So You Say You Want Me to Want a Revolution?
Nick Baumann at Mother Jones and the mystery blogger behind Democracy in America both see my various complaints about American politician institutions as a sign of incipient radicalism. Well, not really. I’m very skeptical about the utility of violence in bringing about positive political change and am thus a poor candidate for revolutionary. But I do want to see reform of the political process. In particular, I would note:
— The House shifted in the past from a strict seniority rule for committee chairmanships to one that allows for change (see, e.g., Waxman vs Dingell) and I would like to see them shift in the direction of routine contestation of committee and subcommittee top spots.
— The Senate could and should peacefully effectuate a similar shift.
— The Senate has, in the past, altered the filibuster rule and should do away with it.
— The electoral college is a sick joke and the National Popular Vote movement offers a plausible way to end it.
— As best I can tell, absolutely no rule is preventing states from experimenting with electing their House delegations via proportional representation.
— The District of Columbia ought to be a state, and nothing is stopping the current Democratic congressional majorities from admitting us as one.
— There’s no practical way to get rid of the Senate, but we can at least try to have a public political culture that acknowledges that it’s an unfair and anachronistic system.
It wouldn’t take a “revolution” to achieve any of that. But it would dramatically transform the context in which legislative activity takes place for the better.
I also would like it noted, for the record, that my interest in political reform does not stem from any “disappointment” in how Barack Obama isn’t able to get anything done. I was writing about this back in December because I always knew that Barack Obama wouldn’t be able to get anything done.
95 Responses to “So You Say You Want Me to Want a Revolution?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Don’t forget routine primary challenges to ideologically wayward co-partisans.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Early you mentioned that Obama was not interested in reforming institutions, but here all of the institutions are legislative, an area that Obama has not had complete control over — are you suggesting that he should be pushing those bodies to reform, and do you think he could be successful on his other requests (financial bailouts, healthcare, etc.) if he were doing that?
July 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Totally agree with the laundry list, and I’ll add that getting “political culture” to acknowledge that the Senate is “unfair and anachronistic” — because it represents states instead of people — could be more useful than readers might assume.
The UK, and Canada, used to have functional upper houses. But increasingly those bodies serve as rubber stamps for the will of the majority, expressed in the lower house. That’s the kind of change that can happen when political culture acknowledges that a legislative body lacks full representative legitimacy.
I don’t expect to turn the Senate into the House of Lords in one, or two, generations, but it would be a good thing to nudge it in that direction.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“As best I can tell, absolutely no rule is preventing states from experimenting with electing their House delegations via proportional representation.”
There is a rule.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/02C1.txt
2 USC Sec. 2c
TITLE 2 – THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 1 – ELECTION OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES
Sec. 2c. Number of Congressional Districts; number of
Representatives from each District
-STATUTE-
In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
July 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Yawn. The NPV will never pass. Go back and read the Federalist papers, Matt. We are a republic, not a democracy.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I see I got beat to it, but since the 1960s, Congress has banned states from having multimember districts. This was to prevent Southern states from simply electing multiple representatives at large, statewide or in large multimember districts to disenfranchise blacks.
The irony is, there are many civil rights theorists and in the Congressional Black Caucus who have backed legislation re-permitting multimember districts if they use cumulative vote or single-transferable vote, because it could be a way to preserve minority voting rights without gerrymandering majority-minority districts.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Electing officeholders based on popular vote is every bit as republican as electing them based on electoral votes, Nick.
The Constitution requires each of the states to have a republican form of government. Every single state in the country elects is governor via popular vote, yet they still have republican governments.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
If you’re really advocating for the elimination of the electoral college, then you should also be in favor of some voting reform first.
Without an actual concensus building voting system, there’s nothing to prevent non-mainstream regional candidates from taking a giant crap on the country by running up huge margins in states that have similarly weird views.
Instituting something like instant-runoff voting would both better serve the country and prevent whack-jobs from running hither and tither. Because without that in a four-way race (without the EC small parties will gain much more power) that someone could win a major national election with only 30% or so of the vote.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Equating radicalism with violence seems like a pretty big misstep.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“I’m very skeptical [now] about the utility of violence in bringing about positive political change and…,” I think. Or perhaps “as of 2004″ or whenever. Or “in the US.” But there’s some sort of important qualifier missing.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
BTW, this post by MY is an example of the same rhetorical device that Antony used in burying Caesar.
“Some people say I should lead a revolution.”
(cheers, cries of yes yes)
“But nay, not I — I am ill-suited to lead a revolution.”
“Democracy in America says I should issue a manifesto, like the Port Huron Statement. But nay, I come to reform the government, not to overthrow it.”
“But, incidentally, by ‘reform’ I mean the following manifesto: get rid of the electoral college, change the system of electing the legislature, and acknowledge that the whole upper house is illegitimate and unrepresentative.”
(cheers, sounds of rabblery, “aux armes citoyens,” brandishing of pitchforks)
July 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Typical liberal, wants radical change thru incremental and moderate means. The Zeno of political philosophies.
Revolution ain’t always so bad. I count the 30s and 60s as revolutionary. It just takes the credible threat of violence.
But without the credible threat of social upheaval, the oligarchy will just laugh in your face, and give money to the banks, and pass garbage and call it “health reform.”
