Political and Electoral Reform

Denerick

American politics is broken because the nature of its democracy encourages vastly mobilised groups of citizens to be in a state of constant outrage. This was the case with the Democratic party machine of the late 19th century and with the tea party extremists within the Republican party today. It is also broken because every two years a major election takes place. This prevents any real governing strategy or long term decision making, as all politics is essentially election politics - there is literally never a time when any organ of the government is not in election mode. Senators are elected to six year terms but a third of senate faces re-election every two years. The entire house is up for grabs every two years. The President is by and large fine, but he also must campaign on behalf of his party practically every week. This gives American politics a decidedly dynamic edge, but it also prohibits smart goverance and promotes crude populism.

In the abstract, it is a good idea for representatives to face the electorate every couple of years. It is a singularly powerful mechanism through which to combat corrupt representatives and boot them out quickly. Change happens slowly, as it is very seldom for one party to hold all the branches of political power - when it does happen, the incumbant party tends to mess things up and spark political metamorphis, as we see now with the democrats in 2010 or with the Republicans in 2006. Limiting political change in this manner may well be a good thing. On the other hand, objection is not raised on whether any new proposal is logical, or whether it will improve the body politic or the citizenry. No, objection is raised on partisan grounds time and time again. Not in the national interest, in the party interest. This is inherently dangerous.

I think the best solution would be straight 5 year terms, where every organ of the state at federal and local level would face re-election in the mother of all general elections. This will result in 4 year governing strategies and one year crude politicking.

Thoughts?

Memnoch

Or you could simply make it illegal for politicians to receive ANY campaign contributions from individuals or businesses greater than 10-50$ per person. That would stop the lobbies from influencing and swaying politicians. (This should include unions, though there is nothing to stop individual members of the unions from making single donations themselves.)

Alternatively, scrap contributions ENTIRELY and provide a limited war chest for presidential canditates funded by the tax payer.

He who pays the purse controls the power. Right now, thats corporations and individuals with massive vested interests. At this way even if the tax payer is paying, at least that's who the politicians have to woo.

This to me is the single most broken aspect of western democracy and is little more than legalised bribery.

The next issue to tackle is how do you educate the public in a fair and bi-partisan manner so that they aren't as easily swayed by hyperbolic and self-interested news media.

Denerick

To be fair thats not exactly the point I was making. I am not naive enough to think that British politics is without its partisan posturing, but it does at least provide stable, goal orientated governments. This is entirely due to the 5 year term. Generally you have 4 years of governance with 1 year of electioneering. In America, politicians are constantly campaigning.

Though I do understand that money in politics is an ugly business.

Memnoch

I just want to add that as far as I'm concerned, democracy in the west is completely and utterly broken and exists in NAME only. The influence of special interests/lobby groups is obvious, but even apart from that, the fall of integrity in journalism and the increasing say of News Media with the advent of the 24 hour news cycle has completely destroyed the idea of real democracy...

For example:

In the UK the Conservatives wouldn't have gotten anywhere CLOSE to power were it not for the Murdoch Media machine. The moment Clegg and the Lib Dems threatened to eat into their vote the machine was switched on and they did a complete hatchet job on him, which worked. There is no doubt in my mind that BUT for the politically motivated interference of Sky News we would have seen a Lib-Lab coalition in government, now whether this would have been better or not is another debate entirely.

As for the US. How many outlets does Murdoch control? Fox News and the Washington Post are big ones, among a bunch of others. How much influence have these recently wielded in American politics? Would the GOP have to compromise more in AND out of government but for the extremist right wing agendas pushed by Fox News and co.

The idea that ONE MAN, Rupert Murdoch and his son have SO much say in who gets office in two of the most powerful countries in the world is not only scary but complete anathema to any kind of idea of democracy. It's just too much power for one person IF they had integrity, which the Murdoch Media Machine clearly does not.

