Here it is: A New America?
Imagine the American governmental system for a moment; a national democracy divided into fifty states. The federal system makes fairly clear sense, one governmental body (divided up, yes, but still functioning as a whole) for one nation. Looking a bit closer, however, there are fifty smaller governed zones each independent of the other. It is not as if these smaller zones simply represent or divide up the onerous tasks of the one larger government, each of these zones can enact laws exclusive to itself (within limits). The strange part, in my opinion, comes in the nature of these boundaries. For the modern-day citizen these borders are absolutely arbitrary. Certainly they had historical significance, but in reality what purpose do they serve today? They are of no uniform size, they do not divide up the population evenly, they are not spread across the nation evenly, neither do they divide people up on any basis other than their physical address. Perhaps in the past this was effective, before the industrial revolution especially, but people today travel great distances, often crossing state boundaries, on a daily if not even more frequent basis. This is especially true online, where these boundaries entirely disappear. (I should state that my argument is not based on the internet, it is only corroborating evidence). When all is said and done, the boundaries are essentially meaningless.
What if we had a new system of boundaries, not based on physical location, but based rather on ideas, principles, or some other non-geographical factor. I speak mainly in reference to boundaries as they affect democractic representation. There are some very good reasons for geographical divisions, such as a tax base for building roads and such. But, getting back to the point, geography no longer says anything about a person's ideals or interests. Perhaps long ago a community consisted not only of one geographical location, but also a group of like-minded people. I don't think I need to offer evidence that this is no longer the case.
So, as I said, why should geography play any part in how a person is represented to, or by, their government? Why should my representative in the federal goverment represent me solely by where my physical address is located? What does Texas say about me, whether wrong or right? It is true that the representatives are elected by the people of the state, but as we already know, the majority rules. Therefore, only one party (in a two party system) really has the power when choosing an official. It is also true that elections are staggered, and the overall body of officials rarely represents only one political party. But again, this is decided by geography.
How could the system be restructured to allow for ideological "zones"? I don't know, that's sort of what I wanted feedback on. I have some ideas but they all have noticeable flaws. I'm working on refining an idea that I will present as a comment later. So, if you guys even care, what do you think about this?
posted by Seamus at 1:07 PM
15 Comments:
I've been trying to think of a way that the government could somehow represent multiple parties at the same time, just like each of the 50 states has unique representation and its own smaller government to enact policies/laws for its particular citizens.
In theory you could simply have a certain number of parties that the population of America registers into, and then votes for leaders of that party. That party could then enact certain laws specific to its own citizens (such as taxes). There are some, really most, laws that would need to be uniform for each American. Perhaps there could be a flat American tax for use by the government as a whole (so even citizes of smaller parties have equity in what the government can do for them) and each party could have anywhere from a 0 to x% additional tax base to pay for its particular activities and for its particular citizens. Really its just like the states now, except the boundaries between them are a matter of choice, not geographical address.
It seems like, in a system like this, a person would have to stay in the party they vote for; at least for the duration of the leader they elected. Otherwise people would flip-flop to influence other parties or jump-ship on their own on a whim.
The only major flaw I can see, is that a smaller party could do much less for its own citizens. This is why there would have to be some sort of nation-wide government, so that even smaller parties could serve their constituents. (kindof like the states vs. the federal govt. now)
4:12 PM
I should say that I don't mean to indicate that there should be the same number of ideological parties as there are states. I was thinking there would be more like 2-4.
5:06 PM
Not one of the TWM have a comment on this?
8:34 PM
Well, this is a very intriguing post. I, of course, am not a strong proponent of individual state power since I don't believe states should be able to violate the civil/human rights of its citizens, as we have seen in the past with slavery, segregation, etc. and I find state regulation fairly inneffective unless every state agrees to it. But I would say that many would argue that a) geographical location is important to many people. Many, especially like in Texas, take pride in their state just as much if not more than their country. I do not, but many feel thsi way. b) Many would also argue that ideological differences are apparent across state boundries (though only in an overall view) - red states vs. blue states and all that jazz. So basically, people see each of the 50 states as having a unique cultural and ideological identity they would not want to see demolished.
