Also worth mentioning is electronic vote fraud. One Pennsylvania County recent discovered that problem: using electronic voting systems that flipped votes to the opponent or dropped votes entirely. And this issue is not unique to this county. Also happened in Texas in the 2018 election and in Ohio and in other states. Both foreign and domestic actors can infiltrate voting systems and manipulate vote counting software. Time to return to paper ballots and transparent and trackable vote counting.
5
I wish that more candidates would push for Democracy Dollars like Andrew Yang. It would give all adult citizens 100$ a year, solely to donate to political campaigns. This would wash out corporate money by a factor of 8-1, and provides an elegant solution to publicly funded elections, where funding is just a product of popularity and enthusiasm.
Repealing Citizens is important, by in reality, companies and billionaires have always found ways around limits on money in politics. The only real solution is to wash out the money.
6
Add balanced lobbying:
X wants to spend $Z lobbying for their own interests.
Require X to put up 2.5 times $Z as follows
$Z for lobbying for their interest
$Z for lobbying for an opposing view
and
0.5 times $Z to ensure this is a solidly opposing view.
This simple plan will drive lobbying from a greedy and self-centered ordeal to a balanced approach that will much more likely get what is best for the USA.
We've seen a transformation of our government over the past 60 years. The impact on money on politics has grown exponentially.
We have seen the Executive Branch expand into an Imperial Presidency - though the Republicans take most of the blame here the Democrats are also complicit.
With the death of fairness in media we have lost a critical non-governmental check - one the Founding Fathers believed was critical. We have been seeing a new form of alliance between corporations and government - with corporations getting pretty much anything they want.
Unfortunately I expect we've seen the end of our Republic - we cling onto the illusion of what we once had but we've well on the way towards Huxley's scientific dictatorship (with Orwell's harsher totalitarian state waiting in the wings if the citizenry proves unruly).
Just look at how the Occupy movement was crushed - by a supposedly progressive Democrat no less.
6
Such unrepresentativeness is not just an American problem. In the UK, the Conservatives just won a majority in Parliament, and thereby total control for Brexit, despite the fact that most voters actually voted against the party, and polls indicate that most voters are also specifically against their main goal (Brexit). There are some unique structural aspects of the British system that contribute to this travesty, but districting is one cause that it clearly shares with the US. Considering similar problems in other claimed democracies might be useful in identifying their most important causes.
3
If there is concern about Impeachment being the new norm, perhaps we should start with lies and the lack of civility and empathy .
What if the North had let the South secede in 1861? Was that an option?
4
While I agree that politics in the US has lots of problems, I think the problem is with the people more than with politicians. If you give people what they want, it will be lots of government benefits that someone else will pay for. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way.
As H. L. Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
6
@J. Waddell : With respect, that's complete nonsense.
First of all, look at every social democracy in the world -- not one has a huge slacker population, *and* every one of them ranks higher than the US on every conceivable metric.
Most people want to be self-sufficient; those who aren't, aren't because of obstacles they can't conquer (such as poor health and no health care; insufficient skills and no money to acquire more; etc.). How do I know? I've worked to serve the poor; I've been a colleague of many of the working poor; and I've become poor despite being very well-educated and having a strong work ethic.
(And, no, I'm not receiving anything from the govt. I'm spending my small savings and hoping for a miracle.)
For four years, I was part of a union (I worked at a large newspaper), which meant that everyone had reasonable job security. No one was un-fire-able, but workers had protections -- yet that didn't make any employee lazy or exploitative. I was part of a group of 60 copy editors, all under intense pressure from about 6pm - midnight, and when anyone was struggling someone else stepped in to help. We shared the burdens, we shared the privileges.
THAT is how life works for most people. THAT is why social democracies work, and why the US no longer works.
12
@J. Waddell -
"If you give people what they want, it will be lots of government benefits that someone else will pay for."