July 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Thanks for the tip, There is a rule. Of course, it’s just a statue, not a constitutional provision.
We’ll never get rid of the Senate, or allocate senators fairly (by population), but I would like to see the chamber emasculated a bit. Take away its treaty-ratifying and confirmation powers and give them to the House, at least, if we can’t turn the Senate into an elected House of Lords.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Yawn. The NPV will never pass. Go back and read the Federalist papers, Matt. We are a republic, not a democracy.
It’s interesting how often people depict the Electoral College as a reflection of the values and insight of the country’s founders, while overlooking the minor detail that the actual function and effects of the EC don’t remotely resemble the effects that its designers intended.
The “republic not a democracy” thing is a total non-sequitur, too.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
i used to think that obama and rahm were kinda naive and stupid about institutions and process.
now i think that things are turning out – with health care and lots of other issues – exactly the way that obama and company want. and the institutions are responding and performing exactly the way obama and co. want them to perform.
now, the way things are turning out is not the way obama’s voters expected things to turn out, but that is another story.
obama does not mind the lack of any real reform for a very good reason. the people he is now adding on as supporters – wall street, big pharma, insurance companies, the defense establishment, among others – are all going to provide crucial support in the 2012 election, and that is obviously what matters to him.
he understands and appreciates what has been handed to him – the infrastructure and the opportunities – and it’s pretty obvious that he intends to let things pretty much stay in place, unless there is an overriding political reason for him to address an aspect of the political establishment that might be causing him trouble.
certainly, this aint change we can believe in, and it sure aint the change the american people voted for, but it just might be enough to get him re-elected in 2012 and it’s pretty clear that re-election is obama’s only real priority.
any and everything else is designed to make that a reality.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
December? You were writing about eliminating the filibuster back in 2005.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Equating radicalism with violence seems like a pretty big misstep.
No, it is the necessary and sufficient step for understanding politics.
It is the Enlightenment disaster to try to make politics about persuasion, as if we can sweettalk and reason Baucus into renouncing his health industry money. As long as he can, why should he stop?
Politics is about coercion. Gotta terrify Baucus.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
“I would like to see them shift in the direction of routine contestation of committee and subcommittee top spots.”
Very timely – Sen. Harkin has just publicly challenged Sen. Baucus’ top spot - although I would like it to be an immediate no-confidence vote as opposed to a biennial secret ballot.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
They must not read you very closely.
Since we’re making utopian lists, here’s mine:
Abolish the Senate. I can take a casual drive around a few counties in my state in the course of a morning and I will encompass more people than live in Alaska and Wyoming and Montana. Send all the worthless POS senators to an assisted living facility with a coupon booklet from IHOP and a remote control and just get them the hell out of our lives.
Abolish the Presidency. Domestically, the benefits will be mostly psychological. Worldwide, millions of lives will be saved from the Empire.
Death penalty for driving less than the speed limit in the fast lane. Okay, maybe this one’s negotiable.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
mystery Economist DiA blogger:
Matthew Yglesias, while more rhetorically strident,
hahaha I don’t think of Matt as strident, he’s mellow yet prolific.
is basically from the same camp as Mr Klein: a process-oriented moderate liberal. In recent weeks, he has been essentially calling for the abolition of the US Senate. Maybe it’s just a passing phase, but there seems to be something going on with these guys. When popular reformist governments don’t deliver on their early promise, one possible youth response is the kind of thing you saw happen to Generation X.
They have a thought-provoking narrative, but wrong. After the 12 year midnight of the Reagan years, there were diminished expectations for Clinton and yet he disappointed with welfare reform and constant triangulation and more Drug War and the repeal of Glass-Steagal setting us up for Great Depression 2.
Like Matt I knew Obama was facing a lot of obstacles, but he has more potential than Clinton did in ‘92 and is off to a tear in the first 6 months.
All of Matt’s institutional reforms are worthwhile and civil society just needs to work to elect better people for progress to be made. Hopefully the Intertubes will help.
I’d guess a lot of people were surprised by how the financial system blew up, some more than others. The Economist sure did it’s part by failing to warn anyone.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’m curious why otherwise thoughtful people keep flogging the NPV. Take a five minute break from airy-fairy land and think about what might happen when states realize they can repeal their NPV laws (or threaten to) any time they like.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Matthew: “I’m very skeptical about the utility of violence in bringing about positive political change and am thus a poor candidate for revolutionary”
———–
Er.. the Army phrase “Too Light to Fight and Too Heavy to Run” comes to mind.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
One more observation: the violence – radicalism equation that has people puzzled is part of the post’s Antonyesque strategy of disavowing its own ambition.
“Some people say I’m a radical, issuing ambitious manifestos. But they don’t know me very well. For one thing, I can’t shoot straight — some radical I’d be!
“In the meantime, here’s another manifesto — this time with helpful bullet points.”
July 30th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
“Politics is about coercion.”
Um, have you thought through what that would actually mean in practice? If politics is only about coercion, then democracy is not only a bad thing, but is actually impossible. Actually, all forms of government that don’t rely solely on massive amounts of violence are actually impossible.
The only way out of the puzzle you’ve created for yourself is asserting that all governments are actually all the same and all equally rely on massive amounts of violence. In which case, it’s only an item of trivial interest what policies a government had – and further, an item of trivial interest that Bob McManus (or really, anyone who doesn’t command an army or a police force) can’t have any influence over.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
and is off to a tear in the first 6 months.