This is compounded by the fact that it is the job of Journalists to keep our politicians in check. But when they are not being the least bit objective and pursuing agendas dictated down from up above then that seriously undermines the entire system of government which democracy is supposed to enshrine.

I know they also have influence in other countries. I believe they have a similar media presence in Australia. And I'm sure lots of other places too.

Ireland is another great example of the failure of democracy. A government that indentures it's citizenry for DECADES to bail out failed institutions. Whether or not the bail out was necessary is one debate, but the MANNER in which NAMA has been constructed, providing ZERO accountability or incentives is nothing short of legalised theft of the Irish Tax payer.

Western Democracy is gone and I have no idea what it will take to bring it back.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

To be fair thats not exactly the point I was making. I am not naive enough to think that British politics is without its partisan posturing, but it does at least provide stable, goal orientated governments. This is entirely due to the 5 year term. Generally you have 4 years of governance with 1 year of electioneering. In America, politicians are constantly campaigning.

Though I do understand that money in politics is an ugly business.

Well, stable governance sure, but to meet whose agenda?

You're talking about repairing a superficial skin wound while a major artery bleeds out.

southsiderosie

But the money is what drives the constant campaigning. You can't talk about what ails American politics without bringing in the constant need for fundraising.

I think the media are also a problem in US politics today. There has always been hysterical media, but the shift from print to television and digital has just amped up the noise levels exponentially. And cognitively, people tend to believe more in what they see on television. Yet television media is unbelievably irresponsible in terms of who they legitimize by putting on air, and the spread of misinformation that they facilitate.

But a lot of it also boils down to the electorate. Young people don't vote and many of the people who do vote are shockingly ignorant.

Denerick

Vested interests will exist in any system. To deny this is to deny the horrible reality of a world that demands ugly compromises. I'd rather have a system that can accomodate them within rather than a system that antagonises them and leaves them plotting on the sidelines, which in reality is much worse.

I also take issue with your idea that journalists have a 'function'. Citizens have a function to demand corruption free governance and order. Journalists merely reflect the prejudices and stupidity of the people. Why do you think people buy and read the Irish Sun, along with all the horrible hatchet jobbery and crude hyperbole? Are they bullied into it? There is a far deeper and more sinister problem at work here. The reason western democracy is failing us is not because of journalists or even because of Murdoch, its because we have no sense of the necessity of political or civic virtue anymore. Thats the cause of the problem, media crudity is but a symptom.

Anonymous1987

One particular argument against a mega-election for both congressional and presidential elections would be that between the house, senate, presidential candidates not to mention the primaries, it might prove an information overload for voters leading to low turnout.

Also I think you miss the point of the US political system. It is designed to be resistant to change, unless of course the majority agree. Remember Democrats hold both the house and the senate yet some Democrats voted against healthcare legislation. It was not an entirely partisan debate.

Without a majority consensus the system grinds to halt, eventually consensus will have to made. It's part of the checks and balances. Of course this is not without its disadvantages.

It also makes sense for a staggered senate election in that the current public views are represented in the senate or house and the appropriate opposition is applied. Otherwise you have a 5 years of representation based on you're hypothetical system focused on one moment in time with no option for voters to apply the breaks if you don't like how its turning out.

Again all this is not conducive to passing legislation with plenty of current examples but that is the cost of a democratic system. The same could be said of a Republican administration trying to privatise social security.

Denerick

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

One particular argument against a mega-election for both congressional and presidential elections would be that between the house, senate, presidential candidates not to mention the primaries, it might prove an information overload for voters leading to low turnout.

Also I think you miss the point of the US political system. It is designed to be resistant to change, unless of course the majority agree. Remember Democrats hold both the house and the senate yet some Democrats voted against healthcare legislation. It was not an entirely partisan debate.

Without a majority consensus the system grinds to halt, eventually consensus will have to made. It's part of the checks and balances. Of course this is not without its disadvantages.

It also makes sense for a staggered senate election in that the current public views are represented in the senate or house and the appropriate opposition is applied. Otherwise you have a 5 years of representation based on you're hypothetical system focused on one moment in time with no option for voters to apply the breaks if you don't like how its turning out.