Can you explain to me what this statement means? I think you're referring to universal health care and free higher education, perhaps things like food or housing assistance. Is that correct? It is, at least, what is usually meant when someone on the right attacks those on the left who advocate for these things. It never seems to matter or even occur to them that many of the people advocating for these things do not for the most part themselves need them (with the possible exception of higher education assistance). Nor do they ever acknowledge that the people advocating are not so stupid as to fail to understand that they have to be paid for somehow and that they themselves are or will be contributing to the pot.
OTOH, it is Republicans and especially the richest among them who inevitably vote for tax cuts that will primarily benefit--well, guess who? Themselves!
So one side advocates for policies that will benefit primarily people other than themselves and more generally our society at large while the other side mostly advocates for policies that will benefit primarily themselves. Which side are you on?
12
@J. Waddell
Most people believe in working for a living. The problem is that extreme amounts of the benefits from America's work and sense of community is unjustly claimed by a small percentage, so meeting basic needs become an unnecessary struggle. Because our society is blind to the idea that government should play a role in regulating how profits are shared, taxes and government benefits are the only corrective options we see.
5
The House Democrats have passed several bills protecting voting rights and the integrity of elections. Mitch McCpnnell refuses to put them (and about 400 other bills passed by the House, many life-changing) to a vote in the Senate.
The election is just around the corner, and we can expect more GOP voter suppression, foreign interference, and probably vote rigging. The public is barely aware of the bills passed by the House, and the GOP is attacking them as "Do Nothing Democrats." If the House Democrats are serious about protecting our democracy, they'd do more than bemoan McConnell's obstructionism in press conferences.
Why don't the House Dems walk (march) together to McConnell's office to demand a vote each time they pass major legislation? No, it wouldn't change McConnell's mind. But the TV cameras would roll & the social media eyeballs would focus on this dramatic action, informing the public that the GOP is obstructing our democracy.
The greatest portion of the electorate are non-voters. For the first time they'd see that there is a Democratic House passing bills & being obstructed by a GOP Senate. They'd see Democrats taking ACTION to fight for democracy, standing up for the courage of their convictions. It takes this kind of drama-yes, theater of the kind the GOP has mastered--to break past the dramas of impeachment and the Primary race.
Courage & committed action inspire & connect with those who see it. Talking heads alone won't save our democracy.
34
Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
12
@mvymvy - I have always thought that a percent of each states electoral votes should go to each candidate based on the voting percentage for each candidate in that state instead of the 'winner-take-all' system now in effect. That would accomplish a similar popular vote electoral system.
1
I had never heard of "democracy coupon". Applied on the county level, it might just be the solution to gerrymandering. It might even rejuvenate local politics. Wait for the day when both parties race to increase the price tag of the ballot. What a post-Citizen-United world.
2
Lessig's book sounds like an argument for elitism wrapped up in contemporary language
5
@Michael Livingston’s Elitism has drawbacks for sure, but so does populism - remember that half the population is below average.
2
The House Democrats have passed some great legislation to protect voting rights and the integrity of our elections, but the Senate's GOP leader McConnnell won't put them to a vote. (Nor will he allow a vote on about 400 other life-changing House passed bills.
The election is around the corner, and we can expect more GOP voter suppression, foreign interference, and probably vote rigging. They will do what it takes to win. The Democrats, on the other hand, are content whine at press confereences about McConnell's unwillingness to put these matters to a vote.
If the House Democrats are committed to democracy, why don't they march to McConnnell's office each time they pass major legislation like this and demand a vote? It probably wont change McConnell's mind, but cameras would send the message to the public that the GOP Senate is standing in the way.
Most Americans don't know that. That's because action images (not talking heads) are what cut through the clutter. Images of Democrats taking ACTION together, standing up for their convictions (and yes, theater, which the GOP knows how to create) is what attracts attention and eyeballs in the news and social media. People are inspired by courage and determination when they see it.
The impeachment and the Democratic Primary are full of drama. If the House Democrats want to communicate to the public that they are legislating & trying to protect our democracy, they need to march together. Again & again.
