Election Reform Amendment to the US Constitution

So obviously I'm not much of a blogger.  The whole law school thing makes it difficult to keep up with anything else right now.  But I thought I would post this assignment from my Con Law Seminar class:

The Election Reform Amendment

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 100 Senators, chosen by the citizens of the United States in a national election, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one vote.  Senate seats will no longer be associated with a State, so the “equal Suffrage” provision in Article V is hereby repealed.  The national election for choosing Senators shall be an Open List Proportional Representation election, whereby the citizens of the United States shall vote for one of several political parties.  Each political party shall provide its voters with a list of candidates for Senate seats, and each citizen shall rank the candidates in order of preference (i.e. first, second, third, etc.).  In order to appear on the printed Senate ballot, a party must either have received at least two percent (2%) of the vote in the prior Senate election or be currently polling at two percent (2%) or above in any Senate poll approved by the Federal Election Commission.  Voters may write in a party that does not appear on the printed ballot and may also write in and rank individual candidates for that party.  Political parties shall receive Senate seats based on the percentage of votes received; winning one percent of the vote shall result in one Senate seat.  The political parties must select the candidates to serve as Senators based on the wishes of voters as expressed by preferential rankings.  After subtracting whole percentage points, political parties with percentage points between one-tenth (.1%) and nine-tenths (.9%) shall negotiate and compromise with other parties to select Senators by pooling parts of whole percentage points to make a whole percentage point.  Any percentage point over nine-tenths (.9%) shall be deemed a whole percentage point.  Any percentage point under one-tenth (.1%) shall be deemed zero percentage points.

Section 2. The President of the United States shall be elected by the citizens of the United States in a nationwide election utilizing Instant Runoff Voting every four years.  Voters shall rank Presidential candidates in order of preference (i.e. first, second, third, etc.).  The first choices of all voters will be tabulated first.  If one Presidential candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, then that candidate shall become the President of the United States.  If no candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, then a runoff tabulation will occur.  In this runoff, the candidate who received the least amount of first choice votes will be eliminated.  Then all ballots will be retabulated, with the highest-ranked candidate still in the race receiving one vote per ballot.  If one candidate receives a majority of these votes, then that candidate shall become the President of the United States.  If no candidate receives a majority of these votes, then another runoff tabulation will occur.  Again the candidate who received the least amount of first choice votes among the remaining candidates will be eliminated and the ballots retabulated, with the highest-ranked remaining candidates receiving one vote per ballot.  This process of elimination and retabulation shall continue until one candidate receives a majority of the votes.  The printed national ballot for the Presidential Election shall include the names of all candidates nominated by a political party that received at least two percent (2%) of the first choice votes in the first tabulation of the previous Presidential Election and the names of all candidates currently polling at two percent (2%) or above in any Presidential poll approved by the Federal Election Commission.  Any candidate whose name will be printed on the national ballot for the Presidential Election must choose a person to run as that candidate’s choice for Vice-President.  Voters may also write-in candidates of their choice for President and Vice-President.  The Electoral College is hereby abolished.

Section 3.  The States shall remain responsible for choosing Members to serve on the House of Representatives.  Elections for Members of the House of Representatives shall continue to occur every other year.  The method for electing Members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen by the individual States.  States may use a winner-take-all system, an Instant Runoff Voting system, a Proportional Representation system, or other system as the individual States decide.

Explanation and Introduction of the Election Reform Amendment

            The United States of America was among the first of modern nations to experiment with a democratically elected Republican government.  This accomplishment is worthy of celebration.  However such celebration should not blind us to more recent innovations in the democratic experiment.  The winner-take-all plurality system currently used in most of the United States encourages the polarized two-party system that we currently have. 

In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison said, “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens.”  The factionalism that some of the founders were worried about has become a problem in modern American politics.  Today the United States effectively has a two-party system.  Two factions can not possibly represent the variety of opinions found in the United States today.  Also the two-party system has begun to produce extremist victors in the party primary elections, resulting in less moderates being elected to office.  The fact that fewer moderates have been elected means that there is often less willingness for the two parties to work together and negotiate settlements.  Instead members of these two parties do things like pass controversial legislation without any votes from the other party or refuse to fund the implementation of such controversial legislation, preferring instead to allow a shutdown of the federal government.  Such impasse could be avoided if the United States government consisted of representatives from various parties instead of just two.  Interesting coalitions around certain issues would result in more consensus and compromise and less division and gridlock. 

