Home Table of Contents
Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Chapter 21
The Demos Electoral System—An Honest Way to Elect the President, Senators, and Representatives
As stated earlier, the
single greatest scam and failure of our nation’s current political
system is its electoral system. It lies at the root of most of our
failures as a society including our inability to achieve honest
representation of the entire populace in government. The need for and
basic design of a new, honest electoral system located within the demos
has already been discussed in the chapters entitled Reorganizing
the Powers of the American Government and Consensus
Democracy. In this chapter I will first briefly summarize what has
been presented of the design so far and then discuss it in greater detail.
In the demos electoral system today’s Electoral
College and all state electoral districts are entirely scrapped. The
president and all senators are elected by direct popular vote from the
nation at-large, and each state’s quota of representatives is elected
from the state at-large. All periodic elections, including all primary
elections, are scrapped and replaced by a simple, ongoing electoral
system. In a manner similar to the nine demos economic issues in which
each member of the electorate keeps a vote riding on each issue, each
member keeps a vote riding on one candidate for president, one for a
senator, and one for a representative. With one exception discussed later
in the chapter, one may change one’s votes at any time.
The demos system has a single national Presidential
Candidates list and a single national Senatorial Candidates list. Each
state has its own single Representative Candidates list. Any member of the
electorate that constitutionally qualifies, e.g., age and residency
requirements, may run for office. And any number of people may run for
office. The person currently receiving the most votes in the Presidential
Candidates list, the top 100 people in the Senatorial Candidates list, and
each state’s quota of representatives from its Representative Candidates
list are currently seated in office. A person gains or loses office when
he or she gains or loses a sufficient number of votes relative to other
candidates in the office’s Candidates list.
Since the demos is a branch of the government, all of
its functions including its nationwide electronic voting system and
electoral process are government supported. Therefore, candidates that run
for the presidency, the senate, or the house need not be wealthy or wealth
supported. They may take any amount of time to run for office for free and
build a following. Members of the electorate may take any amount of time
to study and deliberate about candidates and to reach out to each other
across states or the entire nation to directly elect their champions,
truly representative officeholders that resemble them in body, mind,
interests, and pocketbook.
It is the electing of senators from within the nation at-large
and a state’s quota of representatives from within the state at-large
that overcomes the wealth dominated, one elective office per district
problem and empowers each member of the electorate to join with others to
select their champions. While others vote for their good candidates (who I
may consider to be bad) from within these large pools—from the entire
nation or an entire state—I and others like me vote for our good
candidates from within the same large pools (who others may consider to be
bad).
With many voters selecting several people from the same
large pool to populate a representative body in free, ongoing elections,
no member of the electorate is stuck reluctantly picking a “lesser
evil” from a small group preselected by the wealthy as is done today.
All voters support their goods, their champions, those who resemble and
truly represent them. The resulting senate and house automatically
demographically resemble and serve the true and balanced interests of the entire
electorate. No quota systems, political parties, or complex electoral
schemes are required. People just get to directly vote for whom they
really want. Unlike today’s wealth-serving senate and house, the members
of these diverse bodies entering into democratic deliberations would
create laws that serve the greater good of the entire populace and the
nation. Eliminating state electoral district systems would also end the
cynical, embarrassing spectacle of political gerrymandering.
Simply because it
empowers all members of the electorate in the same way, the free,
at-large, ongoing demos electoral process gives non-wealthy people (and
minorities) the means and unlimited time to reach out to each other across
their states or the entire nation in support of candidates that serve
their needs and interests, even as they also go out into their
neighborhoods and communities to organize and educate friends, neighbors,
co-workers, and others as to their true interests. Unlike today, the
economic bottom half of our populace will achieve full presence and honest
representation within our government.
Voting for one’s choice for president, a senator, and
a representative is an easy task. On the appropriate demos electoral issue
pages, the voter simply selects a name from an already existing national
Presidential Candidates list, a national Senatorial Candidates list, and a
Representative Candidates list for his or her state or adds new names to
the lists.
That summarizes most of what was presented in previous
chapters about the basic demos electoral system. We now move on to further
details and areas not yet discussed.
Ideally, to fully achieve its end, a representative body
that demographically resembles and honestly serves the entire electorate,
the at-large electoral process requires that the area encompassed by the
body is not divided into electoral districts but is one electoral whole;
all able, of-age members of the populace living in the area are members of
the electorate; all members of the electorate may run for a seat in the
body; all of the body’s several
seats are filled by direct, popular vote, each member of the electorate
having the civic duty to cast one vote; and those earning the most votes
in what could be a long list of candidates win seats in the body.
How well does the demos electoral process live up to
this at-large electoral ideal in the election of a president, senators,
and representatives? Given that the government design presented in this
book was not created from scratch but is only a partial redesign of our
current government, what concessions were made to existing political
circumstances?
Currently two senators are elected within each state to
serve in the senate. Some states are divided into two large electoral
districts, one senator being elected from each district. In other states
both senators are elected at-large within the state. In the two electoral
district states, the seat for each district may be essentially dominated
and bought while the poor and minorities go unrepresented. While the
situation is a little better in at-large states, with only two senate
seats to fill, it is only a little better. It is not difficult to dominate
and buy both seats.
It is only when all of a representative body’s several
seats are filled from the same large electoral pool that it becomes
difficult to dominate and buy all seats in the body and the lower middle
class, the working poor, and minorities are empowered to reach out to each
other and elect their champions to office. That is why in the demos
electoral system all 100 senators are elected from the nation at-large in
free, ongoing elections. It was necessary to overcome the undue advantage
that our two-senators-per-state system gives to the dominant and wealthy.
The demos-style election of all 100 senators from the nation at-large
fills perfectly all the criteria for the ideal at-large electoral process.
Currently each state’s quota of representatives is
elected by dividing the state into electoral districts in which one
representative is elected within each district. Using the ideal at-large
electoral model, all 435 or so representatives to the House of
Representatives could be elected from the nation at-large as was done with
the election of senators.
But I did not do this. Why? In part because it wasn’t
really necessary and in part because I thought it important to keep one of
the branches of the legislature coupled to geographical area. If the
members of both the senate and the house were elected from the nation
at-large, then, really, aside from size what would be the difference
between them? By leaving the election of representatives tied to states a
significant difference is created between the senate and the house. While
a few senators’ constituencies may be mostly limited to a large urban
area, the constituencies of most senators would extend beyond state
borders and even nationwide. Each representative’s constituency is
restricted to a given state. Thus, as “horse trading” and “wheeling
and dealing” take place within and between the senate and house during
the legislative process, there is insured in the process a great mix of
national and state interests.
I kept the election of representatives tied to states,
but I eliminated all state electoral districts. All of a state’s
representatives are elected at-large within the state. This mostly
overcomes the wealth dominated, one elective office per district problem
and empowers each member of the electorate to join with others to select
their champions, but it does not do so perfectly. Some states only have
two representatives. The at-large election within a state of only two
representatives does not fare any better than does the at-large election
of two senators. The election of both representatives may be dominated and
bought.
But most states have three or more, often several,
representatives, approaching and readily satisfying the at-large electoral
ideal. Thus, while not perfect, the at-large election of representatives
within states works well enough to empower the lower middle class, the
working poor, and minorities to elect their champions to the house, all
the while giving us the desired coupling to geographical area and the
desired interplay of national and state interests during the legislative
process.
Also, power is distributed in many different ways,
preventing any particular group from gaining an undue measure.
With just one office to fill, electing the president by
direct popular vote from the nation at-large falls well short of the
at-large electoral ideal of electing several candidates to a body from the
same large pool. But at least the candidates will not be only wealthy or
wealth-serving.
To win office a candidate would likely have to appeal to
a very broad spectrum of voters and have a long track record proving his
or her service to the entire electorate and to the nation as a whole. And
in the ongoing demos electoral system a candidate would likely remain
within a small group in the upper regions of the Presidential Candidates
list for a long while being well studied and deliberated by the electorate
before gaining office.
In the ongoing demos electoral process, all three
Candidates lists would function in the same way. The names on each list
would slowly change over time as the names of new candidates were added by
demos members and other names were removed for various reasons,
e.g., candidates died, no longer qualified for office, or withdrew.
The names of the candidates who possessed the most votes at any given
moment would be at the tops of their appropriate lists and would be
actually seated in office. They would be followed in descending order on
the lists by the names of others that possessed fewer and fewer votes.