8
Yes one person one vote counted. The Electoral college, gerrymandering, local election controls, suppression attempts, the unbelievably long campaigns, the $$$ control, and failure t register all voters at age 18 automatically for life.
The other problem is the strange and convuluted rules of our congress that allows bills to be hid, judges to not be voted on, 1 senator hold up bills and policy affecting millions etc.
9
EXCELLENT article. This article, and the 2 books mentioned, scrape the icing off the filthy, poisonous cake that is U.S. politics in 2019.
I want to tell a representative anecdote. I formerly lived in the congressional district of "representative" Paul Ryan. At his "listening sessions" (as he called them) he would swagger onto the stage and his very first words were "I'm NOT going to allow any questions or comments during this listening session". Just in case His Highness didn't get his point across, he had about 10 or 15 cops at the back of the room, just waiting for someone to open their mouth. The first graphic he projected was the Royal Seal of His Holiness : a ludicrous official-looking congressional seal. The second slide showed Ryan's projected future Fed budget deficit if Social Security wasn't exterminated immediately. The graph showed a civilization-ending exponential explosion of the deficit in what appeared to be the near future. The audience (Republicans all) gasped. But there was no horizontal (time) axis showing. At risk to my health, I pointed this out to His Majesty, who grudgingly told the projector guy to adjust the graph. Once the T-axis was visible, it showed this planet-busting deficit singularity to be 75 years in the future. What astounding prescience Ryan possessed ! Why didn't he start predicting the course of other chaotic systems like the weather ? But no gasps at this. Nobody noticed.
THIS is what we've come to in 2019.
14
@Iman Onymous - Listening session? As in voters listening to him, not him listening to voters? What a very strange use of the term.
1
I would prefer more interest in saving the Republic than in saving democracy.
2
Haven’t read the books, but the reviews raise some interesting points. I see several issues with the “big, radical change” approach. American governmental structures and procedures are very difficult to change. This was intentionally designed in the Constitution by the Founders, who feared the constant, frenzied back and forth of the politics they had experienced, and expressly WANTED to reduce the power of central government. In the US, Elizabeth Warren (or anyone else) could be elected with 100% of the popular vote, and could still be unable to put any radical change into place. It’s called separation of powers. Despite the impatience of many younger citizens, this is NOT necessarily a bad thing (Hitler received a very high percentage of the vote). Additionally, the Founders assumed that citizens would actually take interest and responsibility for their nation, and would get off their behinds and VOTE. After all, they had just fought a bitter war to gain that right. Instead, Americans have one of the lowest voting participation rates in the world, enabling activists of every flavor to dominate the process.
5
@stevevelo - Yes, some people are impatient for "big, radical change". Many others are determined to resist any change, and still others to not just resist change but to roll back whenever possible some changes that have already taken place. It seems to me that what many of us really are talking about, however, is the tone and direction that will be set by the president. Radical change will not happen except in limited areas and at a slow pace even if Warren or Sanders were to become president as you say. However, the fear for many is that an inadequate-to-the-needs-of-our-era status quo will result from the election of Biden. Faced with the future that is looming before them--climate change, increasingly unaffordable higher education, growing inequality--is it any surprise that younger citizens are impatient?
1
I will order both books because I'm alarmed by this administration and what it's doing to degrade our institutions. They must be stopped before we end up with single-party control of all 3 branches of government. I've been writing back to Fox watchers for weeks now and am alarmed by the numbers of their viewers who will defend R's actions to the death. There hasn't been one of them that has any idea what is really going on inside the T White House.
12
@Svendska8 They see disruption, liberals upset, government in chaos and thats why they elected trump.They are well, pleased with him. He actually needs to be more outrageous each day to keep his support. Like a Right wing talk show guy, he needs something more outrageous each program.
5
More thoughts regarding my initial post to this article...In addition to literary classics, maybe public schools should add books like "Savage Inqualities" by Jonathan Kozol and the back to basics collection of essays by Robert Fulghum, " All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten." Maybe books like these can serve as a reminder that empathy and being a good person resonates well with others. People are sick of selfish, entitled jerks and who can blame us.