A Senate elected by proportional representation would ensure that people who are underrepresented now would have some representation in the national government.  Also the elimination of State by State interests in one body of legislature could make it less likely that the Air Force would continue to receive unwanted fighter jets just because the jets are manufactured in the state of a certain Senator who happens to receive generous contributions from the military contractor and union that manufacture such unwanted fighter jets.

Electing the President by Instant Runoff Voting would allow voters to pick their favorite candidate without worries that they are “throwing away” their vote and allowing their least favorite candidate to win.  This would also save certain people, such as consumer advocate lawyers or former Nixon aides, from being vilified by the mainstream media as “turncoats” who are helping the “other guy” win.  To reference an episode of one popular television show, Americans would no longer be forced to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

            The House of Representatives would also benefit from similar election reform.  But since the House would essentially become the only body where representatives were selected by region, it seems most fitting to allow states to choose their own method of electing representatives.  Hopefully this Amendment would encourage states to investigate and possibly adopt such election reforms as Instant Runoff Voting or Proportional representation.  But states should be free to decide this.  Other systems, such as the one implemented in California by Proposition 14 in 2010, could achieve the same goals of depolarization and favoring moderates through other means.

So You Say You Want a Revolution?

       Right now Americans are very unhappy with their government.  Conservatives are terrified that the Obama administration will bring in a totalitarian government while progressives wonder what happened to that nice, well-spoken man they elected to stop government corruption, end the war, and bring an end to the Orwelian tone the Bush administration brought to our government.  

       The average American is frustrated because they feel no one represents their interests.  Large corporations finance the only two political parties that stand a chance in our current government election system.  Most Americans get their news and and political information on television stations financed by large corporations.  Americans can vote but they can't tell their representatives how to vote because their representative is too busy talking to lobbyists from the large corporations that financed their campaign.

       A clever false dichotomy has been constructed in the political conversation that we see on television.  Social issues and cultural wars are in the center of the political conversation fed to us by corporate news networks.  But the problems in our government and society have more to do with fiscal and taxation policy than any moral or social issues.  Our government taxes the middle class to pay for programs that benefit large corporations, pollute our environment and destroy local economies.  Of course the major news networks do not want to tell us this because they make a profit off of this system.  So it is in their best interest to focus our political consciousness on trivial, emotional issues and trivial and emotional arguments rather than to have a substantive discussion on issues that have a profound effect on our economies and lives.

       Now the average American gets fed up with one political party and switches to the other (i.e. this George Bush asshole is screwing us, I'm going to vote for Obama.)  But not much changes because both political parties receive money from the same large corporations (GE makes sure we go to war no matter who's in charge, Monsanto makes sure they make money on food by screwing farmers no matter who's in charge, etc.)  Sure there's some third parties you can vote for but then you're just "throwing your vote away."

       The problem with third parties is there are just too many for the winner-take-all voting system in this country.  On the left there is the Green Party, The Socialist Party, The Communist Party USA, The Socialist Workers Party, the list probably goes on.  And on the right there's the Libertarian Party, the Constitutional Law Party, the newly forming Tea Party, and my personal favorite, the Guns and Dope Party.  That last one, while not having the most marketable name in current mainstream politics, represents the key to reforming our governmental system.  Founder, author, and sometime California gubanatorial candidate, Robert Anton Wilson thought that dopers and gun nuts had a lot in common but inconsequential social differences kept them apart.  Politically, however, they both want the same thing: to be left alone.  Now maybe not that many people want legal heroin and AK-47's but a lot of people on the right and left do want the same thing.

       There was a lot of public outrage on both the right and left over the Bush and Obama bailouts.  People were very angry that their tax dollars were being used to create a welfare program for the richest 3%.  Conservatives don't like welfare in general and most working class Liberals are not fans of corporate welfare.  The Health Care Bill, while lauded by some on the left, is reviled by many for creating more corporate welfare, this time on behalf of big pharmaceutical companies.  Many large corporations could not exist without some sort of government aid.  So they are financed by us, the taxpayers, yet all of their profits go to the individual shareholders of the company.