As for a proportional system of government, I don't think people would like it, because in America at least, voters like to vote for candidates, not parties. Yes, many tend to vote for candidates of one party most of the time, but as a partisan myself, I would not want to just vote for the "Democratic Party" and have them decide who gets to be in office. Now I know you don't intend their to be only 2 parties at this point, but if you look at say Italy where there are 10 or more parties, this can cause problems.
Political science studies have shown that, politically, the process doesn't end up too much different, or has unique problems, because parties have to end up forming coalitions anyway to get legislation passed (say the leftist party and center-left party). People have more choices (though again only in terms of party, and not candidates), and I suppose you can argue this is better in itself, but if in the end, two different ideological groups have to come together to make a compromise anyway I'm not sure how great a difference we will see.
To throw in another idea, I know there are people who've opposed abolishing the Senate or at least weaking it to the advisory but no consent level of say the House of Lords in the UK. I find this an interesting idea whose implication is implausible, altough of course, a liberal Democrat like me has no reason to care for a system in which the more powerful legislative house has half its members come from 18% of the population (read: mostly small, rural conservative states).
6:49 AM
I don't see exactly how we could divorce our politics from geographical location. I mean, what about interstate highways? Geographical differences themselves make the basis for political differences. For example, New Englanders might vote against the federal government giving us several billion dollars in aid for a new highway (or rebuilding an old one).
But that's really tangential. As much as people attempt to do it now, ideological isolation is basically un-American in my opinion. Geographical isolation allows some to be politically isolated (Amish, for example), but at least in those cases they aren't legislating anything that has anything to do with anyone else. I honestly think it is a good thing that in a place like Texas, for a majority to exist the minorities must be included. This reflects what Adam was saying, that political coalitions have to occur for things to happen. I don't know about you guys, but I think that's what democracy is about, and that's what I want.
9:00 AM
I'm somewhat surprised that nat-wu and adam aruge that states are ideologically homogenous. Remember that Texas voted for Bush to be president? That does NOT reflect your vote, your vote ultimately decided nothing for the president because TEXAS said so. What I am saying, is that geography ultimately says nothing about a person's ideas or political leanings; just as in your case. Strictly because of where you live (Texas) your presidential vote ultimately accomplished very little. If you were living somewhere else it may have had a different effect. I'd like to see a system that had no regard for geography (in terms of political representation) so that no matter where you lived, you were still pitching your vote for your candidate and your vote counted just as much as anyone else's.
And as for geographical boundaries, I don't think they should disappear. There are no-doubt good reasons for them just like Nat-Wu said. And like my original article said, I know that local governments would still need to functional geographically. I'm talking more about the larger system.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a system where regardless of where you live, your vote empowered your candidate of choice (whether president, representative, or whatever) and your neighbors didn't speak for you? I know that Dallas doesn't speak for me, nor my apartment complex, nor Texas. But people who think like I do can represent me no matter where they live.
9:24 AM
I agree with adam and Nat-Wu that coaltions need to exist in a democracy, and I think the system I'm envisioning does a lot to help that.
Wouldn't it be better if all democrats (or whatever party) voted together for a certain number of representatives that represented them as a whole to the government? And likewise republicans, or green party members, or whatever. In this way even a very small party can send a representative to washington and wouldn't be clobbered by their neighbors whim whom they share nothing.
And, moving from there, I think it would be even more interesting to see a system where your "party" also affected your taxes and/or available government programs.
Realistically, do any of us even really know our neighbors? Honestly? And do any of us really make much effort to know and work with our physical neighbors? Do you know what your neighbors want to see enacted in the government? Most Americans, I believe, hardly know their neihbors except when they are too loud.
I think America's democratic system is good, and I'm all for a republic. I just think, that since society and technology and culture has changed so much, our boundaries and representation should relfect that.
9:42 AM
Well, if you're seeking to solve the problem of the electoral college (a problem I agree needs solving) it would be much easier to simply change it so that states would give proportional electoral votes based on the proportions of citizens' votes. That's something I would much prefer. However, the framers of the Constitution set our system up because proportional representation was considered to be worse for the minorities, a point we might debate about now, but I really think the two-party system is as harmful to us as helpful. Alex and Adam differ with me on this, but I think having parties written into our politics is extremely hurtful to us. I'm not really excited by the idea of having even more parties.
