changing the majority to 60 instead of 67, and the introduction of double-tracking. But now, suddenly, no more changes are allowed? Really? And why would that be?
If we could fix the primary issues, ballot access, and the impact of big money donors, heck yes. We certainly fared well under FDR for more than 2 terms and Bill Clinton would still be president if that were the case. That’s not such a bad thing.
-
stateofdisbelief says:
Ooops, wrong block quote — I was answering violet’s question about term limits.
-
Aspen says:
@3 How do you work around Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem?
Approval voting?
Essentially, it’s impossible for any voting system that expresses preference among more than two alternatives to do so in a fair, deterministic fashion.
Is Arrows theorem applicable to just winner-take-all systems, or does it apply to proportionally represented systems as well? Not that any of this will happen in the US. But it’s interesting to talk about.
-
Simon Kenton says:
I could get strongly behind a 28th amendment:
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
If healthcare is so great, let them be unexempted.
-
jumpjet says:
I would very much like to increase the power of the House of Representatives relative to the Senate. Of all the parts of the federal government the House is the most responsive to the public will. But the Senate has more power because it gets to confirm Cabinet appointees and judges. I would shift some of the work of confirming officials to the House. I would perhaps also make certain particular pieces of legislation passable by the House alone.
-
Violet says:
@3 How do you work around Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem? Essentially, it’s impossible for any voting system that expresses preference among more than two alternatives to do so in a fair, deterministic fashion.
That is really, really not what Arrow’s theorem says. Christ, this is like the grad school lounge. How will you ever get to the snack machine when the distance from it to the couch is infinitely divisible?
-
Violet says:
What are some ways to strike at the money/media shit-train that runs this whole circus? We all know how it works: candidates needs millions to go on TV, the millions come from corporate lobbyists, the corporations also own the media, the media decides who’s a “real” candidate, said “real” candidates go to Washington, govern in accordance with the wishes of their corporate buyers, etc., etc., etc.
Our whole system is basically run by a few thousand people in DC and New York.
Where are the Achilles’ heels?
-
Violet says:
Also, I want to bomb the Village (or Versailles or whatever you wanna call it). Just bomb it into oblivion. Metaphorically speaking of course.
-
foxx says:
Campaign finance reform is crucial. Without it nothing else matters. Specifically only public money finances candidates. Wihtout it the majority of politicians will be bought as they are now. Hard to sell since we can’t afford it, but essential.
And electon reform, so that all elections, including primaries, are fraud proof.
I am not in favor of term limits. Good people are hard to find, it is stupid to throw them away, and it takes awhile to acquire experience.
-
Unree says:
@1 The Senate is the way it is for a reason. The Senate is supposed to be the part of congress that is thinking long term and above the heated passions of the moment.
Right: giving Alaska and Wyoming and Vermont extra power, and diminishing the power of California and New York and Texas, increases the supply of national wisdom and long-term thinking. Yup.
Seth Warren @10 reminds me of caucuses. They sure stank in 2008. In earlier election years they seemed quaint and harmless, but not of any use. Does anyone have info about what they’re supposed to do better than primaries?
-
Aspen says:
What are some ways to strike at the money/media shit-train that runs this whole circus? We all know how it works: candidates needs millions to go on TV, the millions come from corporate lobbyists, the corporations also own the media, the media decides who’s a “real” candidate, said “real” candidates go to Washington, govern in accordance with the wishes of their corporate buyers, etc., etc., etc.
I’ve heard it put forth, though I don’t remember the details exactly, that since the public actually owns the airwaves, each candidate should be entitled to a certain amount of airtime for free. Of course, assuming a certain level of qualifications to be a candidate (signatures or votes, etc.) I don’t remember the details of this. Has anyone else heard of this idea? I almost think it’s on the Green Party platform? I’ll try to find a link.
-
yttik says:
“I’m talking about the mechanics of our government and elections”
I like the structure of our government. I think we’ve got a good system of checks and balances. Our election integrity can be a bit shoddy, what with all our counting difficulties, voting machines, and various problems.
“I’d want most real power to be in the legislative branch.”
I believe it already is. The prez doesn’t write laws or spend money or declare war without the approval and work of congress. What’s interesting is that Americans don’t hold congress accountable anymore. We say things like “Bush got us into the war” without really remembering that there were 435 congresscriters that authorized it, funded it, approved of it over and over again. And continue to do so to this day. (Not every congresscritter of course, some brave souls have stood their ground, but you get the point.) The legislative branch really does hold all the cards, although it serves them well to pretend otherwise.
-
Honora says:
National Popular Vote is a really interesting organization that is moving to legislatively (on the state level) make the electoral college reflect the national vote for the presidency. They have had some success and it may be a movement we try to support, while we plan our strategy. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The rest of this is intriguing but I don’t have time to formulate my thoughts today.
-
mvymvy says:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
-
mvymvy says:
The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
-
mvymvy says:
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
Every vote would not be equal under the proportional approach. The proportional approach would perpetuate the inequality of votes among states due to each state’s bonus of two electoral votes. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
-
Alwaysthinking says:
I agree with Violet’s basic list of core issues and with the comments in #46. I think whatever demeans and debases a woman as a human being should be included in the list. That, after all, is the goal – to stop the debasement, oppression, and slavery that we are reminded of everyday in the media and in daily conversations. We squirm with cognitive dissonance at times, not even always grasping the reasons for our discomfort in the very society into which we were born. Moguls on television belittle us as though we are invisible or as though we just love being treated badly.
I feel there is a vast and deep well of discontent and anger among women everywhere about the way we are demeaned. This is the time to usher that angry swell into a full-blown gusher that is unstoppable.
The bottom line is gaining power through our organization(s) – using lobbying, marketing, communication, and education. We have to seize power, not ask for it nor cry for it. We have to say, “We are human. We were born as humans. We will no longer tolerate our own oppression and slavery.” Our party (?) could even be called “The Human Race Party.” After all, at the rate that women are being enslaved and oppressed, the human race is at great risk.
We have to have broad-based attacks. Every candidate for office must meet our demands (whatever our list entails) before we, as women and the men of courage who support us, will vote for him or her. We must also announce publicly why we support or oppose “X” or “Y” candidate. Make them afraid NOT to support our voting bloc.
We must do, as other groups have done, set up PACs to donate (or not) to candidates on the basis of their positions and records. We need to be just as powerful in our state and Congressional lobbying for “women” as various church, business, trade and professional organizations are right now for other matters. And we need not be shy. We are women and we are strong. We know that. The boys have been trying to intimidate us and then other boys follow along in groupthink.
Let’s let it all hang out, for once, demand whatever we want to demand and let the chips fall where they may. (I know, I know, working with the lobby system sort of belies the point about campaign finance reform. We need it desperately, but in the meantime, we may have to use the system to beat it.)
Too long we have been afraid of seeming “unladylike.”
Meanwhile, let’s also put campaign finance reform, along with Electoral College and other democratic reforms, into the mix of long-term missions. That especially means developing coalitions with the other organizations already working on these concerns.
But let’s get started while we have a window of opportunity to demand power and parity for women (while Hillary is still Secretary of State and speaking out on our behalf all over the world).
-
The female Andrew Jackson | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] now, a brief digression from our ongoing Diocletian working session, which continues here and here.) Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signs a copy of her autobiography, ‘Going Rogue’, at the North [...]
-
Sandra S. says:
Media consolidation is an issue that could be addressed through enforcement of anti-trust legislation, or through tightening of the existing legislation.
-
lowdowndog says:
Most people agree the two party system is broken. So let those who claim to be independent, on both ends of the political spectrum whether left or right, unify under the banner of “Throw the bums out!” Start a campaign to vote for anyone but a Democrat or Republican. Vote for a third party candidate no matter who they are or what they stand for.
The idea is to shake things up. Even if we end up with crappy candidates, it can’t be much worse than what we have. Besides, if everyone votes only third party candidates, it’s going to send a message that voters are so fed up with Congress they would rather vote for an unknown candidate than the same old moneyed interests in Washington, plus, it levels the playing field for third party female candidates. A twofer.
-
Violet says:
quixote has been sick, but sent me some email links:
On Government is the home page for a series of chapters in development.
This chapter on Control is of particular interest for our discussion here:
Take an easy example. In the US, five states (South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) with just over three million people have the same Senate voting power as the five states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois) with 110 million. (2007 numbers) The Senate can effectively derail legislation. So a Californian has less than 3% of the political clout of a South Dakotan. Three percent.
(That disenfranchisement has been accomplished without protecting minority rights. Minority rights do need protection when the majority rules, and that was once the intent of the skewed representation of one particular group, but in our case one third of the population has lost much of its voice while minorities still have no protection.)
Giving some people three percent representation compared to others is so anti-democratic it’s not even funny, and yet nobody can find a practical solution within the current system. That’s because there is none at this point. It would involve dozens of politicians casting votes to throw themselves out of a job. The solution was to pay attention when the problem was tiny and boring, when nobody except professionals or interested parties was ever going to notice it. So we’re headed into one of those nasty corrections. Not any time soon, but the longer it waits, the bigger it’ll be. All of history shows that it’s not a question of “if,” but of “when.”
-
Kookaburra says:
Or, more to the point, what is necessary?
Guillotines.
-
DancingOpossum says:
The importance of ballot access can’t be overstated. Third parties like the Greens and the Libertarians have been working extremely hard on ballot access for eons. They have lots of know-how and experience and they actually work together on this stuff because it benefits all third parties. We should work with them to share ideas, they’ve been in the trenches on this and it would save a lot of time.
-
DancingOpossum says:
“Would you revoke the current two-term limit on the presidency?”
I would. We would have had a third Clinton term if we didn’t have the term limit (I know, we might also have had a third term of Dubya but — oh hey, we are anyway!). It was only enacted because the Republican party was skeeeered that FDR would keep winning and winning.
-
Sandra S. says:
I think abolishing term limits is a TERRIBLE idea until we’ve fixed the holes in the democratic process. Electoral fraud is too easy right now. Once the process is less broken, I’m not against the idea, though.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
Unree says:
Does anyone have info about what they’re supposed to do better than primaries?
November 29th, 2009 at 8:18 pm EST
Supposedly they give a better indication of whether the candidate can generate enough enthusiasm to win. This was sort of indicated in the 2008 election: the GOP had more primaries than caucuses, and their ultimate candidate could not generate any real excitement or support (hence the entrance of the Thrilla from Wasilla). Obama certainly had enthusiastic supporters, and it was solely their enthusiasm that got him elected.
