"What's the job of the candidate in this world? The job of the candidate is to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidate. This is stunningly dangerous." - Newt Gingrich…
Article comments
26 - Winston Apple
Baronius,
I would anticipate that with a system of proportional representation like the one I propose, there would be a greater incentive for a political party to keep individuals who are under suspicion of misconduct or corruption off of their ordered lists of candidates, since a single unsavory character could theoretically cost them more than one seat.
The time and place for voters to “intervene when they (like) a policy but not a candidate” would be during the run-up to a party’s convention and during the convention itself, by joining the party and participating actively. As we all know, active participation does not insure that a voter will be happy with the results. In some cases choices might have to be made between a party platform with which you are in general agreement and an ordered list of candidates containing one or more individuals of questionable character.
For me it would be an easy choice. I would be quite happy to see Congress actually agree upon and implement effective solutions to the problems we face as a nation. If a few unsavory people slipped into office in the process, I could live with that.
With regard to the two policies you mention, I wouldn’t rule out supporting a repeal of the 17th Amendment, although my initial response is that I’m interested in making our government more democratic, not less, and there is general agreement that direct election of senators is more democratic than election by state legislatures. If upon further reflection I became convinced that such a change would facilitate a shift of power from Washington, D. C. to the states, I would be more inclined to support it.
As far as enlarging the House to 1000 members, I see no real benefit and a great deal of added expense in the form of salaries, perks, and staff for an additional 565 representatives. Our government has been inattentive to the needs of the people for some time now. I understand the appeal of gridlock and inertia when government is up to no good. My hope is that my proposal would make our national government more responsive to the will of the people and more effective as a result.
27 - Baronius
Winston - So, in essence, we are to trust the parties to pick the best people, and if they fail, we should vote for the wrong people. The parties have our best interests at heart. And history shows that parties have the ability to get rid of the few bad eggs.
I don't know what party you're a member of, but it's not one of the two biggies in the US. It's not one of the six biggest. It's apparently the one that always puts policy over personality (but still chooses the best people).
Forgive my scepticism, but there's nothing more important to a democracy than a creep filter. You're asking us to abdicate our current method of weeding out the mad and the power-mad without any consideration of a new system.
28 - STM
Proportional representation, preferential voting and compulsory participation at the polls are the three things that hand the political process back to the people it belongs to - yep, that'd be the people.
America has a serious problem right now in that while it touts itself as a "representative republic", it's really representative in name only as the political process has been hijacked by the two major parties (how many independents or minor party reps are elected to Congress or the Senate?), big business and lobby groups. In short regarding the latter, whoever has the most money is the one that gets the voice.
One of the things I love about Australia is that it is truly a democracy (in the modern sense of the word), as it has all the three things above that give the community a genuine voice, and America, sadly, has ceased to be one.
If you really want to get back to your roots with this, you DO need to make changes (especially federally) - otherwise you are just going to keep getting the governments you deserve instead of the ones you should have or could have.
For all those opposed to compulsotry voting: libertarian ideas can be taken too far (come on, you have drivers' licences, don't you - what's the difference?). Voting is a privilege as much as a right. It's part of the exchange - the trade-off you get for living in a free and democratic country.
Studies show it helps the incumbent, on whatever side of the fence, so it also brings some stability to politics.
As does proportional representation, as Winston argues above.
Prefential voting works nicely too: I put my vote in for a minor party, for instance, but give a second preference to another - which means in a tight race out of two, I also get the chance to elect the candidate I'd prefer if my first choice isn't going to make it.
I realise Americans are very opposed to change of any kind, but unless you have some changes made now or in the not too distant future, the day will come when the American people have no power for change. It seems to me, an outside observer and a very keen America-watcher, that you need to get out of the cul-de-sac and back on the straight and narrow.
Also, America needs to remove some of the presidential powers, which are making it a modern parody of the Britain (and the America) of mad King George.
As the Queen now serves the same role as the President on the executive branch but has far less power (almost none), why would Americans who make such a song and dance about shaking off the monarchy 200 years ago continue with a system that is in effect almost a de facto monarchy of the kind the British did away with a few centuries ago? True, their system is far from perfect, but it does put power in the hands of the people who were given that power by the people.
Surely ALL the power in government should lie with the elected representatives of the people in the two legislating houses. In a modern democracy, government is the people, ALL the people, after all.
(And to any pedants who want to debate what I mean by democracy, I'm using it in the modern sense, not the ancient Greek - ie, true representative government).