The person whose name was at the top of the Presidential
Candidates list would actively sit as president of the United States. Once
in office, the president would remain in office for a minimum of three
years no matter what his or her ranking became in the Presidential
Candidates list during those years. Demos members who had a vote riding on
a candidate at the time the candidate gained office or who voted to
further support an already seated president during his or her initial
three years could not change their votes until the three year period has
ended. (This is the exception I mentioned earlier in the book of a
voter’s ability to change any of his or her demos votes at any time. The
same rule holds for senators and representatives.) Beyond the initial three years the president would remain in office
only so long as he or she retained enough votes to stay at the top of the
Presidential Candidates list up to a maximum of eight years in office.
However long his or her term lasted, the individual could never seek or
hold the office again.
Candidates earning enough votes to hold one of the top 100
positions on the Senatorial list would actively sit as senators in the
Senate. Once in office, a senator would remain in office for a minimum of
three years no matter what his or her ranking became in the Senatorial
Candidates list during those years. Demos members who had a vote riding on
a candidate at the time the candidate gained office or who voted to
further support an already seated senator during his or her initial three
years could not change their votes until the three year period has ended.
Beyond the initial three years a senator would remain in office only so
long as he or she retained enough votes to stay somewhere within the top
100 positions on the Senatorial Candidates list up to a maximum of six
years in office. Once bumped from office or having finished the maximum
term, the now ex-senator could serve again if desired after a three year
waiting period.
Each state’s allotment of representatives would be
elected at-large by the members of the demos living within the state. In
accordance with the number of representatives allotted for the state, the
people with the most votes in the state’s Representative Candidates list
would actively sit as representatives for the state in the House of
Representatives. Once in office, a representative would remain in office
for a minimum of two years no matter what his or her ranking became in his
or her state’s Representative Candidates list during those years. Demos
members who had a vote riding on a candidate at the time the candidate
gained office or who voted to further support an already seated
representative during his or her initial two years could not change their
votes until the two years have ended. Beyond the initial two years a
representative would remain in office so long as he or she retained enough
votes to stay within the allotted number of top positions of his or her
state’s Representative Candidates list up to a maximum of four years in
office. Once bumped from office or having finished the maximum term, the
now ex-representative could serve again if desired after a two year
waiting period.
With waiting periods between terms of serving in the
senate or the house, voters would be encouraged to explore other
candidates for office. And yet good people, which, as we all know, can be
hard to find, could be periodically reelected building experience and
wisdom. Breaks between terms of service would periodically free those who
serve from the narrow focus of Washington and keep them in touch with the
larger reality of the lives and needs of everyday people. It would also
give them time for personal affairs and family.
Along with its Candidates list, each of the three demos
issue pages pertaining to the election of the president, senators, and
representatives would contain the tools necessary for voting for a
candidate, for adding and removing names from the Candidates list, for
organizing the list as desired, for browsing through the list, and for
searching for names. Who the member currently perusing a Candidates list
is currently voting for would also be indicated. Each electoral issue’s
voting page should also contain some basic electoral information such as a
brief description of the constitutional qualifications, e.g., age and
residency requirements, for the electoral seat or office. Each electoral
issue’s page would also contain links that lead to a hierarchy of other
pages containing more general electoral information and possibly to an
area for general discussion about the issue’s electoral process and
political office.
Along with each candidate’s name, his or her rank in
the Candidates list would be displayed, the number of votes the candidate
currently has, and if the candidate is currently seated in office. And the
name would be accompanied by a link to a standard set of demos information
about the candidate and a link to pro and con member discussion about the
candidate. Centered on the candidate’s own views, a combination of
member voting and a mathematical round robin (described in the chapter
entitled Consensus Democracy) should be used to initially organize
and present the pro and con member discussion, which a visiting member may
then reorder as desired.
Selecting a name on the Candidates list would display
the candidate’s campaign for office in his or her personal demos space.
Each candidate’s campaign pages would follow a standard layout and
format designed by demos officials. These pages would contain the
candidate’s campaign speech, discussion of and positions taken on issues
of the day, campaign information, and links to the candidate’s campaign
efforts outside the demos, the same standard set of demos information
about the candidate as can be directly linked to from his or her name in
the Candidates list, and his or her actual voting record from current or
previously held offices.
The free, ongoing, at-large demos method of electing the president,
senators, and representatives would open doors for candidates and voters
and introduces fairness into the electoral process in several ways. Since
any constitutionally qualifying individual’s name could be placed into a
Candidates list at no cost and reside within the list indefinitely, there
would be no monetary or time constraints placed upon candidates who are
trying to express their political messages and run for office. While money would
still “talk” throughout our society and lend support to wealthier and
wealth-serving candidates, a congress that resembles and represents the
entire electorate would strike balanced laws and rules about the use of
money and media in the electoral process. And within the demos all
candidates would have opportunity to be heard and gain support. Even a
poor candidate with excellent ideas could be heard and become elected.
Poor members of the electorate could organize and work within and outside
the demos in support of their champions. As a largely unknown candidate
with a growing constituency moved significantly upward in a Candidates
list, the always hungry media would likely pick up on “the news,”
“the phenomenon” and give the candidate even more free visibility.
Voters could take however much time they wanted to become familiar with
various candidates and to express their views to other members of the
demos including folks living in their own communities. Slow-building,
grass-roots movements could elevate candidates in the Candidates lists
over a long period of time. In fact, grass-roots movements started
elsewhere could be moved into the demos within the candidate’s personal
demos space.
The single most important result of all of this is that
poor and minority voters would no longer be forced by the electoral system
to be joined at the hip as they are today with wealthy and majority
candidates who do not really champion their interests. The wealthy (and
anyone else that could manage to scrape the money together) could still
use the media for political ends, but now other powerful political forces
are facilitated such as community and minority self-education and action,
which are ineffectual in today’s periodic, fast paced, money-driven
electoral system. Poor and minority voters would be empowered by the free,
ongoing, at-large demos electoral system to support their own champions
and to take as much time as needed to educate similar others as to
which candidates truly serve their interests. And remember, voting on the
demos’ nine economic and three electoral issues would be a civic
obligation. Millions of poor and less educated people and disenchanted
dropouts who currently do not vote would be politically educated and
motivated by their more astute peers and vote in the demos.
Many kinds of alternate electoral schemes have been
proposed or are in effect today around the world that attempt to create
improved participation within and representation by government of the
entire populace. Attempts are made to remedy or mitigate the ill effect
that extreme amounts of money and other resources have on elections, the
lesser of evil dilemma, the third candidate spoiler problem, and the lack
of representation. Such schemes include electoral money management, term
limits, ranked or ordered preference voting, proportional party
representation, and others. Ranked or ordered preference voting takes into
account each voter’s second, third, etc. choices of a candidate for an
office. With proportional party representation, political parties run
several candidates who win office in proportion to the number of votes the
parties have won. There are many variations of each scheme.
And yet, in every country in the world powerful, wealthy
elites continue to hold hegemonies of power during elections and in their
governments. The reason is that the many electoral schemes proposed and
tried so far are really superficial patches that fall well short of
correcting the problems they attempt to address. Further, the very
complexity of most would-be electoral remedies biases the electoral system
in favor of those who are the most sophisticated and cunning and against
the many voters they attempt to help.
Some people idealistically propose that those who
populate the electoral seats of government should not be biased career
politicians but ordinary citizens selected at random or objective
scientists or supposed “experts” who work together to make high-minded
laws and policies that benefit the entire populace and the nation as a
whole. But in real life every person has particular world and political
views, and there is no such thing as an unbiased or apolitical person.
Many people, if not most of us, lack sufficient wisdom,
vision, and capability to occupy electoral office. Random selection of
ordinary people is not a good idea. Many mediocre people would end up in
office, and they would create many shortsighted and narrow-minded laws.
‘Experts’ and even scientists can often be as biased
and subject to poor judgment and decisions as members of the general
populace. Not to pick on scientists, but by way of example, anyone who has
studied the historical and current feuds among scientists understands well
the bias, prejudice, and political intrigue within the scientific
community.
Try as we may to be objective, we are subjective, not
objective, beings, particularly when it comes to economic fairness and
moral and value judgments. The idealistic wish that governing entities be
objective, apolitical, managerial bodies is a pipedream. The best that we
can achieve are candidates that pass through a long process of scrutiny
and democratic deliberation by members of the electorate and
representative bodies that demographically resemble to the fullest extent
possible the entire electorate in body, mind, interests, and
pocketbook. The demos method of electing the president, senators, and
representatives to office would achieve these goals as much as is humanly
possible and give us our greatest possibility of finding and electing
visionary, high-minded, just, capable people to office.
Although objectivity and impartiality are elusive
qualities that in reality do not exist when it comes to moral and value
judgments, those who are not convinced of this and who want to elect to
office someone they deem to be objective and impartial would, in the form
of the demos electoral process, have in hand the tool to do this. Unlike
the current electoral system, which for the most part insures the election
of wealthy and wealth-serving people, the demos electoral system would
empower the members of the electorate to elect to office any people they want who constitutionally qualify.
The offices of the president, senators, and
representatives are surrounded by expert career people whose function,
among others, is to guide and aid new officeholders, including
officeholders who are not career politicians. This support staff is what
makes the election of new people possible. One job of the elected
officeholder is, of course, to never fail to remember who is the help and
who is the boss.
The demos electoral system does not unrealistically
depend upon supposed idealism, high-mindedness, objectivity, or
impartiality of candidates or voters. It is a robust system based upon
each of us seeking our self-interests. But, unlike our current electoral
system, which overwhelmingly favors the interests of the wealthy, the
demos system achieves a just balance of all of our interests. The
surprisingly simple, free, ongoing, at-large demos electoral system
achieves fair participation and demographically proportional
representation within our government’s representative bodies without
resorting to quota systems or to complex electoral schemes such as ranked
list voting and proportional party representation.
Along with the distribution of power, our economic
relationship with each other and our nation’s overall distribution of
wealth are profound moral
issues. In fact, they are the most important of all moral issues. Our
nation’s extreme economic imbalance more deeply and adversely affects
our lives than any other of our many problems. And, whatever other
problems one must bear, one’s personal exclusion from effective
participation in the political-economic system seriously worsens one’s
situation and life. The just inclusion and effective participation of each
of us in the political-economic system would make possible our repair of
most of our nation’s currently intractable political, economic, and
social problems.
One must first obtain political power before one can
pursue any of one’s interests and achieve any of one’s goals in the
political arena. The demos with its nine economic and three electoral
issues and the attainment of honest representation in the other branches
of government achieve a fair measure of power for all members of the
electorate.
Holding real political power at long last, what should
be a voter’s most vital interest in the political arena?
While participating in the political process, each
member of the electorate should hold uppermost in mind and action his or
her economic interests. All of one’s other interests should be
held secondary. Within the political arena, one should join together with
like-minded others to first secure the means to feed, clothe, shelter, and
achieve economic security for one’s self and family before pursuing any
other political or social dreams or goals.
The wealthy already know the truth of this. Cunning
wealthy politicos and those they serve steadfastly pursue the gold while
using secondary “hot-button” social issues to politically distract
others and manipulate them into forking over their gold. Empowered by the
demos to act in their own interests, all members of the electorate would
need to learn what policies, rules, laws, and institutions are in their
best economic interests and how to effectively pursue them in the
political arena without being distracted by the secondary, hot-button
social issues. The free, ongoing demos deliberative and connective
processes and related national and community organization and action
provide a place, a way, and unlimited time for this never ending
educational process to take place.
Whatever other qualities one desired in a candidate,
first and foremost one should be sure that a candidate truly represents
one’s economic interests. If one’s candidate gets elected to
office, one should make sure the officeholder does not stray from
representing one’s economic interests. If the officeholder does stray,
then one should vote for some other candidate instead.
While one’s economic interests have several facets,
let’s simplify the discussion by saying that they are most simply
determined by the amount of one’s annual income and total accumulated
wealth. One should vote for candidates who look after the interests of
people with one’s level of income and wealth. If each voter did, indeed,
understand his or her true economic interests and voted accordingly, the
house and senate would end up populated by people that represent economic
interests in demographic proportion to the actual income and wealth levels
of the general populace.
Now, a wise voter would unfailingly keep the matter of
economic self-interest above all other considerations. But there would be
many candidates running for office and a voter would have other interests
that he or she could and should consider. To a woman, it may and
should be important that the number of women seated in office be in
proportion to the number of women in the electorate, about 50%. Therefore,
from among the candidates that she
believes would look after her economic interests a woman may and
should select a woman. One could further refine or fine-tune one’s
selection considering race, moral views, etc. Electing senators from the
nation at-large and representatives from states at-large would create
large enough pools of candidates to strongly enable voters to reach out to
each other in support of candidates who truly resemble and represent them.
Each voter could at any time evaluate his or her votes to see if they are
being used most wisely for self-interest and freely change them as
desired.
With one’s principal focus on one’s economic
interests, one may not always be able to as fully pursue one’s secondary
interests as one would like when selecting a candidate. No candidate would
match one’s views and interests entirely or vote exactly as one would
like. Therefore, it would always be a matter of judgment as to how well a
candidate satisfies one overall and as to whether some other candidate
would be more satisfactory. While a voter could not perfectly juggle many
criteria, one should usually be able to judge fairly well whether or not
one’s economic interests are represented adequately by a candidate or
officeholder. Voters would have access to a wealth of demos supplied and
other information and many different resources. There would almost
certainly be many different organizations rating and judging candidates in
many different ways using all kinds of criteria.
While some voters might feel most comfortable voting for
candidates that resemble them in economic class, gender, race, ethnicity,
etc., it would certainly not be necessary that one do so. It would be most
crucial that one votes for people that truly serve one’s interests as
demonstrated by actions and voting records. A wise voter would understand
that a candidate who demographically resembles one does not necessarily
support one’s interests and a candidate who demographically differs may
well best champion one’s interests. One does not need to resemble you to
serve you well. There is no shortage of altruistic people among us who
rise above their personal demographic characteristics in the service of
others and the greater good.
If and when a demos and consensus democracy were added
to our government and people were able to vote for anyone they wanted to
represent them, it might take a great deal of reeducation before
America’s then current crop of politically clueless people stopped
voting for multimillionaire rock stars or television evangelists. It might
take an agonizingly long while before they became politically streetwise
and voted intelligently in their self-interest. Long held clueless and
ineffectual by the plutocracy, the then current generation may have to die
and be replaced before the economic bottom half learns enough to
participate intelligently in the political arena.
By being taught at the high school level—something
which will be discussed later—and by long participation in the demos,
each voter and each generation of voters would become increasingly
politically street wise. Take heart, O you cynic! It may not matter much
how the excluded vote in a plutocracy, but, facilitated by the true
democracy that is proposed here, voters will in time learn their interests
and how to effectively pursue them. And, to politically survive,
officeholders will learn to serve honestly and effectively.
Whatever other attributes, characteristics, and
political positions one sought in a candidate, the candidate should be
able to participate effectively in the legislative and governing
“wheeling and dealing” and “horse trading” processes. If a group
of, say, religious fundamentalist voters or voters with a rigid,
uncompromising ideology elected to the senate or house someone who simply
harangued and blew hot air day after day in congress on a limited set of
issues, neither giving nor taking, never willing to compromise or trade on
anything, than the congressperson could not gain anything for his or her
constituency other than, perhaps, the satisfaction of hearing the person
rant. These voters will have thrown away their economic and other
interests on a dysfunctional candidate. The demos would only make it possible
for each member of the electorate to seek his or her interests. It would
not guarantee that voters understood their self-interests, chose wisely,
and actually achieved their self-interests. All voters would need to
understand that their own needs and views exist in a sea of other needs
and views and that only those who give a little manage to receive anything
from the political process. A voter must ask: While my candidate and I are
of like mind, is the candidate that currently carries my vote actually
achieving anything and serving my interests?
As discussed earlier, one’s vote must remain with a
selected candidate during the initial portion of his or her term in
office. But at all other times one could change one’s vote as often as
one wished. If one saw that a candidate who does act in one’s
economic interest has many more votes including one’s own than is really
needed to win or stay in office, then one could switch one’s vote to
some other candidate who looks after one’s interest and who needs more
support.
Keeping in mind that the demos electoral process is not
periodic but ongoing, the overall result of our freely changing our votes
over time as wisdom and self-interest dictate would be that votes would
flow like water, so to speak. There would be a ripple effect of some ever
shifting portion of voters seeking and finding the right candidates and a
senate and house with a slowly shifting membership that resembles in
several general ways the demographic distribution of the entire electorate
in body, mind, interests, and pocketbook and that truly represents the
broad interests of the entire electorate. Most of the vote shifting would
occur among candidates already seated in office during the second portion
of their terms and among several candidates not currently in office but
sporting a goodly number of votes, thus having the greatest potential to
win office. As the distribution of wealth, the physical features of
individuals, and the interests and moral and other values of the
electorate shifted over the decades and centuries, the demographics of the
house and the senate would automatically and peacefully follow those of
the nation as a whole.
How would the demos electoral system deal with the
“lesser of evils” and the “third candidate spoiler” problems that
plague our current system?
