1) Replacing the Electoral College with popular vote for the election of the American president.
2) Campaign Finance Reform
3) Age Limits
4) Term Limits
5) Direct Democracy
6) Replace first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting with proportional representation (PR)
7) Gerrymandered electoral districts
8) Civics tests to earn voting rights.
9) Ranked choice voting
10) Run-off Elections
11) Sunset clauses
12) Regulated social media
I have articles about some of these suggestions. Follow the link to get the full article.
The purpose of this article is not to give the pros and cons of all these changes. Rather this article will show the immensity of making just one of them.
A historical example
The founding fathers of the US constitution had a disdain for elections that were based on popularity. So they constructed the US Senate to counteract the force of populism. The senators would be elected by state legislators. The theory was that the legislators would have a better perspective on who should go to Washington than the voting public (which, I should mention, were the rich, white guys of that time).
Right from the start, there were some issues with some of the senators going to Washington. Here is a list from my historical readings:
1. Sometimes the state legislatures could not agree, leaving the senate seat vacant — and leaving the state not being represented.
2. Sometimes, the state governor would convince the legislature to send his political rival to Washington — and away from the competition for the governor’s job.
3. Sometimes, the state governor would convince the legislature to send a loyal partisan worker to Washington — as a reward for loyal service. So political deals were struck to put a mediocre person in high office.
4. Sometimes, the senator treated his time in the Senate as a six-year paid vacation.
5. Sometimes, the senator was openly corrupt, knowing that his recall was six years away.
To be fair, my reading of history is that a majority of senators were of reasonable competence and took their responsibility seriously. But the few bad apples made the Senate look bad.
In the days of the railroad robber barons, the corruption in the Senate became more overt. The newspapers liked printing these scandals; the public became more aware of the problem. There were demands to do something about the Senate.
There was lots of talk and lots of talk and lots of talk.
More talk and talk and talk.
Then in 1913, the 17th Amendment came into being. It came quickly, almost out of nowhere. State senators were then elected by the voters of their state, not by the state legislature.
While we could argue whether American democracy was improved with this change, this article will focus on the time it took to effect that change. We are looking at 30 years from the time of serious discussion to actual implementation. The 17th Amendment is a good example of the Overton Window.
Going back to today’s popular suggestions
Each of these popular suggestions will take a similar time frame. We need lots of talk and talk and talk and more talk. Then the change happens.
I suspect that, in normal times, the Electoral College might be somewhere in this 30-year process. But the USA is not in normal times. It has much bigger and more immediate problems on its hands. While still smoldering, the EC discussion is not occupying the public’s attention as it did in 2017. And, like the 17th Amendment, abolishing the College will not bring about the democracy many of us yearn for. And if Mr. Trump gets his way, he will fix the EC issue by making the EC a moot point.
If we want to change democracy according to the list of popular suggestions, then we have a 30-year wait for each of those suggestions. Then we get to try them out and see if they actually improve our society. If they don’t work, we will either: pretend that they do work or take another 30-year path to fix democracy.
So here’s my point
If we require a 30-year period to effect any of the popular changes, should it not be better to spend that 30 years on building a whole new democracy? Like the democracy we are so yearning for?
I have invented that democracy. There is a website of about 500,000 words to explain that democracy to you.
https://tiereddemocraticgovernance.org/home.php
Then in 30 years, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren can have that democracy.
Again, I ask: “Is the TDG not a better return on your political energy than advocating for a few of the popular suggestions?”
One more advantage
The 17th Amendment came with talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and then it happened.
So many of today’s political commentators believe their job is to keep the talking of their favorite issue going, hoping that such talking eventually moves the issue through its Overton Window.
Building the TDG will be different. While it needs a little more talking, the TDG will happen mostly by do and do and do and do and do and do and there it is.
Wikipedia Image
I think Master Yoda will approve of the TDG approach to changing society.
Published on Medium 2024