29 - Winston Apple
Baronius,
I believe the parties do pretty much whatever it takes to gain power and the politicians within each party do whatever it takes to stay in office. The parties, presently, have the best interests of special interests at heart. History shows they have great difficulty getting rid of bad eggs.
I’m not a member of any party, I am an independent voter. I do put policy over personality. I look at the positions of the candidates on issues of importance to me and try to pick the candidate most likely to do what I think should be done to address important issues and problems we face as a nation at that point in time.
With the help of the Internet it has gotten a little easier to ferret out information regarding a candidate’s position on various issues. It would be even easier if we managed to shift the focus of attention in elections for the House from individual candidates to party platforms.
I do believe there is something “more important to a democracy than a creep filter.” The most important thing in a democracy is that voters can make informed decisions about which candidates or parties have put forward the best proposals to address the issues of the day and that it is relatively quick and easy for voters to hold parties and politicians accountable if they fail to deliver on their promises.
The present system makes accountability difficult. An individual candidate for Congress can say all the right things and then plead innocent to achieving nothing because a single member of the House of Representatives can not pass anything single-handedly.
Holding the party with a majority of the seats in the House accountable would be much simpler. The party had a platform, we voted them in on the basis of that platform, they failed to pass the legislation necessary to carry out their platform, two years later we vote them out of office.
I am “asking us to abdicate our current method of weeding out the mad and the power-mad” because it is not working. There are plenty of creeps getting through the filter. Congress has lower approval ratings than Bush, yet most incumbents will be reelected later this year. I’m asking for your due “consideration of a new system.”
Change is easy to dream about, easy to talk about, and difficult to accomplish. If we want to change the corrupt, ineffective culture in Washington, D. C., we are going to have to actually change some things about the way our political system operates.
My proposal is one change I believe to be worth making. We have the advantage of knowing that proportional representation is not a new or untested idea. Comments made in response to this post have cited numerous countries where it has worked quite well and only a few where it hasn’t.
30 - Winston Apple
STM (#28),
I strongly oppose compulsory voting. The quality of our elections, and perhaps our government, would be helped immensely if fewer people voted. There are far too many people going to the polls who never read books or op-ed pieces about the issues of the day, who don’t watch debates, and who vote based primarily on the basis of the TV ads they’ve seen between episodes of "American Idol" and "America’s Top Model."
The couch potato vote is the primary reason candidates need to sell their souls to lobbyists so they can flood the airwaves with meaningless ads.
I’d like to take all of the money devoted to TV ads and do a massive ad campaign encouraging people who have no real interest in a serious discussion of the issues of the day to stay home on election day. Something along the lines of “Voting is a right, not a responsibility. But, if you choose to vote, please vote responsibly.”
31 - STM
Sorry Winston, but I live in a country (Australia) that has had compulsory voting since the 1930s and whose parliamentary system is based on preferential voting and proportional representation, and we find it is the opposite here. It actually works really well.
Your idea seems to me a classic case of supposing that a certain percentage of the population are morally and intellectually inferior, and therefore shouldn't vote.
I say, unless the whole population votes, you don't have true representative democracy (in the modern sense of the word for all the pedants out there).
Our experience here has been that because it engages the whole community, politicians tend to focus a lot on the every-day grey areas that bother people hugely and the two main political parties tend not to have to manufacture polarising-type issues designed to divide the community with the intention of cementing a vote.
There is here, therefore, always a large swinging vote. While there are always die-hards on both sides of the political fence, most people are not so set in their ways that they won't swing their vote according to which candidate they prefer, especially in relation to local issues. That's really simple stuff like petrol prices, interest rates, cost of living, some social issues, education, health, etc. It's always more about that stuff and less about Left vs Right.
So a lot of elections are decided by the swinging vote. Money tends not to come into the picture at all.
I realise most Americans are opposed to anything not invented in America, and because most Americans are geographically challenged (and I'm being polite) they generally don't have any experience of those things, so they probably aren't really in a position to make judgements.
Contempt prior to knowledge is a foolish thing, but seems to be a very American thing in regard to this stuff from what I can gather on this site.
You are very obviously in a political mire at the moment, and it will take more than proportional representation to fix it. My view: if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but if it is broke (or as my mate Clav says, a bit dinged up) then you have to look for whatever solutions you can to fix it.