Again all this is not conducive to passing legislation with plenty of current examples but that is the cost of a democratic system. The same could be said of a Republican administration trying to privatise social security.

I see what you mean. I can understand the basis of the staggered electoral system and its constitutional aspiration to limit political power. I hope I made this point in my OP. On the other hand, a near constant and frankly terminal case of political gridlock cannot be good.

mgmt

Denerick wrote: »

I see what you mean. I can understand the basis of the staggered electoral system and its constitutional aspiration to limit political power. I hope I made this point in my OP. On the other hand, a near constant and frankly terminal case of political gridlock cannot be good.

The Irish 5yr political cycle is also not something to aspire to (when a government can clearly lose its mandate but can continue to stumble on).

Anonymous1987

Denerick wrote: »

I see what you mean. I can understand the basis of the staggered electoral system and its constitutional aspiration to limit political power. I hope I made this point in my OP. On the other hand, a near constant and frankly terminal case of political gridlock cannot be good.

Reading back over your OP I see you appreciate the system. I view it as a trade off between democracy and easing legislative deadlock, the more democratic the system is the more legislative deadlock and vice versa.

Having said that once Obama applied pressure on Republican John Boehner for letting the Bush tax cuts expire Boehner decided he personally would support extending the tax cuts for those earning under 250k while letting those above 250k expire.

Also Obama has attempted to take advantage of democratic dominance in both houses by championing the traditional democratic agenda in areas such as healthcare, the environment and regulation. He may now turn to much less partisan legislation such as tax reform even going as far as suggesting a corporate tax rate cut.

metrovelvet

In a pure democracy citizenship is a fulltime job. Good God who can keep up with it all? Too many candidates, too much information, not the right kind of information, too many elections, state, federal, local. ARGHH!!!!!!!!!

It's a zoo.

Black Swan

Should political offices go to the highest bidder?

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Republican Meg Whitman has spent more than $140 million so far on her campaign for California governor, nearly $40 million of it during the last three months, she reported Tuesday. The amount the billionaire former eBay chief executive has spent on advertising and political consultants, most of it from her personal fortune, stands in sharp contrast to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, who reported Tuesday that he has spent $10.7 million this year, nearly all of it since Labor Day."

mgmt

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Should political offices go to the highest bidder?

Yeah, I wouldn't trust anyone who spends millions of their own money to get a job that pays c. $200,000

Overheal

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, I wouldn't trust anyone who spends millions of their own money to get a job that pays c. $200,000

And still cave in to bribes!

Memnoch

mgmt wrote: »

Yeah, I wouldn't trust anyone who spends millions of their own money to get a job that pays c. $200,000

It's probably not a purely financial equation is it? For people with a lot of money, more than they can really spend what drives them? More money? Power? Status?

People have been known to spend a LOT more on their own ego. I don't see how you can take someone spending such a huge amount as some kind of positive.

The fact that they NEED to spend it to even have a CHANCE at winning goes to suggest how little they inspire people with their personality/charisma/ideology.

Or are you in favour of a body politic where the seats only go to the richest candidates, in which case, why bother with an election? Or is it that you just don't mind how much money they have or spend as long as they are on the right?

mgmt

Memnoch wrote: »

The fact that they NEED to spend it to even have a CHANCE at winning goes to suggest how little they inspire people with their personality/charisma/ideology.

Are you talking about Mitt Romney??? LOL

Memnoch

mgmt wrote: »

Are you talking about Mitt Romney??? LOL

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Republican Meg Whitman has spent more than $140 million so far on her campaign for California governor, nearly $40 million of it during the last three months, she reported Tuesday. The amount the billionaire former eBay chief executive has spent on advertising and political consultants, most of it from her personal fortune, stands in sharp contrast to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown, who reported Tuesday that he has spent $10.7 million this year, nearly all of it since Labor Day.

I would have thought that was obvious?