January 30, 2006

In the first part of this article, we looked at some recent proposals to improve the liberty-preserving aspects of the US Constitution. Now, here are some additional ideas.

Direct selection of Representatives: Especially with repeal of the 13th Amendment, restoring Senators as true representatives of the states. Why not also make the “People’s House” truly representative? No, I am NOT advocating that Euro-abortion called “proportional representation,” which only strengthened traditional political parties.

Instead, I am proposing a more radical system. There are approximately 300 million of us, about 150 million voters (actual voters, not registered voters), and 435 congressional seats. Today, these are allocated by states (minimum 1 per state) and geographic population, and then chosen by popular election. Currently, each representative represents an average of just about 1 million people, because of dividing districts by state, a number of small states, and other geographic and political realities.

This also means that it is theoretically possible (and sometimes does happen) that in a two-party state, a “representative” might be truly representing only as few as 50.1% of those people actually voting (or about 25% of the eligible voters in his or her district) because none of the others wanted this person to represent them. (In a three-party district, this appalling number is even lower: 33.4% of the votes, or about 16% of eligible voters (and about 1/10 of total population). So lets try something better.

How about election by petition: allow the people’s representatives to be truly representative: have a voter sign up to nominate a person to represent them, and when that candidate gets enough voters signing up for him or her, they are automatically elected. Make it easier by not requiring that a representative be a resident (a laughable concept for almost all of the 435 now up there, anyway) of the same state as the person they are representing, and not require all the people that he or she is representing be in the same state!

With 150 million voters, and 435 seats (not necessarily a fixed number, by the way, but with seating and office space so costly it might as well be a given), each representative should theoretically represent about 345,000 people. It might be impractical to assume that 100% is possible, but let us say that 90% is: each representative would need to have the signatures of at least 310,000 people and could not have more than 110% (380,000), from one or all fifty states, that have personally selected him or her as their representative. In the past, doing that would have been an unbelievable paperwork nightmare, but today’s computer systems make it easy.

How would it work? Say I’m Paul Voter, living in Funtown, Anystate. I sign a petition choosing Jane Doe as my representative and files/registers it with the Fun County election supervisor (either directly at the Courthouse or through my local polling place on given date(s), or possibly over the Internet). All the county supervisors report the nominees and numbers of petitions to the State Secretary of State, which maintains a website with the totals posted, and also forwards the information to the House of Representatives, where the fifty states’ totals are consolidated.

This might be done during a two-week period, say the first half of October. Anyone getting sufficient votes (first come, first served basis) is locked in: as soon as Jane Doe has 310,000 votes, say by the 5th of October, everyone knows that Mrs. Doe is going to Congress. She can continue to “recruit” new people to represent, up to the limit of 380,000: this can be done by date-time-group of when the petition is registered. If everything can be done real-time (a distinct possibility), the poll worker can tell Paul Voter, “I’m sorry, sir, Mrs. Doe already has as many people as she can represent, you’ll need to select another.” Or Paul could indicate his first, second, and third choice, with automatic movement to the next person.

For candidates who do NOT get that 310,000 by the 15th of October, when numbers are publicized (remember, they are always available on-line, and I bet that papers would also publish the complete national lists at least once a week), those people who chose representatives who have gathered fewer than 200,000 signatures are automatically released, either to do a new petition or go to their second choice, which might be one of the people who has 200,000 but not the 310,000. (Or simply start all over again.)

At the end of the month of October, again “close the polls” temporarily. By now, probably 400 people have all been selected, representing about 138,000,000 to 152,000,000 voters (and therefore, more than 280 million people, including those who don’t or can’t vote). A third round, in the first week of November, gives a third chance for everyone who didn’t get their first or second choice of representative. By now we are dealing with much smaller numbers, of course, and the various political and other organizations can coordinate to “get out the vote” for those last 35 representatives for the remaining voters who didn’t get their first three choices. Websites will announce, “John Smith only needs 1,000 more people to make it to Washington” and “Janet Sanchez only has 120,000 people so she is releasing them and urges them to choose Jose Gonzales.” I doubt if any seats go begging. This third round also allows someone who was NOT able to get the candidate of their choice the opportunity to go shopping for a new Congressman or woman who has the 310,000 minimum but can still accept more people to represent to max out at 380,000. Again, it should be possible to do this real time.

The voting process could also provide a voluntary mechanism for the voter to send their contact information (addresses and phone) to their new representative, so that they can be in contact. On Election Day, the polls are closed, and the new Congress-critturs are in. If someone dies or resigns, it is a simple matter of whomever first gets 310,000 votes to replace them, and then has a week, say, to “max out” at 380,000 people to represent.