Truth is, most outside observers and America-watchers can tell that you are no longer really a representative democracy (in the modern sense), because the voice of the people is now the voice of big business and big lobby groups with big bucks.
Somewhere along the line, you've let go of the rope.
32 - Winston Apple
STM (#31),
My opposition to compulsory voting is based on my love of freedom. If someone is not interested in politics (and many of my fellow Americans are not) they should be allowed to go about their business without paying any attention whatsoever to politics or politicians. I am a political junkie myself, but I understand completely why many people have no interest whatsoever in political matters.
Although we don’t have compulsory voting, a fixture off every election cycle here is various forms of pressure put on people to vote. The organizations of every candidate work very hard to locate people who are inclined to vote for that candidate and to make certain they get to the polls and on election day. There are also generic ads urging people to vote. The message of these ads is that voting is a responsibility. I disagree. Voting is a right, not a responsibility.
You say that “(my) idea seems to (you) a classic case of supposing that a certain percentage of the population are morally and intellectually inferior, and therefore shouldn't vote.” A few paragraphs later you say: “most Americans are geographically challenged (and I'm being polite) they generally don't have any experience of those things [things not invented in America], so they probably aren't really in a position to make judgements.” You also say: “Contempt prior to knowledge is a foolish thing, but seems to be a very American thing in regard to this stuff from what I can gather on this site.”
In Madison’s “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" (the book link is in my post) the Founding Fathers expressed very clearly their disregard for democracy, based upon their belief that the common people were ignorant and ill-informed.
I wouldn’t go as far as you or the Founders. I certainly wouldn’t judge someone as being morally inferior on the basis of being disinterested in political matters. As far as intellect, it is not distributed evenly. The bell curve does exist. Some people are smarter than others. But again, I don’t believe people should be excluded from voting on the basis of their score on an I.Q. test.
You also say that you “realise most Americans are opposed to anything not invented in America.” I have a deep appreciation for the ideals of the Enlightenment. And while our own Thomas Jefferson may have provided the most eloquent summary of those ideals in the Declaration of Independence, the ideals were developed in England and France by John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others.
With regard to your comment that my country is “very obviously in a political mire at the moment, and it will take more than proportional representation to fix it,” I agree. On the other hand, proportional representation is PART of the solution. (Also part of your system, as you point out.)
Finally, you say “Truth is, most outside observers and America-watchers can tell that you are no longer really a representative democracy (in the modern sense), because the voice of the people is now the voice of big business and big lobby groups with big bucks.” I agree, but would modify your observation slightly. This is not a recent development. A careful reading of Madison’s notes reveals the Founding Fathers working diligently to devise a system that would appear to be democratic, while in reality being controlled by the monied interests (notably including all 55 of the men who participated in drafting the Constitution). They did a pretty good job.
Over time our government has become somewhat more democratic as a result of amendments to the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. The interests of the common people have been represented on some occasion, the most famous of which was Andrew Jackson’s ascension to the presidency. If you are looking at who really holds power, however, our system could be most accurately be described as a plutocracy. I think it’s time to take another step in the direction of genuine democracy and an amendment providing for proportional representation would be a good step to take.
It is good to know that compulsory voting works so well in Australia. I will remember your remarks and take comfort in them should compulsory voting be introduced here. However, as much as I love democracy, I love freedom more. I don’t believe in forcing people to vote, if they are disinclined to do so.
The right to vote, along with a long history of peaceful political transitions on the basis of election results, are among the blessings of liberty we enjoy. Liberty is the greatest blessing of all.
33 - STM
My love of freedom is the reason why I LOVE compulsory voting.
It's the one thing that gives us, the people of this country, an absolute stranglehold over any government that thinks it might like to oppress us. Rule of law is a wonderful thing.
We get to do our talking to them at the ballot box, and if they play up too much, they get punted royally - which is what happened to George Bush's mate John Howard a few months back.
Yeah, and I love liberty too. That's why I live in Australia. It's also why I chose not to live in America years ago, because I find too many Americans are deluded about rights and freedoms and think they are the only ones who have them and listening to it just becomes so tedious and boring. What's written down with good intent in America often doesn't translate to reality, which is where it falls down.
I don't like the idea that there are two tiers of society, either: like, as in those who should be voting and those who should be encouraged not to.
Pound for pound, in my experience, this country actually has many more real rights, freedoms and privileges than America, which is what makes it such a good place.
I see compulsory voting in the same way I'd see being forced by the state to pay for a driver's licence, or to stump up my income tax to the federal government - except it's a lot cheaper if you don't vote - $25.
The vote is secret, though, and you can vote informal if you wish - but you do have to turn up at the booths and get your name ticked off the electoral roll, and having done that why would anyone want to waste their vote?
But I suspect, Winston, the real reason you don't want compulsory voting - and you've said as much - is that you think a large proportion of the population are intellectually and morally inferior to you (those couch potatoes and the like you mentioned before) and therefore shouldn't even be allowed to vote in the first place.
So who would they be? I'd love to hear your answer, in detail.
So what's that about? It's only people who in your view can cut the mustard who are allowed to vote??
If that's your liberty American style, I'll take the Aussie version any day: a fair go for everyone, rather than just for the select few.
34 - STM
And I hope you don't take my post as a personal attack ... it's just meant as a bit of constructive criticism to further the debate here, with particular focus on your comment about encouraging some people not to vote, which I found of interest.
I am not an America hater. Far from it.
I don't fall for every bit of bullsh.t though, either; the same way I won't fall for it here, where it also gets thrown around prodigiously.
35 - Dr Dreadful
My love of freedom is the reason why I LOVE compulsory voting.
It's the one thing that gives us, the people of this country, an absolute stranglehold over any government that thinks it might like to oppress us.
Hardly absolute, Stan.
All a government would need to do is pass a law ending compulsory voting.
36 - Clavos
Besides, Stan, how long did you guys put up with Howard??
I don't think it's so absolute.
37 - Winston Apple
STM (#33)
The “real reason” I don’t want compulsory voting is that it would increase the power of advertising, which should be reduced, not enhanced, in my opinion. The knowledge that many voters have regarding candidates is limited to what they get from ads, or (not much better) the main stream (corporate owned) media.
The dominant role of advertising (TV ads in particular) is why raising huge amounts of money is a necessary precondition for a candidate to have any chance of winning an election, or to even be considered a viable candidate. Hence, the power of the monied interests. They provide the money to buy the ads.
I would like to shift the focus to a discussion of the issues. Once that discussion takes place, those who have participated in the discussion, or at least paid attention to the discussion, are more likely to cast informed votes. As the percentage of the electorate who have no knowledge other than what they’ve seen in ads goes up, the quality of overall participation goes down.
I will readily admit (and have above) that I believe some people are intellectually inferior to others. (“The bell curve does exist. Some people are smarter than others.” - Me #31) I will just as readily admit that some people, cold blooded murderers, rapists, and child molesters, for example, to be morally inferior to others (including me).
However, to quote myself again: “I don't believe people should be excluded from voting on the basis of their score on an I.Q. test.” (#31) Felons are another matter. They are barred from voting and should be.
Let me be as clear as possible. I don’t propose setting up any sort of mustard-cutting requirement for voting. Any one who is eligible to vote should obviously be allowed to do so. I just don’t believe in forcing people with no interest in politics to vote.
In his comparison of various types of government, Aristotle listed monarchy, aristocracy, and a polity as “good” forms of government. He listed tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy as “bad” or “corrupted” forms of government. His key point is that good government is possible whether a country is ruled by a single person, a small group of people, or all of the people. The difference between these forms, according to Aristotle, was that in the good forms of government, the person or persons in power ruled in the common interest. In the corrupted forms, the people in power ruled according to self-interest.
In reading and responding to the comments to my first post, I have very much appreciated the opportunity to learn more about other governments from first-hand reports (Ruvy in Jerusalem and you in Australia). From your description of compulsory voting in Australia, it sounds like the common people may vote in a manner that is just as self-interested as the oligarchy here in the U. S. Is that a reasonable assumption?
In closing, let me make one more thing perfectly clear. I don’t judge people on the basis of their interest, or lack of interest, in politics (or their tastes in clothes, music, movies, etc.). I think the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone was just like everyone else. I celebrate freedom and relish the diversity it sustains and nurtures.
I don’t want to force TV junkies to vote. I don’t want to be forced to vote for the next American Idol. I don’t watch the show. Never have. Never will. I would not be an informed voter.
38 - Silver Surfer
"All a government would need to do is pass a law ending compulsory voting."
They won't ... it helps the party in power, according to studies, which is a recipe for political stability when combined with PR. Besides, too many people would jump up and down about it. We've had it since 1924, after a low turnout out the 1922 federal election. It's part of the political landscape. They won't end it.
