With a major election coming up, it’s time to re-visit some necessary changes in the way we govern ourselves. Some of the following suggestions are not new, but they are nevertheless still worth considering. And some will require a constitutional amendment to bring them into being (“Y” = Yes, “N” = No).
•Abolish the Electoral College. Always the first thing we should do. The Founding Fathers were not great fans of democracy, and so they created this hoary old curmudgeon in order to elect the president of the United States. No other country in the world has such an electoral body. And you may recall, dear reader, the brouhaha during the election of 2020 concerning “fake” electors. Out with it, I say! (Y)
•End the two-party system. The Democrats and the Republicans have spent many, long, years in rigging the electoral process in their favor by requiring an inordinate number of signatures for a third party/independent candidate to be placed on a ballot, all the while making it easier for them to get the top spots. We need more political voices, not less, to be heard rather than the same old noise by the majors. The number of signatures required ought to be reduced by at least 50%. (N)
•Abolish the U.S. Senate. It has been said that this body is a “gentleman’s club” wherein the issues of the day are discussed and debated in a peaceful/polite manner. If one cares to read up on the history of the proceedings of this “gentleman’s club,” one will be sorely disabused. There have been shouting matches galore; and, on one memorable occasion, an actual fist fight occurred on the Senate floor.
The Founding Fathers created the Senate as (1) a balance to the “mobocracy” of the House of Representatives and (2) a nod to states’ rights. With certain exceptions, the Senate merely imitates what the House does; this repetition is unnecessary (and expensive), and the House can handle the People’s business on its own very well. Moreover, states have no rights per se; rather, they have the responsibility to serve the will of the people in all matters political. (Y)
•Term limits for legislators. The Founding Fathers did not view politics as a career option. Instead, they encouraged the House members to serve for a short while and then retire to private life. “Mossbacks” cannot deal with changing political, economic, and/or cultural circumstances; they care only for their re-election and the money and the power it carries. Fresh points of view are needed to serve the people’s will. Five two-year terms of office for members of the House are sufficient. (If the Senate is not abolished, then one 10-year term is sufficient for Senators. (Y)
•Term limits for all Federal judges, from SCOTUS all the way down. Same as No. 4. One 10-year term is sufficient. (Y)
•Expand the House of Representatives. The number of congressional districts in a given state has seldom changed. In some cases, the number has never changed since the state was admitted into the Union. On the other hand, the population of most districts has increased exponentially. Candidates have a difficult time reaching out to all of the prospective voters; more than likely, they have to pick and choose which groups they will court. Not only is this an inefficient use of their time on the stump, but it raises the ire of those would-be voters who feel they have been ignored, leading to the loss of votes a candidate might otherwise have received and quite possible the loss of his/her election.
Logically, then, if the number of congressional districts were increased in a given state, the problem of unrepresented voters would disappear. Also, the wholly undemocratic practice of gerrymandering would disappear. (N)
•Switch to ranked voting. This method of casting votes goes hand-in-hand with the comments made in No. 2. Under this system, a voter would have three “votes”; that is to say, (s)he would indicate on a ballot his/her first, second, and third choices of candidates. If a candidate received 50% plus 1 of the first-choice votes, (s)he would automatically be the winner.
If no one received the required 50% plus 1, then the second-choice votes would be added to a candidate’s tally. If the addition of second-choice votes gave a candidate the necessary 50% plus 1, (s)he would be declared the winner, even if (s)he had never received the most first-choice votes. If there were still no winners, the third-choice votes would be added. And, if still no winner appeared, then a run-off between the top two candidates would be held. (N)
This change is true democracy in action. Not only would many voices be heard, but the elections would be fairer. Money would no longer be able to cast a vote in these United States.
Just a thought.