Since this is an election year, I'd like to start off this discussion group with a new proposal for voting. The basic problem in the American system is that the winner takes all in each voting district. Hypothetically, if every voting district in the country were 51% Democrat and 40% Republican and 9% independents, the Democrats could win every election district and the other 49% of the nation would be totally unrepresented. This can even happen if one party controls a large majority in Congress as well as the Presidency.
So what we need is a different type of system that allows a more even distribution of majority and minority representation in national and state legislative bodies.
Some might point to the parliamentary system as the answer. While the parliamentary system does allow tremendous power to gravitate to a minority party (that might be sought after by a larger party in order to form a ruling coalition), the parliamentary system is prone to cronyism and other "behind closed doors" party manuevers. This is because parliaments are composed not only of members chosen by direct election, but also members chosen by the party as a percentage of the votes cast for the whole party in the election.
In general, I dislike party politics because elected officials are pressured to conform to insider deals rather than vote on principle. This can happen even without formal parties, but when parties are given actual powers within the legislative rules of a body, there is much mischief that occurs. I would not prohibit party affiliation, but my new constitutional proposal would disallow parties any say in legislative rule making and selection of committee chairmanships. I am also suggesting that powerful committee positions in Congress be rotated every year or two so that no one person can become entrenched.
How can we create a voting system that gives broader representation to most political views without resorting to party or bloc voting? Here is a brief synopsis of my current proposal for your consideration.
First, we expand the size of a district to double the normal size. Second, instead of electing one person per district, we elect 3. The first two elected are determined by the two highest vote-getters (only if their combined total of votes exceeds 2/3 of all votes). If the do achieve the 2/3 vote, both these representatives are sent to Congress with normal voting powers (one vote per Rep.). The third highest vote getter (representing something less than a third of the vote) is also sent to Congress, but has only 1/2 a vote in all issues. If the first two vote getters fail to attain a 2/3 majority, the top vote getter is seated and there is a run off election between the 2nd and 3rd highest vote getters. The winner of the run-off election gains the other full voting position and the loser gets the 1/2 vote position.
In this system, Congress is constituted with a 2/3 body of normal representatives, plus an additional 1/3 of their body representing smaller minority positions--with a reduced power to vote. Nevertheless, this additional third can have considerable influence on close votes.
If we choose to give even more power to minority positions, we could simply send the 3 top vote getters to Congress in each super-district and allow them to have equal voting power.
The great virtue in this system is that it tends to dampen the motivation to compromise one's principle to vote for someone that "can win." In almost every district minority viewpoints will be represented by the third representative. This compromise process has caused the Republican party to continually shift toward the left as major candidates find themselves having to pander to benefits for constituents in order to win votes. Naturally, in this new constitution, such benefits would be outlawed, so politicians would not have this tactic available to them.
What do you think?
Joel Skousen
I appreciate your focusing on the principals of
conservatism and the present Constitution,
however I am not convinced of the wisdom of
promoting a new or revised Constitution in any
sense. We need to stick with the present one
and follow it. However well intentioned, I
believe a new - even an "improved" twist on
the present will only serve, ultimately, to
unravel emotional and intellectual support and
focus on the problems we are experiencing
precipitated by those who ignore our
Constitution, and at a time when we obviously
can't afford that in the slightest.
Let me add, that opting for tight legal language
is something that the founding fathers did not
do intentionally. In leaving the constitution
somewhat open in language, it has allowed it
to fit the needs of the country and yet not break
due to brittleness. The problems we
experience today are not a result of the lack of
tight legal language and definition - that is,
tighter than the present language - but are
due to the work as having been written not
being followed as a whole, and by very clear
sections and rules being completely ignored
and trampled upon. If the Constitution were
simply followed as it is clearly written, the
problem would be solved. Since there remain
traitors,crooks and liars in preponderence in
all 3 branches of federal government, it does
not matter WHAT clear rules are written, they
will be ignored. The solution is that - as has
been said by many patriots - only moral and
Christian people are qualified to be ruled by
our set of laws. Men and women without
integrity don't have the courage an dhonesty to
subject themselves to the Constitution and
"play" by it's rules.