Clearly, this would still give the old, big parties a clear advantage. Candidates could seek a local constituency similar to traditional districts, and no doubt many would continue to do so, using the resources of their local GOP or Demo party organizations. These old party organizations would also be in good position to work across state lines to publicize candidates (although the candidates would have to still work for specific constituencies inside their parties, I’m sure) and get petitions out and in.

For example, Jimmy Hoffa Smith, a Democrat, would seek to represent other union members, and would concentrate on the Rust Belt; while Lavinia Jones, a retired school teacher and AARP activist and Democrat, would seek to represent other retired liberal teachers and concentrate on Florida and Arizona. On the other hand, Ron Reagan Flores, a GOP small businessman, would concentrate on representing other small businesspeople in the Southwest, and Abe L Kelley, a Michigan farmer and GOP member would seek to represent 380,000 midwestern farmers. Of course, this would also give, literally, a chance to elect the “Representative for Wal-Mart” as 310,000 managers, friends, and family elect Sam W. Smith, a retired Wal-Mart manager, to Congress (and 310,000 disgruntled and ex-Wal-Mart employees elect Suzi Jo Jones as the “Representative Against Wal-Mart”).

So we’ll have at least one or two openly and avowedly single-issue Congrus-critters (just as we do now, if hidden sometimes): a PETA Congresswoman, a couple of NOW-NARAL Congress-persons, and yes, some Green Party Congresspeople and a few Libertarian and Constitutionalist Congressmen and women. But we will have, for the first time, a Congress made up NOT of 50-percenters, but of people positively selected by the people that they represent to go to Washington.

We might, for the first time, have a truly-representative democracy in our republic - a scary thought. The benefits of such a change are many and obvious: election costs just dropped by two or three orders of magnitude, even if there is a need to go nationwide to get voters signed up: you are not having to go head to head against someone: and the campaign will concentrate on why the candidate is a good one - and NOT why the opponent is a bad one.

In many cases, I expect strong slightly larger districts to be created, in which both a liberal and a conservative will serve effectively the same geographic area, but where ALL of the voters in that area will have the services of a representative whom they chose. At the same time, the pressure of pork-barrel politics will be greatly reduced, with the elimination of traditional congressional districts: there will be much less incentive to fund massive public works projects in specific areas. Pork barreling will still be alive, of course, but it will be smaller, and different. And there will be a fair number of people selected for Congress who will fight tooth-and-nail against ALL pork.

This will also encourage cooperation on a national scale among both political parties and special interest groups, and potentially create some vastly changed and improved dynamics in the House of Representatives. Imagine a debate on a new healthcare bill where the major participants are the Representative from the AMA, the Representative from the National Association of Nurses, and two Representatives of people for whom patient rights and improved medical care are their “hot-button” issues. It will also force voters to be more proactive and selective: they will have to decide if Jane Doe’s position on abortion is really sufficient reason to choose her when you disagree with her positions on military affairs and tariffs - and not have to accept her as the “lesser of two evils.”

Next, let us consider to expand the Electoral College’s responsibilities. This is perhaps a touchy area, but the electoral college is the one time, each four years, when the will of the people is expressed on a truly national level: the election of Senators and Representatives (whether under the existing system or what I am proposing) is always going to be very strongly influenced by local issues and affairs. Only when voting for president and vice-president do we cast a vote on national issues. This body of people is a valuable resource which is entirely wasted. There are many possible roles:

A supervisory body over the Supreme Court, spending a month or two (after voting for President and VP) reviewing the last four years of the Supreme Court’s action and recommending mandatory retirement or other action - sort of like a retention election on a national level.

A “law-unmaking” body - Require the body to eliminate at least 10 percent of the national laws (federal statutes) by simple majority vote, and which can only be overridden by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress.

A treaty-review body - Require that all current US treaties be reviewed and unless sustained by a two-thirds vote, are repudiated by the United States on a planned timetable.

A tax-review body - Require that all taxes changed or increased in the past four years be reviewed and allowed to continue only if a two-thirds (or three-quarters) vote sustains them. Or even better, require that ALL taxes be reviewed and unless sustained by a two-thirds vote, are repealed unless Congress acts within six months to reinstate them under current rules.

Clearly, some of these changes would be resisted, but all would serve to clean up the federal government and its current mess. Your comments (use feedback form below) are welcomed on this article! If there is interest in a final section, I will look at the comments and suggestions for other changes.

Archives

Churches and Concealed Carry

Why one libertarian doesn’t support Cindy Sheehan

Looters: The Low-down on the Low-down

Bakers Dozen ™: Hot-Wash Lessons Learned From Katrina, Week 1

Baker’s Dozen ™ Hints to Prepare for Disaster

What is a "person" In modern America?

Presidential Power

Libertarian Proposals For The Constitution (Part One)

Complete Archives for Nathan Barton