8
I completely agree that “unrepresentativeness” is a terrible problem in America. Just look at this review, which spans the full extent of this country from Harvard to shining Harvard.
15
@Andrew
This is another key idea that is damaging the US: the loss of belief in expertise. Somehow we're convinced that an hour on Google is equivalent to years of study at (dare I say it) prestigious institutions of knowledge.
19
@Andrew : So are you sore because you applied but were rejected, or because you think that know-nothingness is a good way to live life? (Do you take your ailing engine to award-winning writer Margaret Atwood? Do you take your broken body to sports phenom Tiger Woods?)
Me, I like and trust experts.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' "
-- Isaac Asimov
4
@April
Andrew said nothing of the sort. He didn't question the expertise; he indicated that Harvard has an outsized influence on American political ideas.
We all know that perfectly well qualified applicants get turned away in droves by Harvard every year. Most of them end up at other institutions, and if we accorded other institutions the power-anointing clout of Harvard and Yale, a more decentralized intellectual apparatus in this country would go a long way toward diversifying power. We need to develop and elevate more regional centers of intellectual dynamism with real policy influence.
4
Wow, and all along I thought it was the Russians who had the most influence on our elections. ;-)
4
We should all be thankful to #45 for showing us the error of our ways - now let's move on to 46 asap...
11
Left authors, left reviewers what's left to say
5
@imamn
What is left to say? I'd suggest a critique that actually engages the ideas presented, rather than simply dismissing ideas based on the (perceived) political positions of the authors.
9
@imamn
Not planning to read either of the books are you?
Ari Berman writes: "Most startling of all, Lessig thinks the few, not the many, should determine public policy."
I am not sure why this should be startling. "The many" are the ones who have voted for Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, Jair Bolsonaro, and Adolf Hitler. There is not a crisis of democracy. Democracy *is* the crisis.
Democracy means the rule of NIMBYism, egotism, shortsightedness and sheer stupidity. Democracy is what prevents an unqualified and immoral president like Trump from getting impeached.
Democracy will prevent effective action to stop global warming. In the end, democracy is what will have destroyed this planet.
3
Sounds like a promising read. We are at a tipping point economically and globally. In speaking to other ordinary people, it seems like people think nothing short of a revolution will reset this country. We fought World War II to fight the atrocities of deranged “leaders.” We need to “be the people our dogs think we are” and get back to a sense of what it means to be American and more importantly, human. It’s time to enforce the parameters that were set forth at one time to restore balance in our world. Radical changes may be the right way and start with community and grass roots efforts. Those of us who consider ourselves “blessed” need to volunteer, maybe take a crappy job or two early on, build homes for the needy, feed the homeless, and return to an empathetic society. Let’s not forget there’s plenty to go around and an educated country brings more opportunity and empathy to all. IMO the internet has confirmed to our country that there are two economies and two rules of law. As long as those in charge continue to strip away regulations and privatize everything, the country will continue an increasing divide between the haves and the have nots. Nothing is sacred anymore and everything is about the bottom line. We are ruthless bullies to the rest of the world when we should be leaders. We are all in this together and until everyone considers this, nothing will change.
12
The conclusion, "The crisis of democracy should be the issue in the 2020 election" is incorrect. If the GOP continues in power as a result of next year's election, it is unlikely there will be much of a democracy to continue. While fundamental, this issue is not front and center with voters today. Candidates have to meet voter interests as they are, not as they should be. Win Congress and the White House, then fix democracy.
5
I am surprised that there is no mention here of what progressives feel is the very best way to reform our political system: support progressive candidates who refuse to take campaign donations from any of the persons or groups which are invested in keeping the corporate and wealth-dominated political system we now have. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and so many other candidates now have led the way in showing that this can work as they encourage only small donations from regular citizens, yet raise millions for their campaigns. The bonus for us? Unlike those supporting Joe Biden, we can elect candidates not beholden in any way to the corporate and wealthy interests "who don't represent us!"