The lesser of evils problem only exists in
America’s current, two-party electoral system, which is essentially left
to the marketplace. Virtually all candidates are wealthy or they are
financed and, therefore, preselected by the wealthy and are
wealth-serving. The non-wealthy usually find themselves reluctantly
picking from among them what they guess may be lesser evils that
don’t really serve their interests.
In the demos
electoral system, one would not be picking a stranger from a short list
pre-selected by the wealthy. One would pick directly from or add to a long
list of candidates the name of someone that one has long studied, knows
well, and trusts to be a champion of one’s interests. Thus, the lesser
of evils problem simply wouldn’t exist in the demos electoral system.
In today’s third candidate spoiler problem, one dares
not take one’s vote away from one’s lesser of evils between the
Republican and Democratic candidates in favor of one’s favorite third
party or independent candidate (who likely will not win anyway) because
that helps the greater of one’s two major evils to win.
However, in the
demos electoral system, particularly with one’s choice for a senator and
a representative, one’s focus would not be toward “the evils” but
toward one’s favorite candidates. With senators elected from the nation
at-large and representatives from states at-large and one only being able
to vote for one candidate for senator with a hundred positions to be
filled and one for representative with several positions to be filled, one
couldn’t prevent by voting what one perceives to be “the evils” from
being elected. Of necessity, one must focus on voting wisely for one’s
own interests by voting for one’s champions.
Although each demos member could only vote for one
candidate for each office, during demos deliberations one could still
participate in arguments for and against any number of other candidates,
thus attempting to influence other people’s votes. And one could
“enlighten” one’s family members, friends, co-workers, and others in
the community as to which candidates best serve their interests.
What would happen to our current two principal political
parties in the demos electoral system? The two major parties would almost
certainly die the inglorious political death that they so richly deserve.
Their wealth-serving hegemony of power would become fragmented and would
be replaced by slowly shifting constellations of several parties, interest
groups, and independent others that are vastly more representative of the
entire electorate than the current parties ever have been.
Realistically, perfect representation of the entire
populace is an ideal that can be approached but not fully achieved. Under
the demos electoral system, the house and senate would evolve toward
a more just representation of the entire populous and yet likely not
achieve it completely. Even so, like our use of BC and AD in our
calculation of dates, the difference between our current plutocracy and
beyond plutocracy under the true democracy of the consensus government
described here would be transcendental, a continental divide in our
nation’s history and in human affairs. We would move to a whole new
level of relationship with each other and a whole new way of being.
In Joseph J. Ellis’s marvelous book “Founding
Brothers,” Ellis discusses George Washington’s Farewell Address,
printed in a Philadelphia newspaper near the end of his second term as
president. Ellis writes of Washington’s “plea for a politics of
consensus serving as a warning against single-issue political movements,
or against the separation of America into racial, ethnic, or gender-based
constituencies.” Others since the time of the founders have reiterated
this plea.
And yet, there is a difficulty with this argument.
During the time of our new, fragile national government, the argument may
have had some merit. But our government is much stronger now and can
readily tolerate such constituencies. Moreover, the centuries have
demonstrated that such constituencies are a natural and necessary part of
the political process.
The founders’ creation of a government populated by a
single constituency, the wealthy, to the exclusion of all others has
proven disastrous for all other Americans. And it has not eliminated
constituencies either, for, divided by interests and regions, the wealthy
themselves fall into constituencies. There is no getting away from
constituencies or interest groups. It is by the wheeling and dealing and
horse trading among constituencies that laws are created and the business
of government (and, indeed, the whole world) is conducted. By eliminating
all other constituencies from government and allowing only the
constituency of the wealthy to do the horse trading within itself, all
that has been accomplished is to cut everyone else out of the deal, much
to their detriment.
The partial redesign of the American government as
proposed here would put all major constituencies into the political arena inside
government where they may effectively wheel and deal and horse trade
with the wealthy constituency that is currently there. A demos would
create a single body constituted of the entire electorate. Therefore, it
would include every constituency, and, moreover, guarantee by the very
nature of its structure and function their achieving consensus on the
demos issues. This in itself is a politics of consensus. But it goes
further in its building of consensus. Electing senators from the nation
at-large and representatives from within states at-large would allow
various groups of people to come together to elect, as it were, one of
their own. To the constituency of the wealthy currently populating the
senate and the house many more would be added, giving all of the major
constituencies in America real horse trading power on a level playing
field where they could achieve a much broader consensus then that achieved
today.
