Okay, this one is a little over the top. No question it would be hard (politically) to implement, but it's overdue for discussion.
It's time to reorganize the Congress.
The House of Representatives has been stuck at 435 members for close to a century, resulting in members of the "People's House" who barely know the people, and whose campaigns cost so much, they spend all their time talking to contributors, not voters. This was not the intent of the founders, as can be seen by reading the Constitution.
The Senate's "all states are equal" status is a vestige of the Articles of Confederation. Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that election districts should represent "one person - one vote". That is grossly violated in the Senate, and because our electoral system for President allocates Electoral votes according to representation in the House and Senate, less populated states are grossly overrepresented in the selection of the President.
House of Representatives
Under the original Constitution, the Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand. If that held today, Congress would number over 9800. Needless to say, the "People's House" is more remote from the people than it was then, and so long as membership is frozen at 435, it continues to grow more remote. The only thing stopping us from having 1000, or even 10,000 Representatives is the size of the House chamber. In this era of electronic voting and networks that is not an issue, except for ceremonial occasions like the State of the Union, which could take place at a sufficiently large auditorium away from the Capitol if necessary.
Senate
The Senate's "two Senators for every state regardless of size" is in marked contrast to "one person-one vote". Instead, one person in a small state may have 50 times the representation of one person in California. Senators should be allocated to the states by population, with the smallest states having one, and the larger ones allocated Senators by population. The size of the Senate should be enlarged to accomplish this, although not beyond a certain point in order to maintain the smaller and more collegial atmosphere of the upper house.
While I do agree that there should be more representatives in the House, so that each Congressman represents fewer people than they currently do, you idea in the Senate is TOTALLY ludicrious (unless you live in New york or California)
The Senate was set-up so that each State would have an EQUAL voice in the Senate body.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
At one time, House seats were districted without regard to one person one vote. We changed that, because it better represents We the People.
The idea of one state - two senators, if it ever was a good idea, certainly is no longer in a nation (and we are a single nation) where one state has almost 50 times the population of another. Why should a Californian's vote for Senator have one fiftieth the force of one from a Wyoming or North Dakota (I haven't checked the population figures, but I'm fairly sure those are two of the smallest by population).
As I also cited, this senatorial "equity" provides an automatic advantage in the Electoral College for low population states, so one Presidential vote in California is worth less that one in a low population state.
I think keeping the Senate a smaller body, with every state represented, but based on population, is an idea for the 21st Century even if it wasn't for the 18th.
To be realistic, we are stuck with the current makeup of the House and Senate until the Constitution is re-written.
And I'm sure it's written in a fortune cookie, or by some wise woman or man somewhere in a book... that one of the biggest factors contributing to the success of any endeavor would be the ability of the proponents of various changes to put first things first, to prioritize what's most vital at the top of the agenda, and by necessity let some stuff slide to tackle later.
Often the fear of change overwhelms the dislike for something that's broken. This issue is NOT in the national consciousness... nor will it be anytime soon on a large enough scale to drive change.
So as far as Unity '08 goes... if this issue were to be in the Unity '08 platform, it would be like dragging a big anchor while trying to win a yacht race.
Because of the concentration of a big chunk of the United States population in a few states, there are more states who gain advantage by the current arrangement than states who lose advantage by the current arrangement. In other words, the vested interest to keep the unfairness is simply numerically stronger than the interest to "fix" it.
In other words, it's not going to be changed without a seriously large crowbar. There are a few figurative crowbars which might do the trick... but none of them could be put into play fast enough to make this issue anything other than a ball and chain for the Unity '08 ticket if this was part of the platform.
HOWEVER... I totally agree with the "problem" from a theoretical standpoint... so let's hypothetically say we were to create the "perfect" system of government... what would that look like, from the standpoint of representation? (and which leads to a good body of laws, and good government).
Let's start with what's been successful in the past... the Constitution is very remarkable in that it a) created a workable form of government, and b) that it came to exist at all given the fairly significant differences of opinion between small states and large, northern states and southern, Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians... but nevertheless, it WAS created, and it was good. And it was created by a group of 55 individuals (39 signed).
There are a couple of things to notice about the dynamics of this group:
First, 55 individuals is a small group compared to our current legislative body. But on the other hand, wouldn't it be easier to hammer something out between 55 people instead of 435? To really debate something fully and get a full two cents worth, especially if you're committed to sitting down and working through something until it's finished. Especially if you've got Washington and Franklin as great (respected and wise) leaders saying something to the effect of "come on people, this is important, let's finish this, and let's get it right". If a group of 435 had been in Philadelphia to write our Constitution, it either would never have been done, or it would have been a joke, with earmarks written right into the Constitution... Many of the founding fathers expressed that they didn't agree with every clause of the Constitution, but that overall they were nevertheless VERY proud of it, "as close to perfect as it can be", to paraphrase Ben Franklin. So in my opinion, the results suffer if the group gets too large... i.e. too many cooks in the kitchen. And I think in a perfect world, that the perfect government would take this very basic element of human dynamics into consideration and keep things small.
On a separate note, I agree with the direction of making the Senate a steady and deliberative body... i.e. longer terms, etc.