26
It's what progressives support. It's what AMERICANS support.
But it's, against all sense, apparently not what most people *in* America support. Just look at the comments of that article about de Pfeffel's win in the UK. The blame heaped on the (there-is-no-)"far left" supplies enough SMH fuel to break a hundred necks.
Shouldn't this new era begin with education reform at the most basic levels: Elementary and Secondary school funding and enrichment?
We still have systems in America favoring school districts at unequal intensity. Study the gaps between funding in NY, CT, VT schools versus MS,AL, OK, ID, UT...and/or rural & urban districts.
Why do we grow our citizenry based on discriminatory funding favoring already wealthy communities and then hope for critical thinking skills in all corners of society?
This is the rigged system at its core.
11
The crisis of democracy should be the issue in the 2020 election. I agree. Not mentioned in the review of these books is the even larger question of a Constitutional Convention, an updating of the entire document.
Some of the reforms mentioned will require a Constitutional Amendment, but attempting a fix on one part, without considering the entire interplay of all the parts, risks unintended consequences. We need a nationwide discussion, over a year or two; televised on maybe PBS, social media, newspaper publication of arguments on different areas up for reform. Legal, political scholars of all stripes.
Good luck, guys. The old political science saw, that great change only comes after great upheaval, doesn’t argue in your favor. Or mine. But maybe this time, we won’t wait for the ....necessary calamity. Yeah, right.
2
@Jo Williams A Constitutional Convention is downright terrifying. Given the current state of things, there is nothing preventing a re-write behind closed doors from simply cementing the status quo if not making things worse.
Pump enough money on the Yes campaign and boom, American Aristocracy here we come. Anti-inheritance tax would be in the bill of rights.
1
@Jo Williams - Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
The bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
3
Wonderful! Two books that sidestep the question of who speaks for the working class that no longer can find work. Yes, there is plenty to fix in the electoral process, but outside of Sanders and Warren the left and right reuse the same old memes.
10
Status quo is unsustainable. It will
erode confidence in democracy further.
Reforms are necessary. The most
important is to either abolish electoral
college and make presidential election
direct like all other or at least end
the winner take all system and make
it proportional. Gerrymandering distorts
elections. It shouldn't be done by
the party in power but by a neutral
commission. Campaign finance
reform is hugely important to diminish
the role of big money. Voting on Sunday
will help increase participation. without
reforms democracy will exist in form
only without substance.
4
I am so glad that I do not live in Iowa. I am a boomer from the Midwest and a supporter of Warren and Sanders. I want real deep fundamental change. Thanks to the authors of these books for getting these ideas for big reform out there.
4
These reforms essential to saving Democratic require an intelligent electorate. Good luck finding that in America.
5
@Kevinlarson
For all the supposed activism that Trump has inspired, most of this country is ignorant and apathetic beyond belief; with most of their knowledge and passion beholden to a vacuous, all-encompassing, corporate-driven popular culture. It's not just that many Americans are not interested in impeachment, they're not interested in anything. That's why it's such a laugh when I hear people like Thomas Friedman urge "lifelong learning" to remain competitive. Yeah, good luck with that Thom!
The two-party capitalist government has failed us. If people were serious about their government, Election Day would have been a national holiday many years ago. Money, the right names and pretty faces far outweigh education, intelligence, and quality thinking. The system is so rigged that it will never change. The only reason to become involved politically is that one stands a very good chance of making a buck or two without much effort.
2
Life tenure for Supreme Court Justices is a relic of an era of shorter lifetimes. 18 years is plenty. And there is nothing magical about the number nine - many countries have larger supreme courts. 13 to 15 seems better to me. Finally end the "national injunction" where one lowest level federal judge can set national policy, rather than policy only in his or her district.
5
great! I like both concepts of both authors. but I think sitaraman's arguments are more favorable to the modern changes we can expect coming from young generation. like previous generation whatever they handed over to us will not be available to the next generation to be handed over by us. moreover, with the globalization, both rich and poor will have equal say. that is why social democracy concept will be more acceptable. the frustrating part is that nothing will happen unless some sort of total collapse of the current constitution. ideas of new constitution is encouraging but is is easier in intellectual writing than executing when so many billionaires are becoming active palyers without popular support.
