Writer's Block: Change of Law

[grysar]

[Error: unknown template qotd]I'd change the U.S. electoral laws. Switch the Senate to being elected by proportional vote (dropping the two Senators to a state thing), get house races more competitive (I don't particularly care which of many good options would be used) and the Presidency to Single Transferable Vote or something like it.

I think those changes would help revitalize our Congress and that other reforms I support would be popular enough to get through the resulting more democratic system. I'm a bit too much of a good governance type to implement my other policies by fiat.

Comments

[maniac-brainiac.livejournal.com]

The problem with a proportional vote (as it applies in Canadian government, anyway) is that it can hold an entire country hostage to the current ideals of the most populated region. In our case, Ontario is the most populated province, and therefore has the most parliament members. In a majority government, the will of the rest of the country is sublimated to the party line. Canada was held in a Conservative stranglehold for years because of our proportional vote. It was only after a major crisis in government (and votes of non-confidence) that we were able to see radical change.

Even so, lasting positive change comes slowly, if at all.

Would you do away with the electoral college?

[grysar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, electoral college would be totally gone.

You raise a fair point.

I was actually thinking of taking the states out of entirely for the Senate. More populace regions would probably have an economics of scale advantage, but not to the extent that California arbitrarily run our government or something. Although even if it was redistributed among the states, I don't think we'd have Canada's problem because we have many more states thus finer gradation.

[vexrm.livejournal.com]

umm...
Wasn't the senate specificly set up TO be the way it is and the house set up to represent the populace? IE one where all states are equal and one for majority rules?

I kindof like that balance. It's not perfect but it could blow too hard the other way quickly.

[rowyn2001.livejournal.com]

Yes. So long as we take gerrymandering out of the equation (which would be difficult because it'd presume congressmen wouldn't have their own agenda), the Senate/House split is, in my point of view, a way to establish a cultural standard. If you have everything driven by popular vote, then it becomes more easily to have a "tyranny of the majority" where those in excessively concentrated areas could drain funds, projects, and policies, away from those who have less. Of course, one could argue in a utilitarian fashion: That the job of the government is to facilitate the wants and needs of the greatest amount of people possible, but that leaves fringe groups without popular representation out adrift without a lifeline.

Having the Senate and House balance each other I've always thought was a good idea from the founders to make sure that the *popular* opinion is heard (i.e. in the house) and the cultural, regional voices needs are heard (in the Senate) and given equal weight. The "popular" vote is doubly heard in the office of the President in a way, since the electoral college allows us to indirectly influence the outcome, so, as vexrm said, it's not perfect but would be hard to get the same effect otherwise without going too far the other way.

Now what I *would* change about the Senate is the length of terms. It gets people too cushy in those positions and they start losing more and more the voice even of their constituency. Which, if you followed my argument thus far, isn't what I agree with the Senate to be representing. How exactly I'd change it? I'm not entirely sure. Term limits? 6 years staggers things out a bit and has more old-boy, seasoned mentality to it. 2 years with more lenient term limits providing they are doing a proper job maybe? It's hard to tell.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm intentionally undoing what the founders intentionally did. The Senate doesn't protect minority rights, the Senate was where the civil rights movement had to fight its toughest battles. Instead the Senate gives disproprionate power to people who live in underpopulated states.

Under my system, proportional voting, you could get more small parties in (it would probably still be two big parties, that's fairly common). Those smaller parties could represent minority views. I think that ideological diversity is more important than regional diversity.