SKOUSEN RESPONSE
Both the previous comments are based on an oversimplified view of the constitution and constitutional degredation. If you look at each specific case where the Constitution has been gutted, it has been done by finding novel ways of interpreting its clear but incomplete language
When a critic says, that all we have to do is take the constitution as it is clearly written, and everything will work out fine, he is demonstrating a lack of historical perspective. The language is quite clear--but that is not the issue. The key point is that there are numerous gaping holes in the constitution that allow for mischief or that require stretched interpretations to fill. One such massive hole is the lack of a general definition of what constitutes a fundamental or "unalienable" right. Another s the fact that the bill of rights was not applied to the States, who began to engage in the most egregious monopolies and cronyism imaginable--which inevitably led to cries for more Federal action. Even the 10th amendment gives the residual powers to the states OR the individuals. Guess who is going to claim those residual rights--the states, of course. Socialism at the state level is little better than at the federal level.
Look--do a simple test. Go to my draft constitution and go down to the specific prohibitions of majority rule--especially in the economic realm. Just compare how much harder it is to get around these types of tight legal prohibitions than the current general constitution. Its like night and day. You read this list and you feel a tremendous amount of protection.
Lastly, one commenter complained that it would be dangerous to tamper with our Constituion and try to reform it. First, lets be frank. The Constitution is essentially dead right now. 70% of the judiciary works for the dark side of government, and only rules by the constitution when it is convenient and also to desguise the fact that we have a rigged system behind the scenes. They could be overthrown if everyone became aware of how vast the underlying conspiracy is. Bottom line is that I'm not suggesting a constitutional convention. I'm suggesting we workk out a theoretically workable system and we proselytize a large enough number of people in this ideal system so that when collapse and war does come, we perhaps can impliment a new ideal amongst ourselves. I would not, under any circumstances, want to compete in an establishment "constitutional convention" where all the votes would be rigged against us. We would come out only with a socialist constitution in tight legal language.
This exerice is an ideal one made for patriots and anyone else we can convert to its principles. So let us not dump the whole effort under the problematic criteria that we make something palatable for today's mobocracy.
Joel Skousen
When a philosophical and political system claims to understand and explain the entire universe, it runs the danger of becoming unquestioning, and
disdainful of criticism. It often will not listen to adverse argument, or it may assess those
arguments purely in terms of its own jargon and criteria, which criteria are wholly incapable of
auditing themselves. This philosophy runs the risk of becoming an ideology, with no possibility of further progress. Its only aim, from here, is to propagandize, and mobilize the unenlightened masses to its cause. When this happens, as it has so often before, the world will see the shedding of blood. Idealism is not the answer. The founders of the constitution were not idealists in the Lockean sense. They were concerned with fashioning a system which would keep the people from destroying themselves through factions, at the same time as "obliging the government to control itself."
Your constitutional analysis misses the whole point of the constitution and what the founders were trying to accomplish. You lament the unrepresentative formation of the electorate, and you bemoan the fact that the bill of rights were not enforced against the states. The founders intended this very specifically, because, on the one hand, the people themselves were whom they feared most would undermine their own liberty. They feared, from experience and wisdom, that the people would "call for measures which they themselves will afterward...lament and condemn" (Federalist 10) and that they would destroy themselves by their own factions. They looked to the Greek republics, where there arose factions that would either war with each other until the entire system dissolved, or an overwhelming majority would crush the minority, and silence their movement,thereby defeating the attempt at liberty. Since the Union and each of its member states were already bigger than any of the Greek
city-states, Madison proposed that this, of itself, presented the solution. He disagreed with the common idea that a large government would be riddled with massive, passionate contingents that would utterly destroy the minority. He instead proposed that the very force of man's nature that created factions (that is, differences of preferences and ideas for policy,) would, in a large republic, keep any main body from gaining control. If the republic
is large enough, then there will exist enough differences between the citizens that many small factions will exist, and in order for there to exist a majority, these small factions must coalesce and compromise their desires. This, Madison claimed, and history has borne him out, would eliminate the factions' grossest demands and keep the people from having fits of mania, and keep them from destroying each other.
As for your other alarm, that the bill of rights was not imposed against the states, this also was on purpose, for the very reason that government, particularly the large, federal government, must be obliged to control itself. The federal government was not given, nor ever meant to have, power over the states. The states are not provinces. They are states. Sovereign and united, sharing power with, not subjugated to, the federal government. The bill of rights was not meant to be an embodiment of "inalienable rights," whatever that could mean, but simply as a listing of certain rights which a free society was seen not to be able to function without. I don't have room here to talk on this antiquated idea of "natural rights," but it invariably must stem from some idea of "the natural man," as if man had a nature like a rock or a tree. Perhaps you are a prophet, a Great Philosopher as Plato of old, able to gaze upon the forms in their untouched, and untouchable pristine state, but I for one can find no such nature...whatever you call nature, I call nothing more than our time's way of being. We are BE-ings, not "are's". Being is a process, a continual ebb and flow of change, a perpetual "not yet" always directed at something, yet when we get there, we only find that we must be directed at something else--just as we drive for the horizon, only to find when we get there that a new horizon awaits us. So is our nature, this continual becoming, wherein our very understanding of ourselves must continually be reworked, understood anew as we face new things. For anyone to boil us down as the scientist boils down the elements to a list of properties misses the very thing which makes us human, that very center of our being, directedness towards something which we are not yet. As such, what you call inalienable rights, while I may not disagree with what you say in substance, I must disagree with how you frame them as the fundamental, the irreducible primary of our existence. That is the reason which at least today we may look to for a refusal in the constitution for a general definition of "inalienable rights."
Do not be so quick to think that your idealism, your theoretical system, will solve our problems. Our problems are real, that I do not dispute. But they are historical--just like us, they have devoloped over time, through history, through mistakes. And so they must be worked out through history, and yes, through mistakes. The founders of the constitution understood this, and they thus did not attempt a reordering of of the very constitution of society--only tweaking the government, which is but a moment in our being. Look at those who have attempted to cut the line from historical institutions, in their own hubris, in order to reconstitute society. Be careful, or your name might end up among the ranks of Lenin, Robespierre, Mussolini. They also thought they knew better.
Very sincerely,
Andrew F. Peterson,
2nd year student at the University of Kansas School of Law
Hi _ I must comment on the idea that "state", as compared to "federal", socialism are almost the same. 1) States cannot print what we call "money" which makes them far less powerful. 2) Most voters live relatively close to the "center of power", which gives them more leverage to do "their thing" Example: The gov of Illinois recently had a pie pushed into his face by a student. This could not likely happen in the white house. Etc Etc
Joel,
I'm intrigued by your idea for an alternative electoral system. I've not been a fan of single-member districts, and although the proportional representation/list system was appealing it had some serious drawbacks as well.
My question is this: what would stop one of the Big Two from fielding more than one candidate for a particular seat? Would you have some sort electoral restriction on such an action, and if so how would you respond to those that would say you are interfering with their right to choose who their representatives are?
Also, if there was such a restriction, would there be any way to stop a Democratic or GOP "secondary" candidate from declaring his or her independence and running their campaign on those terms, thus evading the restriction?
Very well written comments but we not can fix human beings love of abosolute power through the political process. There is no evidence that this has ever worked. Umtil the human species decides to operate on a higher spiritual level nothing will change. We are all on a spiritual jouney and until we understand that liberty and freedom come from within not given to us from some government we set up we all are going to have to learn the hard way. We cannot plan a society by laws it is obvious that laws do nothing. How many laws have been broken by the government that is supposed to uphold them. At this point there is no fixing government only surviving physically and growing spiritually. Each generation is losing its underdstanding of real freedom. IF you have ever read any of George Washington's writings one can sense his strong belief in the spirit of man. That is all we have and need. There is no plan or way to set up a society to enforce people to be on a higher spiritual level. The Founding Fathers knew this so they set up a framework for people to remember that they are already free despite what any so called government does or does not do.
