Look, I'm no political expert, I have only a Bachelor's degree in international relations. But even I can see what's ruining politics in this country and here's my plan to fix it. The problem is all these "fixes" are probably never going to happen for the very fact that they exist. It's a catch-22 in that regard.
1. Campaign finance reform
Our government was set up to be a government of the people. Now it seems we have become a government of the money. Money, and therefore bribery, has infiltrated the halls of Congress by way of campaign spending. Rich individuals and rich interest groups can effectively buy candidates thanks to a campaign finance loophole that allows PACs and Super PACs. If you want to run for election in this country, you need either rich friends or to be rich yourself. Scholars have figured out that we don't live in a democracy any more, but an oligarchy. A country run by the elite. To fix this, we need to set a definitive limit on campaign spending and make Political Action Committees illegal. Money does not equal free speech. The end.
2. Senate and House term limits
Take Orrin Hatch. He's 81 and has been a Utah Senator since 1977 -- that's almost four decades. Not only is he old and needs to retire, but he is out of tune with Utah and stuck in his ways. Sure, you can say that he is "experienced," but his incumbency every six years means that no new voices with fresh ideas stand a chance to take his seat. Plus, he hasn't lived in Utah in 38 years, he's lived in Washington. How can he really represent his constituents when he doesn't know them? And living and working in Washington for 38 years will only make one jaded and lost in the games of politics.
Term limits mean a couple of things. It means no career politicians who become out of touch with the public. It means once a politician's term limit is approaching and he or she isn't worrying about winning the next election, they can actually work on tough, controversial legislation without fear of how their efforts and opinions could be misconstrued during the election cycle. Some people call presidents in their last term "lame ducks," but it must be a liberating feeling to know that they can fearlessly follow their conscience and freely do the job we've entrusted them to do.
3. Proportional representation for the House (and state legislatures)
Here's the biggie. I'm sick of our winner-takes-all system that has led to gerrymandering and extremist politicians. Proportional representation is the system the UK and most other democracies in the world follow. In fact, when the US goes into and "sets up democracies" in other countries, as we most "nobly" do all the time, we usually design a proportional representation system instead of our own winner-takes-all.
The difference is this:
In the current system, for House congressional elections we have electoral districts where 1 district = 1 candidate. That means whichever candidate with the largest share of the vote wins. It sounds simple enough, but it has led to our two party system and, thanks also to closed and caucus primaries, a polarizing of ideologies in Washington. It has also caused the gerrymandering of districts to make an all-Republican or all-Democrat area. I think the winner-takes-all system has led to our legislation stalemate.
Instead, a proportional representation gives a proportional number of seats to a proportional amount of votes. For example, the state of Washington has 10 representatives serving in the House. In an election year, if 40% of the votes went to the Democrats, then they would win 4 of the 10 seats. If 30% went to the Republicans, then they would win 3 of the 10 seats. If 20% went to Independents, they would get 2 seat. And if 10% went to the Libertarians, they get 1 seat. This allows smaller parties entry into government, allows more voices, and makes for a more competitive election because not only is the Democratic party fighting for a greater number of seats, but candidates within the party are fighting each other to sit in the seats their party will be allotted. On the ballots, we would vote for both parties and candidates.
4. Open primaries for the Senate
Since the Senate already doesn't have districts, the way to end the polarization of ideologies is to allow for open primaries. Or, at least, non-caucus primaries. When we hold caucuses, only the most politically-exuberant people come. They can take all day and can be boring if you're an average human. Meaning, the people with the most vehement and often extremist views are left in charge of electing the candidate who will represent us all in the general election. It makes no sense. Instead, we should have primaries with all candidates listed and the top two (no matter what party) move on to the general election.
So, there you have it. The Deborah Sutton approved guide to fixing our government.
Oh, and we need more women in congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment