Neccisary Institutional Reforms
This will undoubtedly be the least sexy of any of my posts so far, considering the others have dealt with the issues of abortion, immigration, secularism, etc. Despite the fact that this probably won't get anyone excited, I believe this may be about possibly the most important government reforms out there, and this may alleviate a lot of the stupidity that we all allow to happen in Washington.
For a long time general elections used to be run by the parties. They used to pass out ballots of different sizes and colors for the different parties, and you could only vote for members of whatever party's ballot you took. Also, because of the differences in color and size, voter privacy was non-existant, which led to voter intimidation and bribery. Because of this we instituted what's called the "Australian Ballot", which is one ballot that has all of the parties nominees.
This is what needs to be done in the primaries. Right now turnout to primaries are around 12% on a really good year. And you have to think, who are these 12% that show up? Mostly, it's the people who really give a shit about politics, like me. And what's one common attribute of people who really give a shit about politics? In general, we are more extreme than the 88% of the nation that doesn't show up for the primaries, meaning already we're faced with the problem that we know the candidates are representative of the extremists instead of the moderates. The other aspect to this is the people who show up to primaries are mostly people who've got no beef with having to caucus only for one problem, thus the people who have strong party affiliation with either the democrats or republicans (this isn't me, but in general). Because of this we get the candidates that we get. The republicans churn out gun loving, God hates queers, let's bomb the shit out of the unbelievers, and the democrats churn out whiney pussy environmentalists who believe abortions should be done for free in public schools and people who believe in God are retarded, and they keep churning out these fucking candidates because of the institution of the primaries.
Now if, instead, we instituted an Australian Ballot for the primaries, where you were still only able to vote once in each election (presidential, senatorial, congressional, whatever), but you were able to say pick your favorite republican for president, democrat for senate, Libertarian for congress, etc, it would help immensely towards solving these problems. Turnout would become more for the people who don't care so much, since it's now more similar to the general election, and also the candidates would be selected by the public, instead of the echo chambers. This would lead to more moderate, representative candidates in the general elections.
The only problem with this is, according to the Supreme Court, passing a law requiring this change is unconstitutional, at least according to Associate Justice Douchebag, I mean Scalia. Thus, for the parties to make this shift, they'll have to do it voluntarily, which is something they will only do if we force them to.
But let's move on to the general elections. Right now we have a plurality system in place, meaning whoever gets the most votes wins. This is a system that adharently leads to a two party system, because of, well, the obvious reasons people don't vote for third parties now (You're throwing your vote away, a vote for Nader might as well be a vote for Bush, etc.).
Now if this is replaced with a run off system, then these arguments wouldn't carry any weight, because candidates almost never get 50% of the vote, and when they do it's because their only competition is that other guy. Now, if instead, you don't win until you acquire 50% of the vote, and if in the general election there is no candidate recieving 50% of the vote, there would be a run off between the top 2 candidates. This would encourage 3rd party representation, and thus a more representative government.
The problem with this is we are governed by republicans and democrats. Neither party will make a move for this, namely because the only ones hurt by this change are the republicans and democrats.
And finally, we need to redistrict. Right now we are, for the most part districted on a partisan basis (for example, I'm in Iowa, one of the most politically diverse states, and yet something close to 90% of my district vote democrat). This does not lead to competitive elections. As is it's nearly impossible to unseat an incumbant anyways, because of patronage, pork, a seat of authority, etc. Now add onto that that the incumbant is a member of the party that the vast majority of his constituents support, and thus to be unseated a member of the opposite party has to beat him, etc. it's ridiculous. Instead, we should be districted based on a competitive basis. Now, mind you, there will still be districts in Kansas that are 99% republican, and there'll be districts in California and New York that are 99% democrat, but by and large the effect will be that congressional turnover may raise over 2% every other year. Also, there are suprising effects of this for the feminism movement. Apparently, in competition for open seats women fare equally well as men, but still they are HORRIBLY underrepresented in government, which is due to the incumbency advantage. Because of the incumbency advantage the representation is 30, 40, 50 years behind at all points in time simply because we're blinded by incumbency and all of the election benefits it brings. If congressional elections were all of a sudden competitive, there would be an almost immidiate jump in the number of female representatives, not to mention it will allow shifts in party control more frequently, which will force them to be more attune to the actual public.