The second thing to notice is that a "unicameral" legislature created the Constitution. In 20-something years of observing our House of Representatives and Senate, I can't think of a single instance where I'm glad we have a bicameral legislature where both houses have pretty similar roles, or where bouncing a bill back and forth between the House and Senate did anything besides give more politicians more chances to attach riders and clauses which muddy up the waters and encourage "compromise", i.e. gutless, weak, and pandering compromises designed to throw a bone to everyone to buy votes, not the kind of compromises that factor in the best of both worlds, not the kind of compromises that are able to make a tough decision when required.
A small, deliberative body, concerned first and foremost with the long term health of the country, with terms long enough to avoid churn, and with equal representation by population and interests... this is the kind of group that's needed to make decisions at or near those made by our founding fathers. This keeps some of the intentions of the Constitutional Convention, plus adopts some of the characteristics which made the Constitutional Convention itself a success. Also, since the Convention was largely before the era of political parties, the big government group and small government group pretty much had equal say, and the resulting document hammers together a lot of the best of both worlds along those lines, or at least compromises effectively enough to last over 200 years, even when there was not much in the way of examples to light the way back then.
So if we were to think about tweaking the Constitution down the road to address some of the unfairness, how could we address these concerns and meet these objectives, and be fair all around? My suggestion would be to divvy up representation in the Senate equally by population. And I don't see the people of America giving up existing state boundaries and the number 50... So my compromise would be to lump states together into groups so that the population of each group is relatively equal. It's not too hard to divvy the U.S. up into 9 groups with roughly equal population - each district would have a little more than 30 million people in it. To come close to the magic number of lawmakers who drafted the Constitution, each of these districts would have 5 Senators. The term of a Senator would last 10 years (with a maximum of two terms), one seat would be up for election every two years, similar to the current system. There's a good chance that more than a few districts would elect some "Republicans" and some "Democrats". As a result of there being 5 Senators per area, and the likelihood of such a delegation being split 3-2 or 2-3 being decently high, the members would almost automatically find it in the best interests of their political lives and for the good of their district and country to work together with members of the opposite party for common goals. Our nation is not really split up into pure red and pure blue, it's more purple, and the middle is sitting there waiting to be claimed. This system would encourage purpleness more than the current system does, and somewhat marginalize divisive red and blue thinking. And as an aside, the Senators should get paid more... probably quite a bit more, to be in line with CEO's, etc. Dammit, they have heavy responsibilities to carry out, and talent usually follows the path where it can be rewarded. But on the other hand, strict limits should be placed on ANYTHING which would create a conflict of interest. Pay the Senators enough that they don't need to look for handouts of big corporations or special interests to subsidize their paycheck, and promptly fire them if they profit in any other way from their office. Period, no exceptions. No loopholes. You're either a Senator, and accept this nice fat paycheck to put aside personal gain and devote your service to your country, or you're not.
Now, on the other hand, I very much agree that a smaller ratio of represented to Representatives improves a number of things about politics and about political races. And I agree with the concept that a "lower" house of legislature would naturally gravitate towards a larger and more chaotic organization, and tend towards populism. And to kind of stick to the intention of the framers of the Constitution, it would be the job of the deliberative Senate to work through what the House proposes and separate the wheat from the chaff. Good observation on the 30,000 thing... I'd propose the ratio be 1 to every 25,000... forever - a nice even number, and no upper limit on the size of the House of Representatives. At the current population of the United States, this would mean about 12,000 members of the House of Representatives, and it would continue to grow over time. This means that forever and ever, to win election as a Representative, a person would need to engage the voters on a more individual level... i.e. door to door living room chats, engaging in real conversations with average voters one-on-one, and being a "real" person would become more important. And it would be a little easier to take big money out of the game with this setup. And politicians would be more accountable to 25,000 people... there's too many ways to hedge your bets when the game is too large... and currently we end up with a situation where nobody really respects their Congressperson, but keeps re-electing them anyway because of the big money machines and vested interests and "experience" which will help bring home pork and earmarks for the home state. With a much more local, populist, and people driven House of Representatives, this would be a definite plus. And so it would reduce the effect that money and special interest would hijack elections. Another plus is that with such a large body of Representatives, the country would collapse if the earmark system were to remain in place - and I trust America and Americans enough to realize this dilemma, and REALLY fix the problem, instead of just complaining about it, promising to fix it when their party comes to power, and then conveniently forgetting the promise and promoting other priorities. It would naturally escalate the problem to where it NEEDED to be fixed, and so it would be.
