September 6, 2007
- Issue 243 |
||
We
Desperately Need A New
Electoral System, New Methods Of Campaigning, And New Types Of People Running For Office National Affairs By BC Columnist |
||
|
||
A couple
of weeks ago, on Saturday, August
11th, The New York Times carried an article about a meeting of state Democratic
Party officials “from around the country.” The article started on
page 1, which evinces a judgment that the matter is of at least some importance,
and said the meeting was taking place that very weekend. Oddly, the article
was bylined Here is how the reporter described
what I think to be the overall topic of the article:
Two major possibilities were discussed
for “chang[ing] the rules of the game.” One is an effort to change
electoral rules in It is thought that this would insure
Republican victory in any close election, because all other states
(except Maine and Nebraska) now use the statewide unit rule, under
which all of a state’s electoral votes go to the candidate who gets
the most popular votes in a state. In this circumstance, the
splitting of The Democrats in the legislature of Although the Times did not
see fit to write anything (as far as I know) about the results of the
meeting in The national sponsors of this idea
seem to have figured out pretty much everything in connection with
it. Their arguments (and the, I think weak, counter arguments)
are in a book, on the web and have sometimes been mentioned
in the print media. I don’t intend to get into most of the various
pros and cons. All I will say here about the pros and cons is
that the plan seems to be constitutional beyond doubt, requires no
constitutional amendment ridding us of the Electoral College, and would
cause presidential candidates to have to worry about the votes in every
state. For every vote in every state would count in the national
popular vote, so candidates could no longer ignore most states because
victory there is in the bag for one side or the other (as in California
and New York), and could no longer focus only on 13 to 17 so-called
battleground states (Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin) whose entire total of
electoral votes are truly up for grabs under the present winner take
all, or unit, rule followed in all states but Maine and Nebraska. ( There is one other matter, however,
which I wish to point out about the proposed new plan; it is a matter,
which, as far as I know, has not been discussed either by the plan’s
sponsors or by the limited comment in the media. The plan, as
said, provides that Electoral College victory will go to the candidate
who gets the most popular votes. But the most popular
votes does not mean a majority of the popular votes. A
candidate could win with 40 percent or less of the popular vote - as The question which arises under the
proposed new plan of electing presidents is whether it is sufficient
to provide, in a nation which supposedly follows majority rule at least
most of the time, that the winner of the most popular votes
will win the presidency - even though this candidate may have a plurality
of only 42 or 43 percent - or less. Or, rather, should the plan
provide some method of insuring that the winner obtains a majority
of the popular vote. There are ways that automatically do the
latter by taking account of voters’ ranked preferences when no candidate
has an initial majority. My strong preference would be to build
in a method of arriving at a majority of the popular vote, so that
a state’s electors would be voting for the candidate who received a
majority, not just a plurality. This seems to me more in keeping
with the proposed new system’s fundamental goal of bringing the election
result more in line with the popular will. It will also be a
further step towards opening up the electoral system to a dire necessity
upon which the future of our country may depend, even likely depends. That
is, it will be a step towards making it possible for a third party
to put up a candidate when, as now, millions are extremely dissatisfied
with the choices likely to be given us by the two major parties. A
third party is essential because it will, I think, take a third party
to allow us to shed the national-security-state, Washington mentality
into which the two major parties are locked, and which they maintain,
regardless of the votes of the populace, and which will destroy us
as surely as it has destroyed previous empires. Opening up the
system to a third party (or parties) is probably the only way to overcome
our addiction to the national security state, an addiction replete
with industrial, technological, and repressive appurtenances, including
domestic spying. It does not seem likely to me that
one can comfortably rely on either of the current two major parties
to overthrow the ultimately-disaster-producing national security state. Much
blame for the advance of the national security state is currently placed
on the demento in the White House. And he did take it to new
heights. But the truth is, the national security state had its
origins back in the late ’40s and early ’50s, under Truman and Eisenhower,
due to the Cold War against Communism and everything the country felt
it necessary to do to combat the Communists. And, at the end
of his period in office, Eisenhower even specifically warned against
one important aspect of the national security state, the military industrial