10:14 AM
I see merit in the idea of making the electoral college votes divided up proportionally based on the popular vote. That would help with the presidential election.
But what about geographical zones for representatives? That problem still exists.
10:46 AM
I don't necesarrily disagree that parties are bad to some extent, it's just that they are necesarry. Party identity is very helpful in knowing where a candidate is coming from which is especially useful since most people don't spend lots of time researching the candidates through and through. I mean, they should, but they aren't going to.
3:26 PM
This is a really good conversation you guys have going, and I'm reading some really intruging ideas. I'll throw in my two cents worth:
1. I do believe that States are unique geographical entities deserving of respect as political entities. It would far too strange for us as Americans to envisage a system where though states are still unique geographically, they are no longer unique politically. So in other words, I do believe that states should still constitute the building blocks of our political system.
2. Having said that, I do believe that the system needs some changes, the more dramatic the better. Our system is based on a "winner-take-all" approach at all levels, where the candidates of parties run directly against each other and whoever gets the most votes, even if by 1 vote, is the absolute winner. Given the power of the present parties to make institutional changes to preserve their power, they have the ability to create a near complete monopoly, and those of a minority political background, unless they are in a position to sway the parties against each other, are left out in the cold. I would much rather see a proportional system put into effect for the House, where voters elect a slate of candidates and those candidates are chosen by the proportion of votes they garner. Of course the two major parties would still get the most candidates in, but this would leave room for minor parties to get there's in as well. It would also have the side-effect of undercutting the importance of redistricting and gerry-mandering, neither party of which can be trusted to handle this process.
3. Having said that, I do still believe in the larger overall system, of the House and the Senate. I believe that the wisdom of the founders in creating this system still holds true. The Senate does give disproportionate power to the states, but that is it's purpose. And not only that, but they also seem to act in their other purpose, as a check agains the more popular passions of the House (witness the recent anti-torture bill, opposed by both House Republicans and the administration.) I think that service is far too valuable to do away with, to have a system of complete proportional legislative representation.
4. Lastly, I guess I've become a fairly strong proponent of states' rights. Unlike some people, for me this is not a buzzword for states being able to legislate against the federal constitution. Rather, I believe the extension of the rights of the constitution to Americans as citiziens of various states, is adequate protection against states' overreaching. And as we've seen, the states have the power to grant even more rights to their citizens (see Mass. and gay marriage) even in the face of federal hostility to such a thing. The reality of 50 different states, as little labs for various sorts of political and cultural ideas, is one of our country's greatest strengths.
7:46 AM
I'm impressed that we all actually accomplished a friendly yet motivated discussion with people from very different political perspectives.
I wonder if the House could ever change. Do any of you think its possible? It would challenge the constitution itself.
8:14 AM
Well, whatever our political interests, I would think none of us here are so partisan that we can't rise above them to discuss solutions to an issue that's important to all Americans. We all firmly believe in democracy, and would like to see the will of the people executed, though we may differ as to how best to bring that about.
So we all agree there should be some change, but will it ever come about? I hate to say it but I'm pretty pessimistic on that score. Like you say we'd have to meet the highest possible hurdle, an amendment to the constitution itself. Considering that any change we propose would almost certainly weaken the grip of the two parties in power, they're bound to fight it tooth and nail. I think if you were going to start change, it has to begin at a grass-roots levels, but because most people aren't even aware of the alternatives to our current system, we're talking about years, if not decades, of public education on the topic before you can hope for change.
8:59 AM
I think the fundamental roadblock is the way our two dominant parties have written themselves into our politics. I dislike both parties for doing it, but right now we have too many people who see the advantages they provide as worth more than the disadvantages they present to be able to affect change in the system. We and our movement would have to take on both parties, each of which is a juggernaut compared to anything we could come up with. To change laws, we'd first have to come up as a third-party movement made up of people whose platform is that we want to split up into smaller parties. It would be pretty difficult to do, I think.
6:08 PM
I think what we need is more run-offs. Again, even though I'm one of the more partisan people here, I do not like the idea of voting for parties, but for candidates.
12:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home