Now there are a couple of obvious things to consider about such a drastic departure from the current system. Obviously, trying to hammer out the truly elegant and "right" answer on issues (both tough and easy) would be nearly impossible with 12,000 representatives. This body would be incapable of coming up with something so simple but functional as our current Constitution to save it's life. Everybody wants to get their two cents in in a debate... it would be pretty close to anarchy (kind of like Unity '08) - but my suggestion would be to harness that anarchy by returning the role of the House of Representatives back to what it was originally supposed to be... as the populist leaning fountain from which the Senate "cherry-picked the good stuff". Right now, the roles of Representatives and Senators are fairly similar... but the framers of the Constitution did not intend them to be. In this new framework, the House of Representatives would actually be a little similar to what we're doing here at U08 - a part-time job of a bunch of idealists throwing ideas around. Pay would be pretty low, and it would be okay to receive income from other sources. The reason this would be okay is that by changing the role of Representatives to "ideas" being the focus of what matters and take away the purse strings and appropriations... by divorcing the expected outcome from the money... there would be no incentive for corruption because there would be no chance for corruption. These low-paid idea wonks wouldn't have the power to slip in an earmark or pork-barrel project. And by lowering the stakes of what's on the Representative's plate, power-wise and money-wise... by focusing on ideas and not actual appropriations and spending (divorcing the ideas from the money), there would be a natural push toward REAL wisdom and balance - the stated goal of a Representative would be to banter back and forth and back and forth to suggest solutions to problems that would benefit the country... there would be some crackpot hare-brained stuff that would result, but also a lot of well-thought-out plans. With such a large assembly, it would make sense to have committees galore, and for the people on those committees to be actual experts, or with an interest in the process. In other words, with 12,000 people, there would doctors, soldiers, bankers, political science majors, businesspeople, etc. etc. etc. to come up with very pertinent solutions to very specific problems.
Okay, so where would the spending ball get rolling... who would do the appropriations, who comes up with the budget? This should be similar to any big corporation, actually... let the accountants suggest the budget. For instance, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) is the closest thing America has to it's CFO and Accounting Department - and, surprise of all surprises, it historically has NOT been partisan, and it is usually fairly accurate and honest in it's predictions, it makes statements and recommendations which are not always popular, but factually accurate, and recommending wise action (although often ignored by Congress and the President). And the cost/benefit analysis by an accountant is way, way more trustworthy than cost/benefit analysis by a politician. So in this wonderful, perfect form of government, the bean-counters would become a fourth branch of government. They wouldn't need to be a big branch, just enough to set some fiscal priorities and recommend a budget. You don't see the problem in the business world of the Accounting Department growing and growing until it's staff's payroll swallows the company. The accountants know that's dumb, it's against the very nature of their job description to waste money on growing their own power for it's own sake, so they don't do it. Government should use the same principal... put the experts in charge! Neat concept, huh?! New checks and balances would be set up similar to existing checks and balances within corporations and matching checks and balances that the founders intended between all branches of government. This would inject a little expertise and common sense into an area where it's very much needed. And the budget would be signed by the President. And Senators could take a vote of whether they wanted to tinker with it. If they got greater than 50% who wanted to tinker with it (they probably would), then they could tinker with it. But every single tinker would be disclosable and transparent for all to see, and still require signature by the President. This would give the tendency of legislative meddling to be for the good of the country, not political wrangling or pork. How to Fix the Budget 101.
So bottom line... the Senate gets a little smaller, and they carry a heavier burden, and they get a pay raise, we boot them for impropriety and conflicts of interest, and we expect them to work through issues slowly and deliberately to come up with lasting solutions. I think requiring a 60% consensus instead of a simple majority would help them focus and compromise a little more. And the House of Representatives becomes a more dynamic body, more people centered and more idea centered, and the responsibility of appropriations and spending bills is shifted over to accountants to do the initial budget.
Oh, and no more back and forth between the House and Senate where both would have to agree. Nope. Put it on the Senate, and their required 60% consensus would force them to really make sure things were right. And because the Senate would have proportional representation by population, this would be fairer and more effective than the current system all the way around.
Thanks so much for your post. There's a lot of interesting material in there, but I have to differ with you over the point about national consciousness. I think the American people are very aware that the system is broken and are looking for change with the 2024 election. What do you think we need to do to garner support for change over that fear?
An Organization that can demonstrate BY ACTIONS - NOT WORDS..
That They Have A Plan That Can Force Candidates For Office To Do The Job They are Paid and Swore To Do .. NOT THE JOB THEIR PARTY & SPECIAL INTERESTS DIRECT THEM TO DO ..
An Organization that has a Plan that Utilizes Our Constitution & Bill Of Rights - To Take Back Our Coubtry For The American People !!
After over rwo years of study of the critical issues and criteria. I developed and contributed such a plan to UNITY08, the plan is simple, practical and can be supported on Constitutional Grounds ..
The fact that it breaks new ground seems to concern UNITY08 Founders and some Delegates ..
If you will click on my Blog www,america-21stcentury.com and check my last few postings - YOU WILL HAVE THE COMPLETE PICTURE ..
You will also recognize, this is precisely the type of Plan That MIKE BLOOMBERG would embrace as curing the disaese - so we can treat the symptoms ..
Almost 50 Years od life experiences in all related subjects and fields of endeavor, provided me with the means to develop this simple and practical solution to so many critical issues ..
I'm 83, the past two years and my efforts here are taking it's toll, I spent last all last night on my Blog presentating arguments I hoped would help motivate Robert & Bob, to take my plan and convince the Founders and current Delegates to Run With It ..
I've been at this now for almost 17 hours - I'm tired and I must rest ..
As I said on one of my last postings - The Ball Is In Your Court Now !!
Peter K. Evans (popo)
The American people are aware that the system is broken, but they want to create a villian (the "system"), when they should be taking control of their government.
Everytime "We the People" paint ourselves as victims, we abdicate our true responsibility for the direction of this nation's future.
As far as what Unity08 should do to "garner support for change over that fear"?
Stand for something. Stand for the war in Iraq. Support the surge.
Or, stand against the war in Iraq, and call for an immediate troop withdrawal.
Or, support the Iraq Study Group, and resolve to implement their recommendations.
Stand on gun control...
Stand on illegal immigration...
Stand on government spending...
Stand on health care...
Stand on energy policy...
Stand on Global Warming...
Stand on education...
Stand on expanding public transportation, or stand against it...
Stand on Stem-cell research, or stand against it...
Stand for centrist/moderate principles, or stand with the activist base of the two major parties...
but stand for something.
Only then, will the membership grow - and only then, will Unity08 become a viable force in American politics.
And until Unity08 begins to adopt this approach, they are merely playing "peek-a-boo" with their membership - and we are all getting tired of that game.
Quit releasing weasel-worded press statements about Michael Bloomberg's new independent stance, and release a statement saying that we support Bloomberg because we believe he is right on the issues facing America. Lose the political razzle-dazzle, and start talking constructively about our pressing issues.
If Mayor Bloomberg is a centrist (and I believe he is), and if Unity08 stands for centrist values, then tell the world that Mayor Bloomberg represents the values that are embraced by Unity08.
Have the courage to represent the moderate middle, and I will go door-to-door advocating for your organization. Start representing centrist political values, and I will write op-eds supporting your organization until my fingers bleed.
And if you are seroius about wanting my support, then give me a basis for believing in you; that way I can stop calling Unity08 "your" organization, and start calling it "my" organization again.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
I completely concur - WE need to STAND for something!! The sooner the better!! Our candidate next spring/summer can add and build on our planks and tent stakes for sure. No problems there. I would expect that. But we do need SOMETHING by October/November to judge these "possible" unity candidates on. I want it to reflect the true Centrist Moderate Rational Doable policies that will win the election and show not only the WHAT but HOW (ends-means, ougta dos/can-dos) we can effectively address the mega-issues impinging on this blessed Republic! No more Can-kicking and Wizards (of Oz) Curtains! Jeff is absolutely right - we need to stand for SOMETHING and we better get cracking on that NOW!! Otherwise we are just a Smile and a Shoeshine!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
John, we are discussing internally how best to move up the game plan (technologically) for this very action.
Thanks Bob! Just wanted to reinforce Jeff and keep plugging away on this essential point. I would also try to bring in a panel of experts on each issue/subject cluster (could maybe goon You Tube) that could give some good centrist backgrounders (i.e. like we do with GAO's David Walker's Fical Wake Up Tour - http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fiscal-wake-up/ and his 60 Minutes gig - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml
) to provide some context we could draw on ins synthesizing some of our platform planks down the road.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Stop blaming the "system" for our problems, and start blaming us.
In 2024, every seat in the House will be up for election, one third of the senate, and the presidency.
If people want change, they should vote for change - and any blathering about how the "system" is controlled by a shadowy group of "elites" is pure poohey.
If we want change, we should vote for change. We should get involved in politics at the state and local level (where almost every national candidate starts out), and we should be responsible for the government that we elect.
The system is fine. We are the problem.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
The constitution is fine...The political system is NOT fine...and we the people are NOT fine. The current broken political system DOES enhance the worst features of the electorate in its panderbear catering to our special intersts of choice rather than the overall national interests. We the people CAN overcome this I feel or I would not be here. We the people have built and been complicit in this present broken political system and we can amend it via the constitution and elections and concerted vigilant activist pressure at the local, state and national level. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
WE SHOULD but we don't - and a way has to be found TO MAKE US ACCEPT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND VOTE IN BIG NUMBERS INTELLIGENTLY .. that said - until that happens WE NEED A MEANS TO REIN IN A GOVERNMENT OUT OF CONTROL !!
Pete (popo)
I think your a little confused at what the house and senate was designed to do. I no expert on the constitution but I do know that all three branches of the government, presidential, senate and house are equal. The house considers bills and if they see a need they pass that bill, the senate then must pass the bill, check and balances, once both house pass a bill then the president must sign the bill, if not, it goes back to the house where the originated and it starts again. None of this is the problem with government, the problem lies in the divide parties. Each one must beat other at the game. So if a bill is wrote by a dem, then a rep will not vote yea and vice versa. That's the problem.
Jeff, I will agree we are part of the problem, but not all of the problem. What we see now has been happening for 40 years or more, little by little. Nobody notice because it was done a little at a time. You will never hear me defend this administration, however, maybe it was exactly what we needed to wake America up. Let's face it, this administration has shown just what can happen if we let too much power fall into the wrong hands. In fact, that much power would corrupt anyone.
If we demand that we take the redistricting out of the hand of the legislators, change the electoral college to either award electoral votes to the percentage of the overall vote or eliminate it all together and go with popular vote, make Public finance mandatory and cap spending, only individuals may donate and that should be capped at a reasonable amount, make air time available to all candidates for free since the airways are publicly owned, do away with different primary days and make they all on the same day. These would take big money out of politics, and force the politicians to face the people instead of doing everything through 30 second sound bits, it would make all states equal. The constitution never said anything about winner take all and that is what it has become.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
The branches are legislative (house and senate), executive (president0. and judical....those is the parts intended to be balanced.
Electoral College is specifically constitutional....it isn't going anywhere. whatever empathy we may share on the equity of that process.