If government by the wheeling and dealing and the horse
trading among constituencies is seen as an evil, then it is a far greater
evil that government includes only one constituency, the wealthy. If it is
not the notion of constituencies per se but single-issue
constituencies that disturbs one, then one should consider that the most
persistent and powerful single-issue constituency of all, the wealthy, has
reigned supreme and alone throughout our nation’s history, which only
makes it more of the same in our long, sorry human history.
And yet, when the constituency of the wealthy is
examined closely, one finds many shades of gray, though narrowly focused
around a common interest. This would be the case as well for most of the
other constituencies that earned a place within government. Each
constituency would present something of a unified agenda even as it warred
within itself. The argument against single-issue, racial, ethnic,
gender-based, etc. constituencies simply doesn’t hold water. They are
and always have been an ever present political reality. But heretofore all
have been barred from effective participation in the political-economic
process by the dominant constituency of a powerful, wealthy minority.
Unlike the nine demos economic issues, which do not
involve officeholders, the three electoral issues would face the problem
of officeholders or candidates for office dying or become unable to serve
for one reason or another. Candidates lists would require continuous
attention to keep them accurate and up to date. With the cooperation of
demos members, it would be up to the officials and technicians who
maintain the demos to verify three things for each name in the Candidates
lists: 1) The name is that of a real, living person. 2) The
person wants to be a candidate. 3) The person constitutionally
qualifies for the office being sought. While the demos could, when
necessary, engage in a simple, standard search procedure when contact with
a candidate has been lost, the responsibility for maintaining some means
of communication with the demos should be borne by the candidate.
When a current officeholder or any other person in a
Candidates list died, was removed from a list for lack of qualification,
simply could not be located after standard search means had been used and
a standard length of time had passed, or the candidate removed his or her
own name from a list, then every demos member currently voting for the
person would be notified as follows: A trigger would be placed into the
demos voting system. Whenever any demos member voting for the person used
any voting terminal to connect to the demos system, which, recall, would
be required at least once a year, the system would automatically notify
the voter of his or her need to cast a new vote for president, senator, or
representative. Also, a demos member could opt to receive email
notification when one of his or her votes required updating. For the more
prominent persons on Candidates lists, demos voters may well learn about
their need to update a vote via other sources, e.g., the evening
news, and know to recast a vote at that time.
The consensus of the demos on its issues would serve as
our “social contract” and set some values that government, businesses,
and individuals must use as they conduct their business and live their
lives. But what if elective office or seat holders of the representative
branches of government attempted by their action or inaction to ignore or
subvert the consensus of the demos, which, after all, represents the will
of the people? Along with its empowering all members of the electorate to
elect their champions to office in the first place, the demos electoral
system would empower them to remove their support from officeholders
during the second portion of their terms and support other candidates
instead.
Given our current manner of conducting elections, the
wrong people easily gain office and evade and contradict the will of the
electorate. Given 1) the free, ongoing, at-large demos electoral
system described here with candidates slowly gaining votes and marching up
the Candidates lists over time; 2) the demos member’s increased
interest, knowledge, and ability to select not just someone put on a short
list by the elite but anyone he or she thought truly worthy and capable;
3) all of the ready information, candidates’ expressed views,
actual voting records, and pro and con debate; and 4) the voter’s
ability to change a vote at any time; candidates and officeholders would
as a matter of survival be less responsive to the money of the elite and
more responsive to the will of “we the people,” all of the people.
Home
Table of Contents Previous Chapter
Next Chapter Top of Page
Beyond Plutocracy - Direct Democracy for America
www.BeyondPlutocracy.com
© Copyright 2001-2017 Roger D Rothenberger
Footnote
1 While
we discussed the propositions to elect senators from the nation at-large and
representatives from states at-large verses electing a single candidate from
each district as is currently done, a friend, Dean Crist, (whose sage thinking
and debate has had its effect on my thinking and this work) expressed the fear
that with the demos electoral system officeholders would end up being elected mostly from densely populated
states and cities leaving the less populated states and cities under
represented. I believe less populated areas are already under represented in our
current system, a problem that would be lessened by an at-large voting system.
With at-large voting, people from the entire nation or an entire state coming
together around a candidate would be motivated by common interests, including
the fact that they live in less densely populated areas. Rural people from all
across the country or a state could join together in common cause. They could
even join together in common cause with, say, urban poor people. 1
|