With the exception of Truman in 49, this is is the weakest, least productive initial six months in the last 100 years. It’s embarrassing and pathetic.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
If by “mystery blogger” you mean Matt Steinglass…
July 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Sigh. I remember the pre-Condo Matthew. The bearded insurgent who lived in an urban safehouse with fellow radicals while training in paramilitary tactics in the Maryland countryside:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/the_punisher.php
(hee hee)
July 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
To JM (#8):
Instant-runoff voting IS NOT a consensus-building voting method.
Instant runoff voting is as divisive as plurality voting:
http://www.rangevoting.org/IrvExtreme.html
For a real-world example, one only need to look at Australia, which has used IRV for it’s house elections for years, and has the same partisan problems as the US.
(Aside: the Australian _senate_ uses proportional representation, and therefore presents many more diverse political viewpoints.
(Also, to all of you nay-sayers: Matt said there is no federal law restricting STATE congresses from using PR; quoting federal laws restricting FEDERAL Congressional districts to single-winner is a failure to understand what he said.)
Finally, to reiterate, ACTUAL consensus-building single-winner election reform can not come from instant runoff, or from any rank-order voting method, as none of these methods can be immune to candidate cloning and to spoilers (IRV, for instance, meets the first, but not the second.)
The only actual spoiler- and clone-free methods are rated-choice methods, such as approval voting and score voting.
Find more at http://www.rangevoting.org
July 30th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
24:Can I stop paying my taxes now that burritoboy has explained democracy to me? (I am not that kind of libertarian, more like a Maoist)
The violence and coercion of modern governments are codified and expressed in the law and the hegemony. That Matthew would let thousands die in Iraq rather than make a Molotov cocktail is not proof that he is a free and independent agent, although he and other liberals like to believe non-violent resistance proves exactly that.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
With the exception of Truman in 49, this is is the weakest, least productive initial six months in the last 100 years. It’s embarrassing and pathetic.
That’s Bill Kristol-caliber bullshit. Please regale us with tales of the groundbreaking accomplishments of the previous three Presidents in their first six months. I’ll spot you Reagan, and I suppose JFK accomplished more than Obama in his first six months if you count the Bay of Pigs as an accomplishment.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I’m reminded of the Donald Barthelme story in which a well-intentioned cleric spies two men, carrying protest signs, walking back and forth in front of his church. He goes out to discover what’s up, and they tell him that they’re protesting the human condition.
-But you can’t do that! It’s a given!
I’m not sympathetic to the cleric in that story.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Reform = a political party whose candidates pledge, as a condition of belonging to the party, not to accepts campaign contributions except from individuals in limited annual amounts. Break the pledge and you get kicked out of the party.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Okay, let’s take these one at a time.
1. Contested committee chairmanships. Besides being guaranteed to exacerbate intra-caucus squabbles and encourage even more of an “old boy’s network” in picking chairmen, it discourages anyone from putting their time in on a committee that doesn’t directly benefit them politically.
2. Altering the fillibuster, probably a good idea.
3. National Popular Vote. A silly idea that would come undone roughly 5 seconds after the first state awards its electoral college votes to someone who lost its popular vote.
4. Proportional representation. Aside from laws against it, I’m sure Congress would be hugely improved by having actually crazy people like the Birthers getting elected instead of politicians just having to pander to them.
5. DC statehood. If you want representation so bad, just become part of Virginia or Maryland.
6. The Senate sucks. I’d love to live in a world where everyone agreed with me about by pet peeves as well.
Wow, one legitimate idea out of 6. That’s pretty good for one of MattY’s “Why can’t we be more like European parliaments” wankfests.
Mike
July 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I’m curious why otherwise thoughtful people keep flogging the NPV. Take a five minute break from airy-fairy land and think about what might happen when states realize they can repeal their NPV laws (or threaten to) any time they like.
I’m not seeing a problem here. The NPV compact is conditional: it only is operative if enough states are signed on to add up to the majority of electoral votes. If the state with the 271st electoral vote drops out, then presumably all the states would go back to the current system of giving their electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote. (Except for those two states with a different system right now.)
That would be bad for all the reasons that the current system is bad, but (a) it seems unlikely, because passed legislation has inertia working for it rather than against it, and (b) I don’t see how it would be any worse than the status quo.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
By June 2001, Bush, who barely won the election, had passed his first major tax cut with much smaller majorities in Congress than Obama enjoys today. There was never once the suggestion of a Senate filibuster from Democrats, despite McCain’s opposition to the bill.
In contrast, Obama, who won by a landslide, passed a weak stimulus plan by capitulating to threats of a Senate filibuster in order to get two Republicans and one Democrat.
Do you want another?
July 30th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
If we could get the money (big money interests) out of their strong position of political influence some changes might be possible.
(a guy can wish, eh?)
July 30th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
To Kafka, #32:
Is that satirical, or did you intend to describe the Green party and imply that their success was imminent?
It seems like everything anyone suggests that “some third party” should do if it “really wants to succeed” is *already* being done by at least one third party; and yet.