All states are not the same or equal, all voters being equal is the result I think you mean.
Bill"for what we are together"
personalrights@sbcglobal.net
You put much better then I did, but I was trying to say.
The electoral college is constitutional but nowhere does it say winner takes all.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Not only today and yesterday, but also those who preceeded us. And I do agree that Bush#2 has been a wake-up call for the electorate...
But I don't advocate changing the Electoral College. It is another check and balance in the system - and it serves to protect small states from being completely dominated by larger, more populated states.
Believe me - I was horrified when Bush was awarded the presidency after losing the popular vote (and that was before 9/11 and all of the foolishness that followed), but I believed then, and still believe that the Electoral College is viable and worth having.
My wife is on your side - she hates the Electoral College.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
I still say that if someone get 52% of the vote they should receive 52% of electoral vote. Not winner take all.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
She would be right there with on that issue. I'm never sitting between the two of you at dinner - I'd get an earful!
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Make sure you tell her she's right. LOL
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
She had that certain knowledge from a very early age...
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Very funny. Are you assuming that women always think their right?
You should know better then make that assumption.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Re: "I think you're a little confused at what the house and senate was designed to do... None of this is the problem with government, the problem lies in the divide parties"
-----------------
From the encyclopedia - "The bicameral Congress arose from the desire of the Founders to create a House "of the people" that would represent public opinion, balanced by a more deliberative Senate that would represent the governments of the individual states, and would be less susceptible to variations of mass sentiment. The House is often considered to be the "lower house," with the Senate as the "upper house," although the United States Constitution does not use such language. The Constitution provides that the approval of both houses is necessary for the passage of legislation."
Hi, Betty... I agree that the biggest problem is that the Democrats and Republicans are talking past each other and not meeting in the middle, and there's too much division and partisanship.
But the thread started as a discussion of bringing the House of Representatives closer to the people by returning to the original ratio of electors to elected. Returning to the idea of the House of Representatives as a 'people's house'. Returning to something a little more populist and accessible to the everyman. I agree that Democrats and Republicans not meeting in the middle is a problem... but we're talking about a different issue entirely.
So if I'm going to run with the idea of the original poster and see where it goes... HYPOTHETICALLY. I hope the House of Representatives eventually does get back to it's original ratio... but I don't see it happening as a result of anything we say here. How to make it happen is a whole separate can of worms.
To me, this return to the original populist dynamics of the House is a very interesting idea. But doing this would fundamentally change the nature of the game, and things would play out much differently than they do now. A 10,000 or 12,000 member legislature would be absolute chaos. To me, that chaos could be harnessed as a positive thing... a very positive thing, if we used such a body as our national brainstorming session.
But because this 10,000 member body would be so chaotic, unfocused, unpredictable, and unmanageable... we couldn't really trust them to make decisions with any kind of precision. Just think about it... if you were making any kind of important major decision in your own life... would you want to turn it over to a committee of 10,000 drawn from people who historically have trouble seeing eye to eye?
I agree with the original poster that it would be good to harness this energy of the people for the ideas within it... But we can't trust such a group to write good laws.
But we still need to write good laws. That requires an atmosphere a little calmer and more "deliberative". That was one of the original intents of the structure of the Senate (for example, a smaller body, and members have longer terms as "insulation" from the fray).
So I ask myself... if this scenario uses the House of Representatives as brainstormers that don't make decisions... can we trust a single house legislature (the Senate) to pass good, well-thought-out legislation?
I think the answer would be YES, for several reasons...
1) A small, single house legislature wrote the best governmental document the world has seen to date (the United States Constitution).
2) I can't think of much good that's come out of tossing bills back and forth between the House and Senate in the last 200+ years.
3) That whole "deliberative" thing does work... in general, the Senate makes better and more practical decisions on average than the House, and they're a little better at negotiating something somewhere in the middle. The Senate is more likely to come up with a decent compromise and have it accepted by the House than vice versa.
History has tended to "squish" the roles of the House and Senate closer to each other - they were originally intended to be more different from each other (especially in tone and dynamics) than they are now. (Read "The Federalist" for a little background)
One of the angles I like to look at things from is what has worked in the past... when really good results were achieved, how did it happen? Is there any way we can re-create that magic, and then make adjustments for what has subsequently gone wrong?
If we tried Plan A, and it worked great... then we tried Plan B... with decent results, but not as good as Plan A, with a whole lot of other problems besides... Why can't we go back to something closer to Plan A? And salvage the part of Plan B that is good, too... To me, meeting the INTENT of the Constitution seems smarter than to treat it as a dogmatic religion that is sacred and cannot be questioned. But obviously, for stability, that attitude can only go so far... eventually we have to stop and say "this is good".
The objective I'm hypothetically trying to reach is a system (a legislature) that makes great laws.
The Constitutional Convention had 55 members. The original Senate had 26 members. In meetings I've been in that were tasked with making final decisions, I've seen repeatedly that past a certain threshold, the larger the group, the worse and more "cobbled together" the decision ends up being. And just like situations I've seen at work... when there's two committees that bounce a project back and forth at each other... things get messy, and the point gets lost. I've read a decent amount of history on the American Revolution, and I'm repeatedly struck by how the dynamics worked so well in one room in Philadelphia... that John Adams, Ben Franklin, Roger Sherman, John Dickinson, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton... all got to talk just the right amount. There seemed to be just the right amount of debate and counter debate... pros and cons... passion and caution... they maintained a good balance between a dynamic flow of ideas and staying concise and on track.
