Democracy with a Side of Social Responsibility

What strikes me lately is how normal "social" issues aren't selling. Higher minimum wages, which would help millions of people aren't pulling in the votes. And while Bush's privatization plans aren't popular, neither is an expanded social safety net. There may be play in that idea though depending on actual programs proposed.

So, here's my suggestion: democratic reforms.

At this point, neither party represents a majority of Americans. They just don't. The parties represent specific points on a spectrum of political beliefs. The people, however, fill every other point on that spectrum

Call it polarization. Call it partisanship. Call it whatever you want.

It is only the parties who are polarized though. The people remain in the vast middle of the political spectrum, and every election the parties still fight it out for the middle. Most people in this country are swing voters.

But when they vote, they can't help but elect representatives who don't actually represent their beliefs. One problem is that electoral structures are strongly anti-majoritarian while the actual representative bodies are strongly majoritarian.

The anti-majoritarian aspects of our electoral structures should be viewed in a particularly democratic light. Specifically, both the Senate and the Electoral College are designed to ensure that minority positions are strongly considered in federal politics. Democracy, as an idea, requires inclusivity. A country that does not act in the interests of the people is not democratic. The Senate was supposed to ensure that individuals from smaller states would not be subject to the whims of representatives of larger states. It's anti-majoritarian, but it's not inherently anti-democratic.

The mistake in our constitution, however, lies in giving the Senate the same power as the House of Representatives. The design of the Senate goes too far in enforcing the inclusivity necessary for successful democracy by providing minority positions too much power within the Senate.

Similar criticism can be made for the Electoral College.

What do we do about it though?

As I stated above, the anti-majoritarian electoral structures are problematic in the face of the strongly majoritarian processes of the actual representative bodies.

It may be thought that in order to achieve the right balance, anti-majoritarian electoral structures should be set against majoritiarian political bodies. This can't be correct. In fact, anti-majoritarian electoral structures can only be balanced by anti-majoritarian political structures. Majority/majority leads to tyrrany, but so does Anti-majority/majority. Inclusivity can only be affected by anti/anti; or by majority/anti-majority.

The last of those would be parliamentary, I think.

All this sounds like a constitutional amendment. Ultimately, our constitution needs reform, but I think serious democratic reforms can happen without a constitutional amendment.

Consider reorganizing the internal rules of the Senate. The Constitution defaults to the House and Senate for their own rules of proceeding. So, much of this work could be done by starting with those--without even talking about the Constitution. I have a couple related ideas here.

First, we could make committee chairs selected by lot. Sounds strange, but it would work. Every session of congress, each senator puts his name in a hat and chairs are randomly assigned. The effect, on average, would be to put the percentage of the senate from one party in to the same percentage of leadership positions. If there were 55 senators from one party, they would have 55% of the committee chairs.

This is effectively parliamentarizing (I love making up words) the Senate. So, the same effect could be achieved by selecting Senate leadership positions in a parliamentary manner. If a party gets 55 senators, then they get 55% of the leadership positions.

Third, if selected by lot, minority leadership could be counterbalanced by specific provisions ensuring a minority party doesn't control a majority of the committees.

In any case, the point would be to ensure that a party--however polarized it is--doesn't tyrranically control a powerful part of our government. One party wouldn't be able to kill legislation, and there would be greater incentive to work together.

We've talked a little about tax reform, and I think that's also a good place to start. Government accountability should also mean that you know what you're getting for your tax dollars. I think restructuring and simplifying the tax system is a good place to start. But set that aside for a second.

It's a start at least. The Constitution does need to be amendment. It isn't perfect, and we can't fetishize it any more. The argument shouldn't be that the founders couldn't foresee our problems, it should be that the structures they designed aren't as good at achieving the intended purpose as other structures that we could design.