The failure isn’t from a lack of great ideas (that seem like they should work) but in a lack of system where they CAN work. Single-winner plurality districting means third parties will always be disadvantaged; it’s Duverger’s law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
The solution is approval or score voting.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Re: #35
Let’s see. Obama passes a very large stimulus package in less than two months. Bush passes a very large tax cut in less than five. Obama had to deal with weak-kneed members of his own caucus and lockstep opposition, whereas Bush had the opposite situation. But you count this as a bigger accomplishment for Bush than for Obama because… why exactly?
Nice try, I guess.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
How often has this nightmare scenario happened in state elections? Because I can’t think of an example.
It might be worthwhile to have an voting system that is as described, it’s not so necessary that its absence should delay a national popular vote.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Mr Yglesias
“— The District of Columbia ought to be a state, and nothing is stopping the current Democratic congressional majorities from admitting us as one.”
Yes there is if there are enough people like me who have been voting straight democrat at all levels for 16 years who would go … well ‘bat shit’ is a nice term … if the dems started that in truth.
DC is too small to be a state. Honestly … how can you complain about the electoral college and Wyoming having two senators and then turn around and say DC should be a state??? Why are those two positions not inconsistent??
There are other solutions … join Maryland or (MUCH more difficult) get a constitutional ammendment to treat the National District in a special manner (like the Australians have) I’d likely be able to stomach one senator for the district.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
You asked for an accomplishment. A $1.5 trillion/10 year tax cut is an accomplishment by Republican standards, undertaken by a president with (at the time) a weaker public and institutional standing. (And, btw, as a share of GDP, the stimulus was not “very large.”)
God, you Obamabots are insufferable.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I am not disappointed that Obama “was not able” to get things done (which was predictable), I am disappointed (not to say outraged) that Obama has not fullfilled or has renounced very emphatic campaign promises, especially finance-industry reform and civil-rights and transparency issues.
The way things are going it may take another Great Depression or an armed revolution (which has its own dangers) to get constructive action on these things.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
(And, btw, as a share of GDP, the stimulus was not “very large.”)
Every single damn Republican in the country will disagree with you.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I’m curious why otherwise thoughtful people keep flogging the NPV. Take a five minute break from airy-fairy land and think about what might happen when states realize they can repeal their NPV laws (or threaten to) any time they like.
Not true, in fact. The NPV law includes the following language:
So a state cannot legally withdraw from the NPV interstate compact after July 20th of an election year.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
sorry lafollette, but i think savageview is absolutely correct.
the stimulus package was severely compromised. not necessarily fatally, but significantly.
obama surrendered the dems’ power to a few republicans because, imho, he made the incredibly stupid mistake of allowing republicans to define whether it was a success or failure by initially insisting that it had to be bipartisan.
duh!!!!
in order to declare success, all they had to do was to refuse to cooperate.
his entire strategy for dealing with congress reflects the wrong lessons learned from the clinton years.
clinton came into office with significantly less than 50% of the popular vote. he should have been aware of that relative weakness.
obama, on the other hand, rode into office on a landslide, with a mandate for change and then immediately surrenders that authority to congress.
incredibly stupid, if you really want to muscle through a progressive agenda. and that initial decision, along with others that reflect that basic approach, are causing problems. at least, what most dems would consider to be problems.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
By June 2001, Bush, who barely won the election, had passed his first major tax cut with much smaller majorities in Congress than Obama enjoys today. There was never once the suggestion of a Senate filibuster from Democrats, despite McCain’s opposition to the bill.
In contrast, Obama, who won by a landslide, passed a weak stimulus plan by capitulating to threats of a Senate filibuster in order to get two Republicans and one Democrat.
It seems you’re not familiar with Senate procedure. Both Bush’s tax cuts were passed through reconciliation and therefore immune to filibusters. The stimulus wasn’t “capitulated to threats of a filibuster”, it needed 60 votes because it requires 60 votes to override a point of order that a bill violates PAYGO by increasing the deficit. Needless to say, you couldn’t use reconciliation on the stimulus because a budget hadn’t been passed yet. This is why both Bush’s tax cuts were passed in late May. And of course, reconciliation is in fact on the table for health care.
Also, you claimed he’d done less than every president since Truman. I’d like you to point out what every president has done that’s a greater accomplishment, not simply one point that isn’t even accurate.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
in order to declare success, all they had to do was to refuse to cooperate.
So they refuse to cooperate, and then what? They don’t get 60 votes (which were required for the stimulus even if the filibuster didn’t exist) and the bill fails. They gave up the absolute minimum possible to get the exact minimum number of votes. Yes, it would have been a lot better if they had to get one or two fewer votes, but that was the situation as it was. Blame Senate rules, not Rahm and Obama.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I supported Obama in the primaries… right up to his FISA vote in June of last year. At that point, I became tepid. After the election, when he appointed Summers as NEC chair, my support all but vanished. Sadly for Obama, he actually listened to Summers.
Ardent supporters like MY and JMM will simply have to contend with the fact that Obama is just another Bill Clinton. He’s more than willing to toss any progressive constituency under the bus in order “to survive.” For heaven sakes, gays and lesbians are the new house niggers in the Democratic Party.