We didn't put up with Howard, Clav. He was voted into office fair and square (even if I didn't like it). Like I say, the good thing about democracy and rule of law is that you have to accept the result, even if you don't like it.
But when he pushed a bit too far (by removing workplace rights and court-administered arbitration that set wages and conditions, and which had existed for over a century), we gave him the big heave-ho.
And Winston ... of course the people vote in their self-interest here.
The country belongs to us, not to the political parties. But the country stays on an even keel through the same kind of rule of law you have.
The people we elect only represent the wishes and aspirations of the people who elect them.
That is, I believe, what the founding fathers were really aspiring to in the fledgeling US when they were looking to good governance.
The other good thing about this system is that independents and small parties will often win a small number of seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate, which means they can on occasion hold the balance of power and will sometimes therefore force voting on conscience rather than along party lines.
Which is a good way to keep the bastards honest.
39 - Silver Surfer
Winston: I can't link because I don't have thre instructions at hand but Wikipedia's entry on the Australian Electorial System (for once) gives a pretty good and accurate overview, and answers some of your questions about advertising, and how PR and preferential voting works here.
It is worth a look, especially given your interest in PR.
It also explains why we have what has been called the "Washminster system" of government - one that takes after the US in its bi-cameral form, but the British system in function - with some differences.
I think the great example of how much we trust our system is that we've never had a Bill of Rights.
Some rights are enumerated under our constitution, others through common law or statutes or Acts of Parliaments, both state and federal.
The one thing I never hear Australians worrying about is that their rights are going to be taken away - I guess because they trust the process.
It is certainly one of the major differences I have noticed between Americans and Australians (and there aren't that many, to be honest).
The fear factor is near zero. I wonder, however, whether that will change should we ditch the constitutional monarchy and become a republic. It will happen, no doubt at some stage, and if it happens in my lifetime, I'll be a keen watcher.
So, really, I guess, what's it's really all about ultimately is that there are many roads that lead to the same place.
40 - bliffle
The first and most important legislative reform is to get rid of the archaic and unrepresentative US Senate and institute a unicameral legislature.
41 - Clavos
"But when he pushed a bit too far (by removing workplace rights and court-administered arbitration that set wages and conditions, and which had existed for over a century), we gave him the big heave-ho."
But it still took as long as it does here in the States; compulsory voting didn't make your power over him absolute until enough people turned against him.
I agree with Winston regarding mandatory voting; I probably have the lowest opinion on this site of the intelligence of humans as a species.
I see no good at all to be gained from suddenly forcing millions of hitherto nonvoting ignoramuses to go to the poll against their will to vote.
On the contrary, I think it could be disastrous.
42 - Silver Surfer
Clav: "I see no good at all to be gained from suddenly forcing millions of hitherto nonvoting ignoramuses to go to the poll against their will to vote".
I guess people here aren't really voting against their will. They are quite highly engaged in the whole process as a rule. They're so used to the notion that they have to vote on polling day, it's just part of the landscape. It's no different to putting in a tax return, or enrolling your child in school.
43 - fry
I appreciate Winston's goals to gain a more representative goverment, to reduce corruption and reduce the influences of special interests.
Feb 04, 2008 at 12:26 am
I appreciate the sentiment of him and the other posters that we need to fix the structure of government, not just change the players as most Americans believe.
I also appreciate the careful writing of the original proposal and the thoughful commentaries from far away. This is a small, sincere, and extremely intelligent community with a very high level of discourse not generaly found on the web. Thank you all for your focus!
I believe there is a system that will achieve the goals that Winston has laid out better than the system he is proposing. It is a system where
- the issue of compusatory voting is moot.
- the issue of the problems that the Italian and Israeli governments have with PR is moot.
- the money for advertizing that will be perhaps less prevalent in PR than in current US elections (but still present) is also moot.
- This system also does away with the difficulties of the relationship between voting for a party's principles vs. the actual character of the candidates that was so thoughtfully articulated above.
I will not even attempt to summarize it here because it is 44 - STM
Fry, ther change of government in Australia a couple of months ago would probably mean that the US won't be supporting the Bush govt in Iraq at least.
Since it has similar aims to the Democrats, however, you could expect them to quite pally again if a democrat is elected to the Whitehouse.
And Kenya's problems?
Don't think they'll go away with any political solution.
The violence there may be linked to the disputed election result, but it's really more tribal violence over fears of power-sharing (or not sharing) than anything.