Yes, politics is broken. Democracy is at risk. Undermined by bad law (Citizens United, gerrymandering, the Electoral College), shaken by technology that outpaces our ability to shape it to positive ends (social media) and constrained by the outmoded model of nationalism as the primary entity of political identity. Certainly, big changes will come as a result of the maelstrom. Whether they will be beneficial to democracy or to most of the people is uncertain, and we clearly haven’t seen a solution yet. The scary part is whether change will come via measured political evolution or radical upheaval.
4
@Pen - The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Both authors highlight the need to get particular rewards out of the system—both money and power. Money is the more obvious reward that they’re feeding on. Power is less obvious, although related, because it’s too often confused with authority.
We need to insist that politicians focus on authority—what we are permitting/allowing them to do. Power is making people do what they wouldn’t ordinarily/don’t want to do. (no, this is not a formal or academic definition).
Trump does not have the authority to engage in divisive behavior, such as defaming a 16 year old girl. Trump does have the power to do so, one should note, because the Senate Republicans refuse to exercise their authority over Presidential power.
1
Watching the House Judiciary Committee debate impeachment today, I feel represented. The majority shifted representation toward the Democrats in 2018, by participating in the election.
This is an unusual experience for me, having lived in California with just two senators for tens of millions (compared to less populated states), and where winners of presidential elections have been called by the broadcast networks when our polls are still open.
It is unfortunate that the majority will not be represented when the Senate puts Trump on trial. Minority rule is leading our country down a dangerous path.
3
@kj , Great post. One item apparently not in either book is that the House of Reps needs to be drastically increased. There is no constitutional barrier to adjusting the quantity of members: in fact, one can argue that staying with a number set in 1918 is unconstitutional since it does not meet the Founders per capita thresholds. IF this gets done, it will shine a spotlight on just how minority the senate truly is: the difference between what the House of Reps would do for we the people-- because it will be majority democratic-- will be a stark contrast to the old white guys that run the senate. It's a start.
4
@karen
Excellent point. If only.
1
First, these two academics have no skin in the game. Nothing bad happens to them if their ideas prove to be wrong. Second, both of them probably earn most of their income on the backs of the next generation, i.e., law school students and their tuition. Third, why would we want a huge expansion of our federal government after learning two trillion dollars went up in smoke? Pointing out problems is easy and hardly the basis for two books.
3
There are two big reforms that could give us more democracy, and would not require any Constitutional amendments:
1. Enlarge the House of Representatives. Originally, each member represented 30,000 people. Today, each member represents about 750,000 people. While we cannot go back to the original ratio, we could easily have 1000 reps. This would involve many more people in politics, make representation more local, and discourage representatives from staying for decades.
2. Give more power to the states. This was how the country was originally set up: the states did most of the routine government, and the Federal government concentrated on national issues and foreign policy.
How did we get where we are? Reformers thought that the original arrangements did not produce the right results - the states governments support racist, reactionary policies, so let's have the Federal government tell them what to do! However, if the same voters elect both the state and Federal governments, the same thing will happen again at the Federal level. Those ornery voters keep electing the wrong people, thwarting progress and making trouble!
1
On the one hand, it’s really not that complicated: get money out of politics. Stop the corporatization & centralization of media. On the other hand, the current system of institutionalized corruption works just fine for all the people who actually have the power or the money to instigate change.
7
My four top picks. Get rid of the electoral college, the great institutional legacy of slavery, and let the popular vote decide. Ban corporate money and PACs to build public subsidizing of campaigns. Allow two-days of weekend voting with paid time off for those working. Require election commissions to draw district lines.
Bonus pick. Jail those who seek or accept foreign assistance.
30
@Barry,
"Jail those who seek or accept foreign assistance."
I voted Green Party in 2016 because I was repulsed by the actions of both Democrats and Republicans; did you vote for Hillary?