The original House member represented 30,000 people. This is a lot less people than a member of the House represents now. This made a Representative back then more responsive to the people. More accessible. More one-on-one. More "town-meeting"-ish. These are good things.
So my post was mostly about hypothetically trying to re-create the original intent of the Constitution... by changing it. All of which flowed from someone else's suggestion along those same lines.
This discussion of the "system" is a different tangent altogether than whether Republicans and Democrats can work toghether better.
1) I think the hypothetical system above would lead to Democrats and Republicans working together better, by striving to re-create the conditions where multiple (at odds) factions worked together so well to write the Constitution, with a series of "best of both worlds" compromises... pretty good for the time and place.
2) But yes, the Democrats and Republicans COULD work together better without systematic changes... That is a matter of leadership. For the last couple of decades, the partisanship has been stronger than it has been for a while, and it's because the leaders have made it so. Newt Gingrich. Tom Delay. Karl Rove. Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. Arianna Huffington and crew. The Daily Kos. Michael Moore. James Carville. The leadership has been trying to divide and conquer because it works. Tom Delay's "crack and pack" redistricting shuffles WORKED to get a significant Republican majority in Texas. Divide and conquer... I think it's mentioned in "The Art of War", if I'm not mistaken, which says a lot right there. Both sides have been focusing on the politics of division more recently than they have been focusing on the politics of unity. This is a matter of leadership... and lately it seems that both parties are pursuing a "victory" for their base at the expense of finding middle ground that takes into consideration the positive aspects of BOTH party platforms.
3) So good leadership could pull things back to the center again... for a while. And that's probably the best focus for Unity '08. Simply leadership.
4) But to have the system NATURALLY STAY more centrist... would require making some changes to the system... along the lines of things that have worked in the past, and that work in other domains re: making more balanced decisions that take into consideration mutiple points of view.
As I said in my original post, I don't think Unity '08 should get side-tracked on major re-structuring of government (i.e. big changes to the House of Representatives) as part of our party platform. Betty's response is a perfect example... such "crazy talk" would be a ball and chain that would drag almost any Presidential candidate straight to the bottom of the ocean.
And I like talking about that kind of stuff more than just about anybody... because I think some of the solutions we should strive for in the long run are outside of the boxes we're playing in right now. But I wouldn't be so crazy to think I could get elected President by saying it out loud on the campaign trail.
Unity '08 is mostly about a Presidential bi-partisan ticket. And as such, the candidates would need to appeal to people who traditionally vote Republican, and people who traditionally vote Democrat... even if they're Independent. It's a fine line.
I think structural changes would be necessary to get the absolute best possible results. A lot of the problems we see now are inherent to the structure of our system. It's a great system overall, don't get me wrong... but we can talk all we want about "meeting in the middle"... and through good leadership, we might get there for a while. But eventually, another series of divisive leaders like Newt Gingrich would come along, and we'd be back to same old, same old soon enough. James Madison foresaw the that divisive politics might be a major distraction, and John Adams was shocked at the divisiveness and backstabbing that occurred during his re-election campaign (which he lost to Jefferson).
We think of this as only our problem, now... but the size of the gap/chasm between the parties has been something that has fluctuated up and down repeatedly over our nation's history. "Uniter" leaders like Lincoln and Kennedy mark one end of the spectrum... and "Dividers" like Karl Rove and Alexander Hamilton mark the other end.
So... Unity '08... I say the focus of a Unity '08 platform should simply be bi-partisanship, and intentionally inviting both parties to join for some constructive work in the middle.
Sorry this post is so fractured... I should take time to edit it and trim it down, and make it flow a little better... but it's late, and I need to go to bed. : )
Hello do2mind. I agree with some of what you say but not the part where you say that one house is capable of making good laws. I believe we need the checks and balance that two houses provide. No one body can be trusted to do what is best for this country and power needs to be divided if for no other reason then to keep corruption from running rampant. I do not believe what I suggested is crazy talk as you stated. They are systematic problems that has materialized in the last 40 years or so. Special interest and their money is a major problem in Washington. The only way to reign in this corruption is by writing laws that will limit their influence over politicians. If campaigns keep getting more expensive then their influence will become greater. IMHO if we do not address this problem no other problems will be addressed. I also believe that most people recognize that major changes in the way our government operates is needed. The way the people businesses has been conducted over the last 40 years or so is leading our country to destruction.
However, you are right that U08 needs to concentrate on bringing the two parties together and encouraging them to work together with all points of view considered. But until the people get "mad enough" to vote the lifers and extremists out of government I fear nothing will change. I pray that the next President will not be tempted to keep the power that this administration has stolen and that he/she will respect the powers and wisdom of all other bodies of government.
Betty
Betty327@ptd.net
Grrrrrr....
I have to keep my posts shorter... my long ones seem to be misunderstood : (
1) The original starter of this thread suggested returning to the original ratio of 30,000 citizens per U.S. Representative.
2) I said a candidate/party who proposed such a plan would never win a Presidential election in the United States today... SUCH A PLAN would be considered "crazy talk".