One wonders how such people will respond to Obama’s pronouncement at the Health Reform Act signing ceremony that, with only overwhelming majorities in Congress, non-existent, local health care cooperatives were the best the Democrats could do.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I never made such a claim. Someone asked
And I gave you one. That you don’t like it is immaterial to me.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
I would add the hold to this list. While it appears that (in the Senate rules) it’s linked to the filibuster, unlimited holds have no business being allowed. Very important positions in the government are unfilled because of these. It’s ridiculous.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
By the way, the PAYGO principle was adopted as a Senate rule in 2007. I won’t mention who was the junior senator from Illinois at that time or how he voted on the rule.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I never made such a claim.
My apologies, that was in fact someone else. But when asked for what the previous three Presidents did you listed a grand total of one bill, which was able to be passed with 50 votes instead of 60. Pardon me for calling your evidence very weak.
Ardent supporters like MY and JMM will simply have to contend with the fact that Obama is just another Bill Clinton. He’s more than willing to toss any progressive constituency under the bus in order “to survive.”
I would say that MY has done plenty of criticism of Obama and his priorities. And yes, I’ve been disappointed with him as well on some of these issues. He plays politics far more than I would like. However, he’s better than Bill, better than Hillary, and certainly miles better than every one of the Republicans. And I find the “he’s worthless just like every politician” crowd to be quite banal. There are many degrees of success, and while not nearly as high as he should be I can’t imagine I would vote for anyone else.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Sweet! I’m now an “Obamabot”!
Look, I’ve taken plenty of opportunities in the last six months to criticize Obama for not going far enough or for not pushing hard enough. But few things irritate me more than people who are ostensibly progressive but feel the need to trash the President for not magically transporting us to Left-Wing Camelot on January 21st, or hold him personally responsible for the fact that the Senate Democratic caucus is a disgracefully corrupt perpetual self-FUBAR machine.
Between the stimulus, credit card reform, the GM and Chrysler situations, and getting health care reform as far along as it is, I think you’d have to have a mile-wide burr up your ass not to conclude that more has been accomplished in the first six months of his term than any since (arguably) Reagan’s. And before that you’d have to go back to 1965.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
By the way, the PAYGO principle was adopted as a Senate rule in 2007. I won’t mention who was the junior senator from Illinois at that time or how he voted on the rule.
So in other words, you’re well aware that bills that increase the deficit are much harder to pass the Senate now than before 2007. And that the Senate is the roadblock for virtually every major piece of legislation. And knowing that, you’re still going to blame Obama personally for his record in getting legislation through the now more difficult Senate instead of blaming the rule that makes that the case.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Blame Senate rules, not Rahm and Obama.
then change the rules.
or threaten to change the rules.
or do whatever you have to do to get your bills through.
republicans were never shy about threatening to change rules in order to get what they wanted.
and obama obviously agreed that he’d made a mistake by putting so much stock in “bipartisanship” because he pointedly moved away from that position as the battle dragged on.
but it was too late. he’d already put himself in a weakened position and let it be known that he would not actually fight hard for what he wanted.
obama’s strategy is this:
he gives his opponent a club that they bash him with for a while. then he gets wise and tries to take that club away from his opponents. by that time, he’s bloody and bruised and weakend and while he survives, he’s severely weakened because he has empowered his adversary.
the republicans were ready to be stomped on, made irrelevant and obama gave them a helping hand and helped them stand up.
he’s going to regret it next year, as a party that should have been dead and buried is poised to make a comeback.
courtesy of mr. obama and his curious approach to governing.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
July 30th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote.
In 1789 only three states used the winner-take-all rule.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
As a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”
A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).
July 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States.
Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.
Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state’s electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Re Frankie D at 56: “he gives his opponent a club that they bash him with for a while. then he gets wise and tries to take that club away from his opponents. by that time, he’s bloody and bruised and weakend and while he survives, he’s severely weakened because he has empowered his adversary.”
———-
Actually, it is not Obama and the Democratic Caucus who will suffer from his mistakes — it is their Democratic constituents. The same people who Bill CLinton threw under the bus.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
One bill worth $1.5 trillion over ten years. Pardon me for not thinking that, by Republican standards, this is an accomplishment, which is exactly the standard set by the first person who asked for an example.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
No withdrawal from the National Popular Vote compact can become effective between July 20 of a presidential election year and the inauguration on January 20 of the following year. This six-month “blackout” period was chosen because it encompasses six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the national nominating conventions, the fall general election campaign period, election day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and the inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.
Although it is true that a state legislature may not, by an ordinary statute, bind the hands of a future legislature, an interstate compact enacted by a state legislature does bind a future legislature. In fact, interstate compacts are among the few ways by which the actions of a future state legislature may be restricted. The National Popular Vote compact is an interstate compact, and an interstate compact is a contract. Withdrawal from any contract may only be made in accordance with the contract’s own terms. It is settled law that, once passed, an interstate compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws. A compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws until a state withdraws from the compact under the terms provided in the compact.
The reason that the state legislature is bound to the terms of an interstate compact is the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 10, clause 1):
“No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
The Council of State Governments summarizes the nature of interstate compacts as follows:
“Compacts are agreements between two or more states that bind them to the compacts’ provisions, just as a contract binds two or more parties in a business deal. As such, compacts are subject to the substantive principles of contract law and are protected by the constitutional prohibition against laws that impair the obligations of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10).
