Electoral Fantasies

We stand on the brink on the brink of losing the health care battle once again. And this time, it doesn't seem to be the Harry and Louise ads that's stopping it. Sure, the vast amounts of advertising dollars spent by the lobbyists are sufficient to throw an ugly smokescreen over it. And it doesn't help with CNN and other network's skeptical and negative reporting. But I think this time the real problem lies with a handful of blue dog legislators who seem to owe more allegiance to their large corporate contributors than they do to the people that elected them. The American people want health care reform. They may get confused about the specifics, but they know this...they want access, they don't want to be denied care, they don't want to go bankrupt to save a family member, they are tired of ding constant battle with a profit-driven system.

So how could health care reform (with the absolute necessity of a public option) be in such jeopardy. Because our electoral has driven a disconnect between our lawmakers and the legislation they support. There are many important things that can be done to reestablish the connection between lawmakers and their constituents. Campaign reform, including greater restrictions on large donors and lobbyists, has it's place. So does more uniform and verifiable voting procedures. Freer access to the media, with blocks of time granted to major candidates is a necessity. But none of this may be sufficient to reconnect the voter to the value of his vote.

I vote in south Georgia. I'm a strong progressive/liberal voting in one of the most reactionary districts on the planet. For me to find a voice that will even listen to me, I have to adopt out of state. Since there is no chance for a progressive to win here, progressive voices are NEVER HEARD. Bless Howard Dean and his fifty state strategy, but it was only the first step.

What I propose may be fantasy, but I really believe were it to be adopted it would re energize and reengage the voting population.

PROPOSITION ONE: Elect the President by majority vote. Make the ballot qualification procedure uniform across the United States, allowing major parties AND independents opportunity to compete for President. If no one garners a majority of votes, have a run off after a three week campaign. The President's major loyalty needs to be to the American people and American interests more than political party, and this would ensure that a candidate who could garner a majority of votes would become President. Independents might do well because most Americans aren't really one party or another, but want someone who can work with all groups and get things done. I would keep the present two-term term limits.

PROPOSITION TWO: Each state should elect a Senator every two years. That means increasing the size of that body from 100 to 150, each state having three Senators. Senators should also be elected by majority vote, but each state could determine how that would be done, including perhaps instant runoff voting. I would limit terms to three. That's eighteen years! It's been embarrassing to watch people like Lieberman and Specter act like they should be entitled to remain Senators forever. This keep the Senate as a deliberative body, but increase voter's input and helps prevent someone from becoming a thirty-plus year's lobbyist's friend.

PROPOSITION THREE: The House of Representatives should be greatly expanded in size, perhaps to triple or quadruple it's current number. Sound frightening. Well, it's supposed to be the people's body. Even tripling the number does not restore the ratio of representative to constituent that was originally envisioned. As far as costs, it's the staff size that's expensive. If they were a shared staff structure, that would help alleviate that. But the bottom line is...nobody said democracy should be cheap. This increase would allow for a proportional representation system. Instead of a district voting for an individual, it could vote for a slate of candidates representing a political party or philosophy. This could be done statewide, or by selected districts. Or some could be elected by district, and some statewide. It would mean that, even though I might represent only a third of the voters in Georgia, I still might have a representative, a voice in congress. What better way to re-engage the voting population than to give them hope that their vote could MEAN SOMETHING. I would limit terms to ten years - it is supposed to be the people, after all, not permanently entrenched bureaucrats.

I welcome comments of all kinds. I have so far been a failure in attracting people to this blog, but I will not stop trying.
If anyone has any suggestions in that regard I would also welcome them.