3) But I PERSONALLY agree with a change like this... Shrinking the number of people a Representative represents from 660,000 to 25,000 or 50,000 would bring the common people back into the system more. And not for any complicated reason... just fourth grade math.
4) I'll agree to disagree on the checks and balances thing... the Constitution was written without such a check and balance WITHIN the legislative branch, and it's a lot better than the bloated pandering drivel that passes for laws these days. I think if a single house legislature was held directly accountable for the laws they passed... there'd be no place to hide, and they'd do a good job. But on the other hand, why not throw in a safety measure and allow the wild and rowdy House to "veto" a Senate bill if they can get a 60% quorum?
5) One analogy I'm thinking of is a family... if some family decisions were decided democratically... I wouldn't try to set up two houses for one to be a check on the other. I'd trust one body... the family... to come up with the right answer. And to increase the chance of making a good decision, a quorum of 2/3 or 3/4 would be required to reach a decision. 50% plus 1 to make a decision creates built in divisiveness, whether it's in a family or in the United States Congress.
6) More on consensus... The Constitution had to be approved by 9 out of 13 states to become the law... so it had to be agreeable to big states and small, Federalists and Anti-Federalists (and North and South, too, but THAT compromise was a little bit of a deal with the devil). The bar of consensus was higher, because it had to be right. I hypothesize it is no accident that the Constitutional Convention got such great results because the percentage agreement required to make the results stick was greater than 50%. And when they did work it out, where did they meet? In the middle, pretty much. Requiring a larger quorum encourages legislators to meet in the middle (because nothing else works mathematically) instead of driving half of them to each side. Experience has shown this works really well (71% of the delegates signed the document, and some of the holdouts had good points which were later addressed, i.e. the Bill of Rights). For the Declaration of Independence, the consensus was even higher, and that was an even bigger leap. The concept works, so let's do it again.
6A) If you are on a committee at work to come up with rules, procedures, workflow, or something similar... and there's another committee with mostly the same functions that will be second-guessing your work... and the two committees will toss this back and forth and back and forth until they both agree... would you feel the buck stops with you? Especially if the other committee was always screwing up that section you put so much of your own blood, sweat, and tears into? If people are given an outlet to pass the buck, they will... and that's what having two "duplicate" committees/houses of legislature does. It's hard enough for one committee to come up with a good result, but assign two committees to second guess each other? Imagine how complicated this duplicate committee thing would get at your work, and how "political" it would get... Guess what... that's the United States Congress. It's no wonder it's a mess... the mess is designed right into it. Experience should show that one committee works better than two duplicate overlapping committees "in the real world".
6B) In the case of the Constitution, ONE committee was put in charge of making laws. There was no-one to pass the buck to. THEY had to get it right. They took ownership. They were responsible. As much as they hated it, they stuck with it and ground through some tough issues. And the resulting document is the best foundation of government document yet created. Experience has shown that a one house legislature can get GREAT results with the right expectations, and that a two house legislature makes for a messier process, with more openings for watering down, inserting non-related riders, and just a general lack of accountability for "who screwed it up?".
6C) There's just a lot more incentive to get it right if your butt, and your butt only, is on the line. We get irresponsible politicians who pass the buck... because we allow them to be irresponsible and pass the buck - both in their own following of real laws, and by passing their work back and forth between two "responsible" groups. The talk about holding them responsible by throwing them out if they act like a politician is nonsense... incumbents usually get re-elected regardless of the hot air we wonks push around. It's nice to SAY "vote the bums out", as if it will solve bigger process problems... but I've been hearing that solution for decades, and it hasn't worked yet on anything but the biggest issues and trends, and even then, the new guy is usually just a different version of the old guy.
Compare the Constitutional Convention to our current Congress. We've lowered the expectation on the percentage agreement they have to come to... and we wonder why they're always divided close to 50/50? We trusted one committee back then and got great results. But we wanted to be doubly safe going forward, so we assigned two committees to double check each other... and we wonder why they pass the buck so much?
Kids, adults, and committees... live up to the expectations placed on them. If you cynically lower expectations, don't be surprised with lower results.
It seems easier to shy away from a system requiring an agonizing battle to resolve a tough issue... and it would require more work and compromise to get to a 2/3 quorum than it would be to just take a vote after debate and see who ends up with 50% plus one... requiring a larger quorum requires the group to keep talking until a larger chunk of the group agrees. But SHOULDN'T it be hard to solve tough problems? I think we do ourselves a disservice by lowering the bar on how much work it takes to get to an answer, on BOTH the tough issues, because they're important... and the easy issues, because they should be easier to reach agreement... by saying 50% plus 1, we're saying we'll take whatever answer pops out of the machine. By increasing the requirement for a quorum to 6/10 or 2/3, we force the system to make choices reflecting a broader set of interests. A bigger picture.
I agree there need to be checks and balances. But checks and balances that actually prevent something negative, not just a roadblock for the sake of a roadblock.
7) We're treating our legislature like a young child we don't quite trust, with low expectations. I say raise the expectations... hold a single body accountable, and require them to agree more than just barely. If they can't get it right... it's a lot easier to pinpoint exactly where the problem is and vote the bum(s) out. People would take a vote for Senator more seriously. And they would be more likely to pick a Moderate... because requiring a larger consensus encourages meeting in the middle. A fringe candidate would be less effective in Congress, and so people wouldn't vote for fringe candidates... as much. Also, some kind of "vote of no confidence" system could be used to ditch a Senator who wasn't doing her or his job.