“That means that compacting states are bound to observe the terms of their agreements, even if those terms are inconsistent with other state laws. In short, compacts between states are somewhat like treaties between nations. Compacts have the force and effect of statutory law (whether enacted by statute or not) and they take precedence over conflicting state laws, regardless of when those laws are enacted.
“However, unlike treaties, compacts are not dependent solely upon the good will of the parties. Once enacted, compacts may not be unilaterally renounced by a member state, except as provided by the compacts themselves. Moreover, Congress and the courts can compel compliance with the terms of interstate compacts.”
There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
One cannot compare him to Hillary since she hasn’t been president. I can’t think of any ways in which he’s demonstrably better than Bill.
And, by the way, I’m only holding Obama 2009 to Obama 2008, which I don’t consider to be a bad standard.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Re Adam at 52: “But when asked for what the previous three Presidents did you listed a grand total of one bill, which was able to be passed with 50 votes instead of 60. Pardon me for calling your evidence very weak.”
————-
Oh, bullshit. Bush’s tax cut in early 2001 gave almost $2 Trillion to the richest motherfuckers in the country. To invest in CHINA.
The healthcare bill will cost less than $1 Trillion over several years and will provide medical care to millions of Americans who don’t have it.
Guess which bill Ben Nelson and the Blue Dog DEMOCRATS approved with a hearty YEA?
Now guess which bill they oppose because they are responsible fiscal conservatives?
And the penalty they suffer for that is ..well, what exactly?
July 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Give me $20 Million and two weeks and I will have the people of Nebraska howling to hang Ben Nelson from a fucking lamppost — Republicans as well as Democrats.
Strange how Ben is quite sure that he will suffer NO reprisals from the Democratic Party for sabotaging healthcare reform.
That NO one will go around to the common people of Nebraska and explain how he is screwing them.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Channeling Krugman, I would simply note that macroeconomic conditions during the first six months of Obama’s term are incomparable to any since 1932, which is why comparisons to Bush II, Reagan, LBJ, or JFK are utterly meaningless. (Though it certainly has been fun poking at the Obamabots, since they’re so prickly.)
July 30th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Speaking of Reforms, I think that is about the stage where the Romans split the Empire up into 4 parts.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Matt says:
Perhaps, like the 19th century house of lords, it could be moved to become a body which approves legislation, rather than makes it.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
So, in other words, SavageView, if we move the goalposts from the original Bob McManus comment: “With the exception of Truman in 49, this is is the weakest, least productive initial six months in the last 100 years” to “macroeconomic conditions during the first six months of Obama’s term are incomparable to any since 1932, which is why comparisons to Bush II, Reagan, LBJ, or JFK are utterly meaningless”
AND
we conclude that Bush’s $1.5 Trillion tax cut over 10 years, through the normal budget process, was a more impressive accomplishment than an $800 Billion short-term stimulus passed outside of the budget process, over a filibuster threat, in less than two months
AND
we ignore the salvage job on the automakers and pretend the credit card reform bill didn’t happen
AND
we hold Obama personally responsible for the lack of a progressive majority in Congress to support a strong public health insurance option
THEN
you may possibly have a point
July 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Solution.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
steve,
You describe yourself as a liberal, so why would a state of DC be completely intolerable in your view when the state of Wyoming, with an even smaller population, is not? Do you see no benefit in adding more black and urban representation to the Senate, in which white and rural voters are MASSIVELY overrepresented?
DC statehood would not only undo the wrong of the disenfranchisement of DC citizens, it would also somewhat undo the wrong of the discriminatory nature of Senate representation.
And spare us the silly idea of DC re-joining Maryland. DC has been separate for Maryland for over 200 years–far longer than most states have even existed. If we decide to re-join Wyoming, Montana, and North and South Dakota into a single state of Dakota, then maybe we can talk about re-joining DC and Maryland.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
@70:
This is getting tiresome. You asked for an example. I gave you one. You got pissy. I chose to engage your pissiness.
If you want to compare favorably Obama’s first six months to those of Bush II, Reagan, LBJ, or JFK, by all means, use all the lube you need.
None of it matters because 2009 isn’t 2001, 1981, 1965, or 1961. It’s 1932. Forunately, today, we have much better monetary policy in place. Unfortunately, today, we have poorer (though not much poorer) fiscal policy in place.
And, as long as Larry Summers has influence, we most definitely we will not have comparable financial reforms (unless, as LP wishes us to believe, the credit card reform bill = Glass Steagall).
But keep wanking, cuz the KY tube is half full.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Re LaFollette Progressive at 70: “IF ..we hold Obama personally responsible for the lack of a progressive majority in Congress to support a strong public health insurance option THEN
you may possibly have a point”
——————
Actually, the POINTS are:
a) Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party
b) The Republicans march in lockstep whereas the Blue Dogs feel they can knife 50 million Democrats in the back with impunity — that they will suffer no personal consequences from their deceit (i.e, from calling themselves Democrats when they are really Republicans)
c) Obama and the Democratic Caucus are fine with (b). So fine that they do not utter a peep of protest or criticism.
d) Not only that, but the DNC has been fine with Ben Nelson calling himself a Democrat and raising money/soliciting votes as such.
But , hey, why don’t we call Zell Miller in and ask him what he thinks.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Or maybe instead we can all just acknowledge that the Democratic Caucus is starting to look like the Bernie Madoff of US politics — and that Progressives would be better off splitting off and forming their own party.