For a long time general elections used to be run by the parties. They used to pass out ballots of different sizes and colors for the different parties, and you could only vote for members of whatever party's ballot you took. Also, because of the differences in color and size, voter privacy was non-existant, which led to voter intimidation and bribery. Because of this we instituted what's called the "Australian Ballot", which is one ballot that has all of the parties nominees.
This is what needs to be done in the primaries. Right now turnout to primaries are around 12% on a really good year. And you have to think, who are these 12% that show up? Mostly, it's the people who really give a shit about politics, like me. And what's one common attribute of people who really give a shit about politics? In general, we are more extreme than the 88% of the nation that doesn't show up for the primaries, meaning already we're faced with the problem that we know the candidates are representative of the extremists instead of the moderates. The other aspect to this is the people who show up to primaries are mostly people who've got no beef with having to caucus only for one problem, thus the people who have strong party affiliation with either the democrats or republicans (this isn't me, but in general). Because of this we get the candidates that we get. The republicans churn out gun loving, God hates queers, let's bomb the shit out of the unbelievers, and the democrats churn out whiney pussy environmentalists who believe abortions should be done for free in public schools and people who believe in God are retarded, and they keep churning out these fucking candidates because of the institution of the primaries.
Now if, instead, we instituted an Australian Ballot for the primaries, where you were still only able to vote once in each election (presidential, senatorial, congressional, whatever), but you were able to say pick your favorite republican for president, democrat for senate, Libertarian for congress, etc, it would help immensely towards solving these problems. Turnout would become more for the people who don't care so much, since it's now more similar to the general election, and also the candidates would be selected by the public, instead of the echo chambers. This would lead to more moderate, representative candidates in the general elections.
The only problem with this is, according to the Supreme Court, passing a law requiring this change is unconstitutional, at least according to Associate Justice Douchebag, I mean Scalia. Thus, for the parties to make this shift, they'll have to do it voluntarily, which is something they will only do if we force them to.
But let's move on to the general elections. Right now we have a plurality system in place, meaning whoever gets the most votes wins. This is a system that adharently leads to a two party system, because of, well, the obvious reasons people don't vote for third parties now (You're throwing your vote away, a vote for Nader might as well be a vote for Bush, etc.).
Now if this is replaced with a run off system, then these arguments wouldn't carry any weight, because candidates almost never get 50% of the vote, and when they do it's because their only competition is that other guy. Now, if instead, you don't win until you acquire 50% of the vote, and if in the general election there is no candidate recieving 50% of the vote, there would be a run off between the top 2 candidates. This would encourage 3rd party representation, and thus a more representative government.
The problem with this is we are governed by republicans and democrats. Neither party will make a move for this, namely because the only ones hurt by this change are the republicans and democrats.
And finally, we need to redistrict. Right now we are, for the most part districted on a partisan basis (for example, I'm in Iowa, one of the most politically diverse states, and yet something close to 90% of my district vote democrat). This does not lead to competitive elections. As is it's nearly impossible to unseat an incumbant anyways, because of patronage, pork, a seat of authority, etc. Now add onto that that the incumbant is a member of the party that the vast majority of his constituents support, and thus to be unseated a member of the opposite party has to beat him, etc. it's ridiculous. Instead, we should be districted based on a competitive basis. Now, mind you, there will still be districts in Kansas that are 99% republican, and there'll be districts in California and New York that are 99% democrat, but by and large the effect will be that congressional turnover may raise over 2% every other year. Also, there are suprising effects of this for the feminism movement. Apparently, in competition for open seats women fare equally well as men, but still they are HORRIBLY underrepresented in government, which is due to the incumbency advantage. Because of the incumbency advantage the representation is 30, 40, 50 years behind at all points in time simply because we're blinded by incumbency and all of the election benefits it brings. If congressional elections were all of a sudden competitive, there would be an almost immidiate jump in the number of female representatives, not to mention it will allow shifts in party control more frequently, which will force them to be more attune to the actual public.
posted by Galen at 7:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home