ENDING CORPORATIST DUOPOLY IN AMERICA THROUGH ELECTION REFORM
Approximately 62 percent of Americans do not think the federal government has the consent of the governed, and 86 percent feel the political system is broken and does not serve the interests of the American people. 60% of Americans say they welcome additional or “third” political parties; as few as 26% are satisfied with what we have. Any alternative to the 162-year-old duopoly of Democrats and Republicans is blocked by the system the two parties have created.
1. THE CURRENT SITUATION According to Thomas Baldwin of the Green Party, Obama’s election in 2008 was all a marketing phenomenon created by more than a billion dollars, much of it from large banks. Under Barack Obama, the “hope and change” he had promised never came. The policies of George Bush were worsened: civil liberties have been significantly reduced or eroded with increased frequency in the wrong doing of our surveillance state, indefinite detention, criminal prosecutions of whistle blowers, foreign invasions and assassinations violating the sovereignty of nations. On the domestic front, most employment gains have been from temporary, part time or low wage jobs; universal healthcare was a big lie. The ACA was a huge give away to the private insurance and big pharma. Millions remain without coverage. The big gains in the stock market are increasing the profitability of corporations and enriching the very wealthy.Americans are as pessimistic and have lost confidence in their government. Only the very wealthy or those with access to money can afford to run for office. Congress is dominated by one of the two political parties. Corporations control the media. The Citizen’s United decision made bribery legal resulting in total corruption of the U.S. government.
2. ENDING DUOPOLY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Utilize Proportional Representation. The most obvious difference between electoral politics in the United States and Europe is our plurality, winner-take-all electoral system. Giving representation only to supporters of the candidate with the most votes by definition shuts the door on – disenfranchises - political minorities. For example, if in a congressional district 51% vote Democrat, the remaining 49 % get no representation at all. Nearly all European legislatures have forms of proportional representation where 51 percent of the vote wins a majority of seats, but not all seats.
With proportional representation, winning 30% of the vote wins 30% of the seats. 10 percent of the vote wins 10 percent of seats, and in some nations, like Germany and Belgium, candidates and parties can win with far less support. This lowers the barrier to entry for third parties and provides representation for those who did not vote for the winning party. John Stuart Mill advocated for proportional representation in 1861 in his book “Representative Government." Most democracies formed since that time use some form of proportional representation.
In the United States, this could be accomplished by defining larger districts with the number of representatives assigned based on total population in that district. For example, if the district required 10 representatives, each party provides a list of 10 candidates with assigned priority 1 through 10. If that party wins say 40% of the vote then the top 4 members on that list are elected on that district. I believe this would be consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJyzkPicCRo
3. IMPROVING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Approval voting is a much simpler and more democratic than Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Each party with a representative in congress selects their presidential candidate. A ballot with multiple candidates could now say "Vote for any and all candidates that you wish." You can vote for any and all candidates that you support. The candidate with the most approval votes wins. Once we are no longer forced to vote for only one candidate, the candidate with the broadest overall support will win.
See:
Approval Voting versus IRV | The Center for Election Science
4. TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN ELECTIONS CONSIDER
a. Public funding of elections b. Election day registration. Utilize statewide voter registration databases. c. Make election day a holiday. d. Consolidate election calendars. e. Tie FCC licensing to more public affairs programming to increase electoral awareness. f. Constitutional amendment enshrining the right to vote. Establish and maintain voting systems that ensure everyone who wants to vote will be able to vote.
5. CONCLUSION
I would like to see debate around these issues and to explore the merit of other suggestions. I believe election reform is essential if we are to restore democracy to the people. If the Democratic Party believes in democracy then their platform should include election reforms like these to end the corrupt corporatist duopoly and restore democracy in America.