Monday 5-29 10am says it all. Once a character like Clinton learns how to manipulate the "system" for his own purposes, the game is over. You'll have to hand it to Bill - he has covered all the bases and can get away with ANYTHING. "Slick Willie" is a great understatement. He is a master and his wife is only half a step behind him.
You're missing the point. Yes, this government has gone way beyond the point of fixing -- that has been apparent for years. All this century, those in control of government have done nothing but work on a plan to step by step undermine the sovereignty of this nation (and others) and the liberties of its citizens. The plan has worked (and is working) so well that few in America realize their rights have already effectively been taken away, much less had the opportunity to protest.
But we're not talking about this government. We're talking about the chance, however small, that may come in the future to build a new government, with a new Constitution that better defines exactly what the fundamental rights of the individual are, so that it can better defend those rights. The Founding Fathers had that opportunity, and thankfully they had enough understanding of the rights of individuals to set up a Constitutional framework that has been the best we know of. But it has its faults, faults which have been exploited and worked around by enemies of liberty to effectively erode the rights of American citizens. The right to ownership of property is a fine example. Originally, the words in the Preamble were to have stated "life, liberty, and property" but the last was changed to "the pursuit of happiness" because it had a more poetic ring. Maybe the F.F.'s took the right of property ownership (and of setting aside that property for inheritance) for granted, and so thought the phrase was expendable. Now, citizens of America do not own their property, but merely lease it from the state, perhaps for their whole lifetime. Upon death, however, a person no longer has the right to reserve their "own" property for their children -- it goes right back to the state without compensation. A major loss of a fundamental liberty that could have been avoided by incorporating the right of property ownership clearly in the original Constitution.
There are many other examples -- but all center around what Joel has termed "fundamental rights," namely life, liberty, ownership, and self-defense. I for one agree with these designations. And I would feel much more secure being party to a government that recognized and set out to defend these rights above all other claims -- from either the government itself, or from individuals. I wish I could take comfort in the knowlege that we are free regardless of what government does, and I have the sense that it may be the only thread of consolation to turn to in the near future, as the undermining of individuals' rights becomes more and more blatant and obvious. But if I had the chance to be part of an effort to "start over," with a group of people who clearly understood human liberties and were willing to fight to defend them, I would grab onto it, learning what I could and contributing what I know. This is not a case of one man setting himself up to be ruler of a society. This is a question put to all of us concerning what exactly constitutes fundamental human freedom, and how can we best set up a Constitution to defend such. We would do well to think critically about this notion and contribute what we can.
First an ADMIN issue: This thread is getting difficult to respond to because of excessive use of the title "anonymous". There are too many people using this name and it is impossible to know who I am responding to. If you wish to remain anon--pick a pseudonym please, but don't use anonymous anymore. Please!
I am frustrated by the comments of Andrew, the second year law student. His comments are too general and ethereal so as to be hard to pin down without a long discourse. I feel he over-represents the enlightenment and intentions of the founders, and misrepresents the intentions of this entire proposal--which he accuses of attempting to explain the entire universe. That's an unfair representation.
I too have studied all the works of the founders--who were quite diverse and didn't speak with as much unanimity as he suggests. But since they represented their own states, they tended to shield the states from the same restrictions they tried to put upon the federal side. I think the Virginians clearly were convinced that they would never violate the rights of their citizens--so no need to apply the bill of rights to the states, they assumed. But they also knew that other states (not so enlightened) were already violating the rights of their citizens. But they couldn't move against those states without making restrictions apply to all others. Also, there was the somewhat unspoken protection of state sovereignty on the slavery issue. Applying the Bill of Rights would have allowed a challenge to slavery which would have broken the convention apart.
