How to Fix Congress

[MSimon]

The only thing that remotely works is the police function and that not well.

If we went back to the old standard: some one must complain before any action that would be better. Where we have gone wrong is that police are looking for criminals.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it.

You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum

So if you want one change that would be it. No police action without a complaint.

Say. Did I mention Drug Prohibition? Probably.

[hanelyp]

1. Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.

Get rid of plurality elections. They reinforce a 2 party system. I like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting myself.

2. Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.

Here in California an initiative passed that was supposed to do that. Results in the current redistricting are not promising.

[quixote]

It's hard to imagine how the commission could do a worse job than is done already. I'm looking forward to them showing me, though.

[MSimon]

hanelyp,

Countries that do not have a two party system seem more ungovernable than countries with such a system. Each system has its defects. The two party system IMO has fewer.

For one thing voters know more or less what they are getting vs the deal making required to put a coalition together.

In a two party system the deals get made (more or less) before the election. In a multiparty system the deals are made after. I'd really prefer to know the deal I'm voting for. Or against.

[KitemanSA]

2. Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.

What exactly does that mean? We get LGM? Resurrect Solomon?

Nope, just make all districts "at large" and allow folks to select their own by preference (I'd prefer this one, but if full put me in this one then this one..)

[Diogenes]

The first step to all that, full option voting; the ability to vote either for, OR AGAINST the candidate of your choise. Can't find one you like, then certainly there should be one you dislike the most. Vote AGAINST that candidate. (too bad you can't).

Years ago I read a book which argued that the current methodology of Australian balloting yielded results which nobody wanted. (I think the book was called "Archimedes Revenge") It was pointed out that a preference based numbering system would work better.

For Example, In the Election of 1992, the Libertarians and Conservatives split between Ross Perot and George H.W. Bush, resulting in a Horrible President getting elected. Under the proposal mentioned in the book, each voter would number his preferred candidate in order of his preference.

In this example, Those who favored Ross Perot would chose him number 1 on the ballot, and they would likely have picked George H.W. Bush as their Second Choice. The Reverse would have occurred for those George H.W. Bush supporters. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, it moves to the Second Choice group. If no Candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in THAT group, it moves to the third choice.

Eventually, a Candidate would be selected with greater than 50% support from the Voters. Had this occurred in 1992, George H.W. Bush would have won reelection, and the nastiness and horrible fiascoes caused by the Clinton Administration would never have occurred. (The number one fiasco of which was the Freddie Mac, Fannie May fueled subsequent financial collapse of the Housing Market.)

[Diogenes]

2. Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.

What exactly does that mean? We get LGM? Resurrect Solomon?

The stumbling block to all this is that you are dealing with humans. And I believe the animal you describe in your 6 points is not remotely human.

My attitude? Government will always cause mischief. Make it as small as possible to limit the damage.

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." --James Madison, The Federalist No. 51

Echos of Edmund Burke. The same concept applies to individuals.

[Diogenes]

Well, the author started down the path of gambling with filling committee vacancies by lot...why not flip a coin to decide changing a particular boundary? How is that for impartial?

I too, am for limited government, but we still need some that works.

I have always enjoyed and agreed with this statement by William F. Buckley, Jr.


I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

[KitemanSA]

The first step to all that, full option voting; the ability to vote either for, OR AGAINST the candidate of your choise. Can't find one you like, then certainly there should be one you dislike the most. Vote AGAINST that candidate. (too bad you can't).

Eventually, a Candidate would be selected with greater than 50% support from the Voters. Had this occurred in 1992, George H.W. Bush would have won reelection, and the nastiness and horrible fiascoes caused by the Clinton Administration would never have occurred. (The number one fiasco of which was the Freddie Mac, Fannie May fueled subsequent financial collapse of the Housing Market.)

And this is EXACTLY why I don't like this system. I've yet to see a presidential candidate that REALLY has 50% support.
However, make the preference system (also called single transferable voting I believe) into the Full Option version (allow the last choice made to be a vote AGAINST a candidate) and the TRUE level of support would become evident. Imagine a presidet getting into the White House with a NEGATIVE 3% vote! That would sure tell him that he DIDN'T have a mandate. All he would know is the he wasn't as BAD as the other guy!

[hanelyp]

There are many ways to run an 'honest' election.
Plurality voting, what is now used in most elections, is the worst of the simple methods.
Approval voting (aka binary range voting) is the simplest of the very good methods.
Rank voting is good, but has a comparatively messy ballot, especially if the list of candidates gets long.

[KitemanSA]

Years ago I read a book which argued that the current methodology of Australian balloting yielded results which nobody wanted. (I think the book was called "Archimedes Revenge") It was pointed out that a preference based numbering system would work better.

I had to go look this up, but the distinctive feature of the "Australian Ballot" is that it is secret. Do you really object to a secret ballot or are you conflating the "single member plurality" method with it?

Suffice it to say that NO voting system will yield proper results as long as there is no option to vote AGAINST a candidate. And most any system with "full option voting" will work to one degree or other.

[KitemanSA]

There are many ways to run an 'honest' election.
Plurality voting, what is now used in most elections, is the worst of the simple methods.
Approval voting (aka binary range voting) is the simplest of the very good methods.
Rank voting is good, but has a comparatively messy ballot, especially if the list of candidates gets long.

Did I miss it? I don't recall anyone bringing up the "honesty" card.

There are NO "very good methods" without "Full Option Voting".

[Diogenes]

Years ago I read a book which argued that the current methodology of Australian balloting yielded results which nobody wanted. (I think the book was called "Archimedes Revenge") It was pointed out that a preference based numbering system would work better.

I had to go look this up, but the distinctive feature of the "Australian Ballot" is that it is secret. Do you really object to a secret ballot or are you conflating the "single member plurality" method with it?.

Sorry, I conflated the two concepts. Yes, I am completely in favor of Secret ballots. I was referring to the single member plurality aspect of it. The book explores the weaknesses of this and several other balloting methods. (It's been a couple of decades since I read it. )

Suffice it to say that NO voting system will yield proper results as long as there is no option to vote AGAINST a candidate. And most any system with "full option voting" will work to one degree or other.

I am not fully comprehending the benefit of voting AGAINST a candidate. It seems to me that under our current system, when you vote FOR a candidate, you are automatically voting AGAINST another candidate. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean a bit more?

[KitemanSA]

I am not fully comprehending the benefit of voting AGAINST a candidate. It seems to me that under our current system, when you vote FOR a candidate, you are automatically voting AGAINST another candidate. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean a bit more?

I guess a lot depends on what your goal for an election is. If it is just to select a guy this time... then any process is ok and your point has a bit of validity. But if your goal is to maintain control of your government by making you wishes clear, none of the current systems can work.

See if you can tell the difference in the message: Presume you want the government smaller.
Current Election Methods
Candidate R: "I want to grow the government 10%.
Candidate D: "I want to grow the government 50%.
Which gets your vote?
Your way you say "yes" to 10% (or remain silent which accepts either.)
Mine, I get to say NO! to the 50%.
Does it make a difference in one single election? Perhaps not. But over time, the message "SMALLER" will be heard. After all, the 10% candidate could theoretically "win" with a -49% of the vote! He would still be the office holder... this time.

You may also want to consider it naturally imposed term limits.

[Diogenes]

I am not fully comprehending the benefit of voting AGAINST a candidate. It seems to me that under our current system, when you vote FOR a candidate, you are automatically voting AGAINST another candidate. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean a bit more?

I guess a lot depends on what your goal for an election is. If it is just to select a guy this time... then any process is ok and your point has a bit of validity. But if your goal is to maintain control of your government by making you wishes clear, none of the current systems can work.

See if you can tell the difference in the message: Presume you want the government smaller.
Current Election Methods
Candidate R: "I want to grow the government 10%.
Candidate D: "I want to grow the government 50%.
Which gets your vote?
Your way you say "yes" to 10% (or remain silent which accepts either.)
Mine, I get to say NO! to the 50%.
Does it make a difference in one single election? Perhaps not. But over time, the message "SMALLER" will be heard. After all, the 10% candidate could theoretically "win" with a -49% of the vote! He would still be the office holder... this time.

You may also want to consider it naturally imposed term limits.

The fallacy of this idea is the belief that politicians can eventually learn something.

Years ago I suggested that politicians could be required to garner an ever increasing percentage of the electorate in order to win re-election. The intent was to offset the natural advantage of incumbency.

Who are we kidding? The Baby boom generation is in power now, and they are a collection of reckless and self indulgent children. The only resolution I see in our future is a societal/financial collapse of some sort.

There is not going to be the political will to stop the government gravy train regardless of who gets elected. We will ride it off a cliff just the way Greece has done.