complex. But then the situation only got worse and worse under
Johnson and Nixon, continued under Reagan and thereafter, and reached
its acme to date under Demento. Both major parties have bought
into it big time, so the failure of Democrats to end the current war
after having been elected in 2006 to do so should not come as a wholly
shocking surprise to people who put them in office to stop the war. Only
a new party, dedicated to fundamentally different ideas about The needed third party would be given a great boost by requiring a majority vote to win the presidency, and by implementing this through some form of ranked, instant run off system if no candidate initially has more than a plurality. Such a system would allow people to vote their first choice for a third party candidate whom they favor, with little if any fear that this would throw the election to some Neanderthal if their candidate fails. To take a concrete example, under the system being discussed, Al Gore, not George Bush, would have won in 2000 because it is almost certain that the vast preponderance of people who voted for Ralph Nader - who got 2.7 percent of the vote when Gore received 48.38 percent - would have ranked Gore second and that Gore would then have received about a 51 percent to 49 percent majority, or a 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent majority, in the instant run off after Nader was eliminated. Under the system being discussed,
it’s also possible, by the way, that Bush I would have been reelected
in 1992, when To reiterate the bottom line, the
political system would be opened to needed third party candidates under
the proposed new plan of electing the president, if that plan were
supplemented by a run off system that would allow people to vote
for a third party candidate without fear of thereby electing another
demento from a major party. (Note that even under a new system,
the major parties, which have given us wackos, nonetheless seem
likely to receive more votes, at least initially, than a third party
candidate.) But at least as important, and quite
possibly even more important in my judgment, the new plan, supplemented
by a rankings-based instant run off, would also be a powerful precedent
for opening up the Congressional and Senate races to third parties
- it would be a precedent whose example would constantly be cited and
might shortly be followed. It is crucial to open up the
legislature to third parties. Only in that way is it liable to
be possible to elect legislators who wish to cause America to recede
from being a national security state, and who will vote for policies
that serve the interests of the vast bulk of the country instead of
the oligarchy of wealth and power that has run it for about the last
50 years. If forty or fifty third party legislators were elected
to Congress (instead of there being only one or two who do not belong
to either major party), the debates over policy and legislation would
have quite a different cast, the enacted policy and legislation would
likely be quite different, presidents could not safely ignore the third
party legislators’ views, and we would have a fighting chance to go
upward instead of downhill. The initial years of the Republican
Party in the 19th century show what a difference can be
made by a new party with a fighting chance to win. Today, a third party does not have
a chance in Congressional elections to the Senate or Congress because,
as in the Electoral College, the states follow a winner take all system. Whoever
gets the most votes in a Congressional district becomes that district’s
Congressman or Congresswoman. If one wishes to cure this, there
would seem to be various possible ways, with the most effective perhaps
being statewide proportional representation. But, however it
is done, it is important that it be done. To many, this will seem like pie in
the sky, just as, as recently as a few years ago, changing the Electoral
College, or its present workings, seemed like pie in the sky. But
now its workings may well be changed within a few years, so maybe we
can hope that the way we elect Congresspeople can be changed too, especially
since the future of the country depends on giving people more choices
than the tweedle dum, tweedle dee non- choice between the two major
parties that are part of the ruling oligarchy and now monopolize politics
in support of the national security state. And, while I’m bringing up what lots
of people will think pie in the sky, let me bring up a matter that
goes to the heart of how our crappy politics are currently practiced
in this country. If there is one thing that is lacking in current
politics, it is thinkers. One does not get elected by spending
his or her time reflecting deeply on matters, spending his or her time
thinking them out and engaging others in serious discussion about them. For
such individuals there is no place in American politics - a You know, the kind of people who run
large, successful corporations or other businesses, or who successfully
run universities, conduct themselves in the way I would like to see
politicians’ conduct themselves. Why does anyone think our political
methods will produce competent officials instead of the dementos it
does produce, when more serious methods are used to obtain more serious,
better leaders in walks of life where America is more successful than
in politics? BlackCommentator.com columnist |
||