       If we are to curb government spending that benefits the very rich than everyone who is not very rich must work together to bring down the two party corporate controlled system we have.  We need to have one reform party with a narrow national agenda focused on ending government handouts and programs that benefit big corporations.  While a few members of the Republican and Democratic Parties are sympathetic toward this goal, the RNC and DNC never will be.  Their beuracracy feeds on the money of large corporate donors.  Without large corporate contributions many of the political operatives within these two parties would be out of a job.  The only way to get money out of politics is to kill these two antiquated parties.

       In 2012 we need one nationwide reform party with a moderate platform for reforming our election process, scaling down corporate welfare, ending government subsidies for pollution, expanding freedom of information, and repealing recent laws that have robbed us of many freedoms.  An extensive primary process would be necessary for this party to work so that all various factions felt included and represented.  This would need to be the only party on the ticket aside from the major two; ideally bringing together such "disparate" personalities as Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, the list goes on and you get the idea.  

       For congressional candidates, local primaries would have to elect candidates who could compete with the mainstream parties.  For example conservative districts would elect a conservative reformer to run against the Republican while liberal districts would elect a liberal reformer to run against the Democrat.  The presidential primary would be tricky.  Optimally a moderate would be chosen to run.  Instant runoff voting, where primary voters rate candidates would be the best system.  But a winner-take-all system probably wouldn't keep everyone united.  If the various factions (i.e. Green Party, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists) each chose representatives to serve on the cabinet and the entire administration was chosen before the general election this could keep the various factions feeling as though each were represented and involved in the new government.

       Such a disparate group may not agree on much.  That is why the first priority of the reformers must be election reform.  The goal here is not to establish a long running political party but to fix the system so that a plurality, not a duality, of parties can govern America.  The first step would be to establish instant runoff voting or scheduled runoff elections for The House and the President.  My proposal would be that the Senate be switched to a body elected by proportional representation.  For example if 20% of Americans vote for the Libertarian party then 20 Libertarians would serve in the Senate.  This would get rid of regional representation in the Senate, which some may find valuable.  However, much government waste is caused by the regional influences in the Senate.  For example, California Senator Barbara Boxer constantly votes to build more F-22 fighter jets even though the Air Force says they don't need or want them because the factory that builds them is in California and this brings our tax dollars into her district.  Also "bridges to nowhere" get inserted in legislation.  These wastes on local pork projects would be eliminated by a Senate elected by proportional representation. Federal government subsidies of large corporations hurt small businesses and lead to a larger gap between rich and poor.  We've always had corporate welfare but back in the 50's rich people were taxed 90% of their income.  So it kind of (but not really) made sense to have these programs.  Really though, these programs are counter to the free market and everything America should stand for.  Eliminating them has been a priority for people on both the left (Dennis Kucinich) as well as the right (Ron Paul.)  Yet most representatives in both parties take donations from huge corporate donors and write and vote for laws that benefit large corporations.  Upending the system and eliminating expensive elections would free representatives from this trap.

       This revolution may be partially televised.  But if a movement like this is to ever be successful, it must rely on nontraditional media.  We need to use media that we can control.  The Tea Party has relied too heavily on traditional media and, as a result, they now look more like the "crazy" wing of the Republican party than any serious reform movement.  Fox News Corp has tried to act as the mouthpiece of the Tea Party, infuriating many of the libertarian founders.  People like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin turn the focus away from government waste on military, prison, and bank bailouts and focus on hatred of Obama.  This makes it easy for the more liberal networks to characterize the Tea Party movement as racist and extremist.  The more principled and reasonable voices of the Tea Party are not given as much of a voice.  Any reform movement in this current political climate must be careful to represent the interests of a majority of Americans and to realize that their message will never reach people via the traditional media which is controlled by the very financial interests whose power we wish to diminish.

       Of course the internet is a powerful tool but not everyone uses the internet.  Street canvasing can reach many people that the internet can not.  In many large cities the independent print media may prove to be our most powerful ally.  Word of mouth will also be an important tool.  Unfortunately it is sometimes hard to talk about politics without offending people in American culture.  This combined with America's short attention span and addiction to corporate controlled television makes it extremely difficult for real political change to occur.  Our opponents control their medium as well as the message.  Television appeals so strongly to emotions that people often don't even think about politics, they react.  A sort of conscious evolution or paradigm shift is necessary.  This is not to sound fatalistic.  People need to push this change.  And the internet could bring about as radical a change as the printing press if used correctly.  We need to convince people to start reading and reasoning and blowing up their televisions and voting for a third party.