8) But again... all this is hypothetical... for the purposes of Unity '08, I think we're stuck with a 455 person House, and a 100 person Senate. To advocate for anything else would be certain suicide in a national political race. I hope these things happen, but it won't happen through a candidate advocating it during a Presidential bid, winning, and then making it happen.
9) Regarding Special Interests... they've been a factor since day one. But the number of groups and the money involved have been growing. I read a book titled "The Future of Freedom", and the author makes a credible case that this is partly the result of "opening up" our political processes and making them more accessible (trying to be more "democratic" about democracy)... something we've been doing more and more of on the exact same timeline that the scale and boldness of lobbying has grown more and more. We open up more opportunity for getting a "voice" heard, assuming it will be the "everyman/everywomen"... and why should we be surprised when ORGANIZED groups with millions of dollars seem to exploit the opening better than the common woman/man with just their ideas. That's why I think it's important to return to a more "people responsive" House of Representatives (the original topic of this thread), as a national brainstorming session.
I believe that the house of Reps should be reorganized to at least 600 people, but the Senate remain the same. This system allows the Reps to really duke it out, but the Senate to moderate and discuss.
you are wanting to make your new senate a second house of Reps. The reason all states have the same amount of senators is so the small states still have a say in the government.
We don't need more people in Congress or the Senate. THEY need to use technology to reconnect to THEIR constituents. There is no reason they can't setup electronic town meetings to speak directly to groups of their constituents. THEY also need to bar ALL LOBBYISTS from their offices and the halls of Congress. If they actually met with the people they represent then WE would get REAL REPRESENTATION instead of a government for the corporations.
For instance your congressman could easily setup on-line polls and surveys on their congressional web site to get feedback directly from their constituents. This would be technically very simple and would keep our representatives on a much shorter leash. It would also encourage people to participate in THEIR government since they would have a voice on every issue.
We also need a web-site which shows the daily voting record of every member of Congress so we can easily see if they really are representing US or their corporate masters.
Bringing the people back into the process of government I believe is an essential step in fixing our broken Republic.
I'd say we have about 60,000 reps here in DC now - they are called K-Street lobbyists and they are largely unaccountable. And they are largely us!
Congress is already WAY TOO RESPONSIVE to the American people (represented by the 3,000 Lobbyist groups and 60,000 Lobbyists in Gucci Gulch ushing for ALL of our particular interests). Problem is no one wants to say NO and these guys on Cap Hill and beyond try to be all things to all people and tell us we can have our cake and eat it to. That is my we are in such deep debt and in Entitlements on an actuarial basis we are at $50 trillion in arrears and growing! Nice legacy for the grandkids folks!
I'm all for connecting to what our representatives do but not to make them MORE responsive to us but tomake us more responsible for what we want them to do and the costs thereof. We need to have full-real time disclosure of all Lobbyist-Congress and Lobbyist-Exec Branch discussions/contributions. The one thing Lobbyists/Special Interests/PACs (representing you and me BTW) abhor is the publicity and light of day. With Full real-time disclsure on the net, we then would all see how these guys on K-Street work their ways and expand the nation's acumulated vast ends-means disconnects as they pander to our particular interests. Full real-time disclosure would be a real eye-opener as 'WE the people' will see that many of 'WE the people' special particular Interests pushing 'We the peoples' particular wants and desires and special deductions/breaks,etc are what are exapnding irresponsible and unsustainably these vast ends-means disconnects! As Ev Dirksen said a while - "A billion here, a billion there. soon it all adds up." Dirk was right and full real time disclosue WOULD hang the dirty laundry out for ALL to see and it may be sobering not pretty site for ALL of us!
"The fault Dear Brutus is NOT the Stars. It is us"
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Below is a concept I mentioned on other threads.
New /Old form of Government
When the government was formed the idea was to elect some one to vote as your proxy. This was required due to the distances and problems of every citizen traveling to polling places, some times hundreds of miles from home. What America needs is more input from the people and fewer decisions left to the politicians.
1) My suggestion is to outlaw earmarks and amendments to legislation, if it is a good project it should be voted as a single item, force politicians to put their names on the bill.
2) Every registered voter gets a pin number or an internet password, to a government site, directly to your senators and congressman. All important bills should have a non-binding straw vote to obtain an opinion of the people. It would maintain the “One person one vote” idea and would eliminate a letter or e-mail campaign to skew the vote. It would also show if special interests or lobbyists are in the mix. If you don't bother to cast your opinion you have no right to complain.
3) The straw vote should be published in the newspaper and online so district voters could see what their fellow citizens wanted. The politicians would have to justify why they did not vote with the majority of the public. These records need to be held for a few years and if the politician consistently votes against the will of the people, without justification, should be an impeachable offense.
4) Any politician convicted of using his office for personal gain be stripped of his title and every bank account, houses, cars, any and all other investments confiscated. He should be left with zero assets.
The last item sounds extreme however politicians are employees of the people and are voted into a position of trust. Governments rule at the whim of the people and should be held accountable.