Because it is better to temporarily be in the minority but fighting toward a real goal than to be coopted into a deceitful farce in which the likes of Max Baucus and Ben Nelson run things.
A farce in which the Democratic leadership campaigns on one set of promises — and then decide after the election to transform themselves into a poor imitation of Mitch McConnell.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Comedy isn’t working for you, dude. You should probably have just stuck with your original bullshit-oriented game plan.
None of it matters because 2009 isn’t 2001, 1981, 1965, or 1961. It’s 1932.
Except that it isn’t 1932. If Obama were dealing with 25% unemployment, panicked runs on uninsured bank deposits, Yankee Republicans, Segregationist Democrats, Hoovervilles, an isolationist foreign policy, an almost completely unregulated stock market, and large sections of the country that lacked electrical power, I’d expect a very different response.
But it’s 2009. And I’m not particularly impressed with whiners who make weak-ass analogies, display no apparent knowledge of either distant or recent history, and get sniffy when people call them on their bullshit.
If you have some sort of plan for how Obama can push serious financial regulations through a Senate where half of his own party’s caucus are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Wall Street firms, I’m all ears.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I seem to recall the Democrats going all wobbly like this back in 1993 –when they had the majority.
SO how did work out in the 1994 election?
July 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The only problem I have with reducing the Senate to a House of Lords-style body that approves legislation coming from the party in control of the lower House at any given moment is that there will be times – many times – when that lower body is controlled by Republicans. House Republicans tend to be more extreme in their views than Senate Republicans. They tend to try to appeal to the most base insticts and prejudices of the right wing in this country, and if they alone control government, they will pass a lot of very bad legislation. Imagine the populist, rightwing extremist birther crowd in control of an effectively unicameral legislature. That’s not the way to get progressive legislation. There are simply too many stupid people in this country, compared to other industrialized nations. We can’t have more representative government and good government as long as the people are as stupid as they are. A good portion of the Republican base right now thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim illegal alien who wants to sacrifice all the Chrisian babies to the abortion lobby and steal all the guns (come to think of it, that sounds like a good platform- muahuahahaha).
Anyway, unicameralism is not a good idea. Remember, as slow and ineffective as the government’s structure is, it has probably insulated America from fascism to a degree.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Give me $20 Million and two weeks and I will have the people of Nebraska howling to hang Ben Nelson from a fucking lamppost — Republicans as well as Democrats.
The fact that this is completely wrong is why Nelson is so hard for the Dems to deal with. Homeboy was reelected with 64% of the vote and has 68% approval ratings in his state. Short of a dead girl or a live boy, dude is bullet proof.
Strange how Ben is quite sure that he will suffer NO reprisals from the Democratic Party for sabotaging healthcare reform.
Not strange at all actually. He’s far more popular in his state than his party is. Olympia Snowe isn’t scared of primary challenges either.
That NO one will go around to the common people of Nebraska and explain how he is screwing them.
The day I become supreme ruler of the universe I shall decree that claiming that “common people” would agree with you if only someone would explain things to them will be punishable by public flogging.
Also, I should mention that if by some fluke Dems were sucessful in defeating Nelson in a primary, the likeliest outcome would be a far worse Republican Senator.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Um, dude, the reason unemployment isn’t 25% is because of the Fed, which has now shot its load. And, um, asshole, Bear, Merill, and Lehman were bank runs in an almost completely unregulated environment.
What the lack of electricity or segregationists have to do with this, I fail to appreciate. We also aren’t faced with frogs and locusts at the moment.
But it’s 2009, and the Obamabots are still out in force it seems, loadly proclaiming that the credit card reform bill is the same thing as the Glass Steagall act.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
80:After LP twice listed the bankruptcy of the automakers, wherein 50 thousand retirees lost their health benefits as part of the settlement, as one of Obama’s great progressive achievements, I stopped reading him.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Mvymvy: “In fact, interstate compacts are among the few ways by which the actions of a future state legislature may be restricted. The National Popular Vote compact is an interstate compact, and an interstate compact is a contract. Withdrawal from any contract may only be made in accordance with the contract’s own terms. It is settled law that, once passed, an interstate compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws. A compact takes precedence over all existing or future state laws until a state withdraws from the compact under the terms provided in the compact.”
Well, let’s be clear about this interstate compact business. Article I:
Your plan will be of no force and effect unless it has fifty (well, probably, sixty) votes in the Senate. And, of course, it does not and, by its very nature, never will.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at
http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/default.aspx
July 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings, congressional consent would not be required for the National Popular Vote compact. However, because there will undoubtedly be litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.
Article I, section 10, clause 3 of the Constitution provides:
“No state shall, without the consent of Congress, … enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”
Although this language may seem straight-forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again 1978, that the Compacts clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission (434 U.S. 452), the Court wrote:
“Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.
“The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”
Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling was in the case of Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U.S. 503):
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”
The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the Constitution:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
“The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”
The National Popular Vote compact does not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is no federal power whatsoever in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place — much less federal supremacy.
The 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission dealt with a compact that specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states’ action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compact Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
“the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod the National Government.”
The Court also noted that the compact did not
“authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence.”