They also were fearful of a bill of rights because they, in fact, had never tried to work out a logical definition of rights. You can't find in any of the writings of the founders a workable definition of fundamental rights. In those days, they sometimes simply took on notions from other writers who had gone before. "Inalienable" was one of those. It is a complex idea based on certain religious assumptions of God acting in controlling ways, that may or may not be true. In any case, rights are clearly not inalienable--and can be contracted away in a variety of ways.
The argument made by another that the language of the constitution had to be general or loose to allow it to expand or adapt to modern times is only sometimes true. It is completely untrue when you want to forever prohibit government from doing certain dangerous things. If you see the language I propose, you can see this distinction clearly. That's why we need to get down to more detailed analysis instead of dealing with old clichés that don't always hold true.
Further, if you ever get a chance to study the history of case law in state vs federal issues you will see a whole litany of cases where the federal government was petitioned to intervene in state affairs because the states were trampling on individual rights. The imprecise language of the latter part of the 10th amendment did us a great disservice in leaving all residual rights to the states OR the individual. Guess who assumed all the rights--the state governments. The States engaged in church state relationships, monopoly business practices, and many other forms of tyranny. I'm all for sovereignty, but not unlimited state sovereignty with unlimited majoritarian powers. That is why all levels of government in my proposed system are prohibited from violating fundamental rights. There is no virtue in oppression simply because it is done by our "local" or state leaders. The result is the same.
Andrew claims that I have missed the whole point of the constitution. I beg to differ. The whole point was to stop government tyranny while facilitating a stronger federal government to end state squabbling and weakness so they could build a coherant and defensible nation. They tried hard to limit the federal government but the courts undid what they intended. The states clearly betrayed the founders excessive confidence in the States committment to liberty. They correctly judged the foibles of raw democracy but failed to foresee the corruption of state politics.
I have, above all else, taken great care to curtail government majoritarian tyranny at both the federal and state level. I have also made it supremely difficult to corrupt this system by judicial interpretation. How then did I miss the grand purposes of the constitution? I will agree I have gone beyond what the founders proposed, but I am clearly in the same camp as they as to my committment to curtail tyranny.
The bottom line is, that in generalized criticism of these efforts, you still fail to answer the crucial proposals I am making. I gave out the challenge to take the individual proposals on specific restrictions to government actions and see if they do, in fact, make it MUCH harder, if not impossible to violate fundamental rights. So far, except for one or two of the comments you have failed to address that challenge.
I'm willing to entertain your general, non-specific arguments only after we settle the key changes I have proposed. Let's address their specific utility. If most of them fail to halt tyranny and slow judicial corruption, and we cannot amend them to do a better job, then I will admit defeat--but I don't feel there is benefit in staying in the clouds arguing about unprovable generalities or historical past failures when we need to get down to the business of addressing these proposed reforms.
Now, back to the issue of this election thread--let me answer the one question that addressed the topic. What keeps the big parties from running multiple candidates and filling up the election slots with liberals? I don't think special a litmus test for ideology or party affiliation are necessary. Slick politicians could always skirt the rules, I think.
If the powers that be try to stack the candidates with liberals or moderates to crowd out minority views, they will simply split their own votes. If they have such a whopping majority of non thinkers for voters, that liberals can win all slots, then, yes, they may well take all the seats in a district.
But I think the ideological minorities will be able to pick out the candidates who really represent their views. They will have to learn to be savvy enough to pool their votes during a runoff to make sure one of the alternative candidates wins. It's not perfect, but I believe it gives people incentives to do less compromising that is required to always field a candidate capable of wining more than 50%--that almost always guarantees a compromiser.
Joel Skousen
I sent this to Joel earlier by email but also want it posted here. I'm going to read everbody else's comments here later today. Did not see anyone commenting on IRV though so I'm passing this on:
http://www.nj.com/editorial/times/index.ssf?/editorial/times/10-27-1WQC13ZC.html
Joel, for your newsletter and/or forthcoming book (which I will buy for sure)...
Aside from voting for George Bush for the short run, I think the most important
thing a fighter for liberty can do is to focus on getting Instant Runoff Voting
(IRV) on state or federal ballots. See http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html
for the best web page on this but see this editorial attached. It shows
that an indirect result of Nader might be to accelerate this development.
Also see http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2000/09/26/7.html by Tom Wicker, a
former columnist for New York Times on IRV.
Had IRV been on the ballot in 1992, Bush would have beaten Clinton. Had IRV
been on the ballot in 1998 in Minnesota, GOP candidate Norm Coleman would
probably have beaten Jesse Ventura.
As long as it was the GOP being hurt by 3rd party candidates the media ignored
solutions to this dilemna but thankfully now that the liberals are being hurt
by the 3rd party candidate, they're bringing the neat solution of IRV to see
the light of day.
I hope that you promote this incredibly pro-liberty solution.
I can see the result of IRV in future elections. Almost all pro-liberty
voters would either vote for the Constitution Party as 1st choice and
the GOP candidate as 2nd choice (except the pro-death libertarians who'd
vote for the Libertarian candidate or the pro-trade-protectionists who'd
vote for the Reform Party) but they would vote for the GOP candidate as
2nd choice. The GOP would still have as good or better chance at
winning but they'd hear from the voters that the GOP approach to
compromising with liberals is not selling well and that those who favor
the approach of our forefathers 200 years ago is strong and still alive.
Hope to hear you jump on this incredibly important bandwagon. Please at least
read the material on IRV that I pointed you to.
Sincerely,
Roleigh Martin
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Martin, but IRV sounds like the "winner" gets say they had a majority of votes, when in reality they didn't . . .
In IRV, if someone gets a majority up front, then
the IRV feature does not activate. If it gets
activated, I'd assume (I can't say for sure, I'll
see if I can find out), people would be told how
the vote came to be (how much of the winner got
his vote via "first choice", via "2nd choice",
via "3rd choice", etc).
I think IRV is simply putting a different face on the real problem: democracy.
How about changing the funding of elections. It has (to me) become evident that regardless of who is elected,(or by what means they might be elected - majority rule or IRV), loyalties are soon usurped to the funders of the campaign, and it is they who dictate what the politician will do or say. Having a public funded election will effectively eliminate the power of the private funders, which in turn will put the voting public back in control of the politician, which is my understanding of what a democracy should be. For me this is one of the few changes that could actually be done (without challenging the Constitution), that would immediately benefit a political system (that failed to be a democracy the moment it was decided that you could use your own money or corporate soft money to buy your votes). You could maybe even require the media to provide free time for the candidates (instead of putting on such wonderful shows as the "Millionaire Joe"). Just an idea.
Quote:Having a public funded election will effectively eliminate the power of the private funders...
The problem here is that to "eliminate the power of the private funders", you must ban the private funding of political candidates. Such legislation would *definitely* challenge the Constitution. It would be a direct abridgement of the right to free speech, for one. And the right to dispose of property, for another. Citizens would effectively be prohibited in fully participating in the political process, and such legislation would create a chilling effect on political participation.
Quote:You could maybe even require the media to provide free time for the candidates...
Again, this would be a severe violation of the right of property. If I own a media outlet of some sort, it is mine and at my own disposal. Nobody has a right to dictate how I am to use my property. This would be akin to requiring every home to put a sign promoting each candidate in their front yard (since some homes do bear signs of specific candidates). But your yard is your property and the government has no right to force you to promote someone you do not want to promote. Nor do they have the right to require the placement of any object on your property, regardless of political significance.
While it is true that some candidates enjoy much larger funding than others, no matter how many commercial spots a candidate purchases, people vote based upon what they see and what they think of a candidate. Therefore, the concept of "buying votes" in an election for office is a misnomer. No amount of money a candidate spends on a campaign can, by itself, generate votes. That is not decided by commercial spots. Take Ross Perot, for instance. He had more funding than anyone, but he fell well short of the mark. Twice.
We must find solutions to these electorial problems that do not encroach on fundamental rights. To do otherwise sacrifices the very thing we're attempting to secure.