@Barry - Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
@JRS - congrats, you helped elect Trump.
1
Getting rid of the Electoral College and small state are stripped of two Senators no matter how small the state is. Filibuster then maybe appropriate. We now have the terror of the minority.
@dave -
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
Instead, state legislation, The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
“The crisis of democracy should be the issue in the 2020...”
Yes, but it’s not. Republicans have spent decades creating the infrastructure to gain and keep power - even though a majority of Americans reject their views. Conservative “Think tanks” such as the Cato Institute and The Federalist Society, right-wing evangelicals, talk radio (Ruch Limbaugh et al.), and of course Fox News convince the base to vote against their interests. Gerrymandering, Citizens United, voter suppression exploit weakness in our democratic institutions to allow rich white Republicans to keep getting re-elected.
The Republican Party cannot be negotiated with. It must be soundly defeated at all levels of government. Then Progressive Democrats can created a more just and equal society, with clean air and a future for the planet.
4
Lessig's 4 points are worth buying the book for:
- voter suppression
- gerrymandering
- the electoral college
- Citizens United.
Every voter, every kid in school needs to have these 4 issues at the tip of their tongue, ready to act on. They need to know how they are being cheated of the democracy this country was founded on.
39
@anonymouse - Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the National Popular Vote bill.
The bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Now we need to urge state legislators, in states with the 74 more electoral votes needed, to enact the bill.
3
@anonymouse - The GOP has perfected ways to disenfranchise voters. Recent examples: the conservative Supreme Court's ruling that states can legally purge voters. Georgia's continued lawlessness, removing 300,000 voters; Wisconsin's lawmakers refusal to support the new governor, ditto North Carolina; Florida lawmakers refusal to reinstate ex-felon's rights to vote, even after citizens passed a referendum that they could. And on it goes.
4
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion," Edmund Burke once said.
Technology tempts us to think that America ought to be a "direct democracy," where voters decide every issue by referendum. But poorly informed voters won't make good decisions. We need to trust legislators to focus on national problems and find solutions. Voters can't do that, and especially if they're not well informed.
As the editor of HuffPost wrote recently:
"One of the biggest challenges we all face, in an era where everyone has a platform, is figuring out whom to listen to. Open platforms that once seemed radically democratizing now threaten, with the tsunami of false information we all face daily, to undermine democracy. When everyone has a megaphone, no one can be heard."
5
Perhaps the really 'huge' gift our traitor in chief has given the nation is to demonstrate how social and economic inequalities are destabilizing democracy in America. Simply replacing Trump isn't going to repair the nation. It is going to take the big ideas of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to repair the wounds inflicted by capitalism gone amok and the tragedy of social and educational inequalities.
2
SHRINK THE ILL-INFORMED PUBLIC
The susceptibility of the pubic, most pointedly in the "swing states," to the propaganda of Trump and Fox, is the root of the problem. Trump is the best exploiter of this so far.
Solutions include:
1. Impeachment of Trump, to make the case that lying and propaganda ultimately lose (viz, Lincoln's "you can't fool all the people all the time-);
2. Discrediting of Fox propagandists, maybe Rupert Murdoch himself;
3. Electoral Reform:. ending Gerrymandering, repeal of Citizens United, non-partisan primaries, ranked choice voting, elimination of the Electoral College or the adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, etc.;
4. Better education of children in civics, history and tolerance;
5. Finding ways for the wealthy, pension funds and governments (via investments yielding future returns in higher revenues) to profit from bringing people out of poverty, e.g., smart social bonds.
2
"Could Politics Be Fairer? Two New Books Say Yes"
Who could have guessed?
1
Time for Americans to stop whining about how politicians don't represent us. Maybe they'd represent us if Americans actually VOTED! In a democracy citizens are actually supposed to VOTE!
9
Unfortunately, voting doesn’t do squat. Both political parties are bought and paid for by corporations and other special interests.
3
@Nancy G. - careful, your cynicism is showing.