The question of congressional consent is discussed in great detail in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote (available to be read or downloaded, for free, at http://www.every-vote-equal.com, or available for purchase from http://www.Amazon.com).
July 30th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Can we add public campaign financing to the list of things to change? Do away with the ability of corporations to buy Congress and we might actually accomplish some of the progressive agenda.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Re: We are a republic, not a democracy.
There’s no necessary contradiction between the two. There are of course republics that are not democratic (think: the old People’s Republics) and democracies that are not republics (e.g, the UK, which is a monarchy in form). But there are many nations which are democratic republics and the US is one of these.
Re: A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials
Wrong. A Republic (from Latin Res Publica, “People’s Thing”) is any government in which the people, in theory, are sovereign– the opposites being a monarchy, an aristocracy or a theocracy.
Re: Perhaps, like the 19th century house of lords, it could be moved to become a body which approves legislation, rather than makes it.
I’d prefer the Senate had no role in legislation. Let it exist to ratify treaties, declare wars, confirm judges and other appointments, conduct trials of impeachment, and originate constitutional amendments.
Re: If you want to compare favorably Obama’s first six months to those of Bush II, Reagan, LBJ, or JFK, by all means, use all the lube you need.
LBJ in ‘65 really shouldn’t count: he had already been president for over a year. By the way, what did JFK do in his first six months other than the Bay of Pigs fiasco?
re: But it’s 2009, and the Obamabots are still out in force it seems, loadly proclaiming that the credit card reform bill is the same thing as the Glass Steagall act.
What does Glass-Steagal have to do with this? It was passed long after after FDR’s first six months.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:57 am
What about disincorporating DC as a city, annexing its parts into the appropriate states, and adding a few House seats for it?
July 31st, 2009 at 11:48 am
I like how Mother Jones and the mystery blogger never even consider that maybe this ‘radicalism’ is really just an honest assessment of how broken our political system really is.
I mean, both go out of their way to point out how ‘moderate’ Ezra and Matt are. Well, if that’s the case, then maybe such ‘radicalism’ really ain’t that…radical?
Anyways, don’t Clinton-out on us, Ezra and Matt.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:50 am
I’d also like to point out that Matt and Ezra (and other millennial, center-left journalists) probably know a lot more uninsured, student loan-crushed people under 30 than your average staffer at The Economist.
God, how I hate baby boomers.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Dale Sheldon (#37): Single-winner plurality districting means third parties will always be disadvantaged; it’s Duverger’s law.
Yes.
The solution is approval or score voting.
No. As Dale himself appeared to acknowledge earlier (#28), the solution is proportional representation.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Surely the answer is both approval voting AND proportional representation? P.R. hardly works for the presidency: we can’t have a president that’s a quantum superposition of 53% Obama 47% McCain. Approval voting is ideal for elections of a single person, as it’s explicit goal is to find the single person with the broadest consensus view that they’d be adequate for the task.
On the other hand, P.R. is much better than districting as a way of selecting a group with multiple members, such as congressional delegations, at least for states with more than a couple of districts.
As for senators… well… you’re kinda S.O.L. there. As far as I can see there’s no good way to representatively elect people into a body with such a screwed up structure. Just strip away the Senate’s ability to introduce legislation and only allow it to amend or approve or reject House bills, perhaps?
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Having read this thread, here are my utopian ideas:
To be qualified to vote, a potential voter would have to own property or pay any required taxes in the voter’s district.
–Makes certain the voter will bear the consequences of his/her vote.
The Constitution, having been based on state’s being sovereign entities, be amended to repeal direct election of Senators.
–Probably have little effect on the politic composition of the Senate, just they would be beholden to the States, not the population.
Amend the Constitutional Amendment authorizing the Income Tax to restrict income tax revenue to inflation plus population growth.
–Put a stranglehold on runaway spending
Enlarge the House of Representatives by requiring one representative per 300,000 (apx.) population and each congressional district would have to encompass local political boundaries.
–Bring the House of Representatives closer to the people and, the second proposal, would eliminate gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is what gets you fossils like Waxman and Frank. Name your favorite conservative fossil
Bring the Federal Government back to Art. I, Section 8 and require any legislation beyond those powers to come from a Constitutional amendment.
–Eliminate lots of stupid and harmful legislation.
Privatize or eliminate most US economic legislation.
In other words, I want the Federal Government OUT of my bedroom, out of my pocket and out of my life
Government is pure, unadulterated violence and theft. Any government that can you give everything, can take it away.
Like any good Progressive would!! Or should
Mike
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Looking at Wikipedia’s state population chart, a bill desired by senators representing states accounting for almost 90% of the population can be defeated by senators representing only about 10% of the population using the filibuster, and the fact that Wyoming gets the same votes in the Senate as California, even though it has only about 1.5% of the people. People in Wyoming get 70 votes to just 1 for people in California. That’s Democratic and something to keep.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
All of these proposals being offered would simply make it easier for today’s majority to rule the roost without having to compromise with minorities, even if those minorities may be the MAJORITY in large regions of the country. Fine, but just understand, that this leads us down the road toward serious talk of secession.
Which I personally think may not be such a bad idea.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:26 am
[...] keep forgetting to blog this, but a number of people have pointed out to me that I was wrong to say that there’s nothing stopping states from implementing proportional representation to elect [...]