Introducing Real Majority Rule
Welcome readers.
This blog is titled "Real Majority Rule" because of the serious legal limitations on putting majority sentiments into government practice.
The creation of the United States as a nation - no longer under English colonial rule - was a step forward. Yet, despite words such as "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights," there have always been restrictions on rights such as voting. Over time, some have been removed, some have been added, some have gone through ups and downs..
Today, the legal barriers blocking real majority rule include:
• The Electoral College. In 2016, the Electoral College gave the presidency to the candidate who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Historically, in round numbers, the Electoral College has given the presidency to the loser of the popular vote about 10% of the time.
• Each state gets two Senators regardless of population. Wyoming has so few people it only gets one member in the House of Representatives. California's population qualifies it for about 50 times as many members in the House. Yet, the two states have an equal number of Senators. This distorts government even more because the Senate is in charge of approving nominees proposed by the president.
• Gerrymandering. Perhaps, in the past, it could have been argued that it's difficult to draw district lines to optimize fair representation. However, today, states that choose to gerrymander have software designed to help them maximize how unfair the representation is. Clearly, we could have software which would guarantee fair representation.
• Disenfranchisement of former prisoners. Because the US has a very high incarceration rate compared to other countries, millions of Americans are denied the right to vote. It cannot be reasonably argued that this is to keep bad people from leading our government astray. When politicians are convicted of corruption or abuse of power, the law does not forbid them to run for office or be appointed to public office after being released from prison. When businessmen bribe politicians or violate campaign finance law, the law doesn't forbid them to make campaign contributions after being released. Yet, those would be much more relevant restrictions. And the right to vote is a more fundamental - I'd say it would be worse to let women run for office but not vote, than to let women vote but not run for office. So, taking away the right to vote for non-political crimes is less justifiable than taking away the right to hold office for political crimes.
• Citizens who have never been convicted of a crime, but are in jail awaiting trial, technically have the right to vote. However, they can often find it difficult to cast a ballot.
• Selective under-supplying of polling sites. By giving too few resources to polling sites in poor communities, voters in those areas are forced to wait in line for hours to vote. Voters in these communities are more likely to have to work multiple jobs and/or have less job security. Therefore, they are less able to take time from work to wait at a polling site.
• Selective elimination of polling sites. By closing polling sites in certain neighborhoods, voters are required to travel further to vote, and may have to search for an unfamiliar location. This is done to discourage unwanted voters.
• Selective voter roll purges. Registered voters are taken off the rolls and must re-register by a deadline, or less they won't be allowed to vote. This is done with the expectation that some will not re-register in time.
• Other forms of "voter suppression" make it more difficult for disadvantaged citizens to register to vote or be accepted as a registered voter at the polling place.
• Having Election Day on a "work day" disproportionately affects people with less job security.
• Big money in politics. Let's face it, the wealthy wouldn't spend huge amounts on campaigns and lobbying if they didn't think it would give them disproportionate influence in government. Big business and its supporters rationalize this money as "freedom of speech." Nonsense. Foreign nationals and US 17-year-olds have the right to free speech, but they neither have the right to vote nor the right to contribute to candidates. I would also note that corporations make decisions on a "one dollar, one vote" basis - not "one person, one vote." I would argue this runs counter to how we want our country run, and therefore we should exclude influence from such a source. Imagine if our candidate debates gave more time to candidates who gave more money to the debate organizers. That's sort of what happens now - except the candidate with the most money gets more time for months during campaign season - not just for a few debate show hours.
It's a long list of tricks to deprive the majority of their control of government. Recently, the most significant impact from these anti-majority methods have come from the Republican Party. However, they're not the only ones. For instance, if you look at the vote totals for all of a state's US House of Representatives districts and compare that with the number of district seats won by Democrats and Republicans, you'll see some serious discrepancies suggesting gerrymandering. The majority of those cases are in "red states," but some are in "blue states."...
In any case, it's been over 200 years that some of these issues have persisted through governments dominated by Republicans and governments dominated by Democrats. Nor will you find either party taking a stand *as a party* to fight any of these anti-majority mechanisms. These restrictions seem to be "politics as usual."
Above, I've generally discussed the anti-majority aspects of the electoral system and government structure. However, there are other factors which block majority will. There's big money lobbyists. There are businesses that can offer politicians cushy jobs if and when they leave office. Corporations can blackmail the government with threats of laying off workers, closing operations or relocating to other places if the government doesn't meet their demands. (And in these cases, you never hear politicians say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists and blackmailers.")
There are so many current limits on the right to vote that the composition of elected offices doesn't reflect the real majority. What's worse, the Constitution makes it very difficult to pass amendments to eliminate the anti-majority elements. More than a simple majority of elected officials are required to change the Constitution, and (as a result of these election system biases) more than a simple majority of US citizens are effectively required to elect officials that would legislate as the citizens wish. In effect, we would need over a 70% majority among the people in order to get enough elected officials to amend the Constitution. There are too many difficulties in attempting to gain majority rule solely by working through this biased system. It's necessary to build movements which are independent of these minority-run structures. Independent movements can implicitly or explicitly tell the establishment that they can make changes to let in the majority, or they can be left behind by the majority.
This blog is titled "Real Majority Rule" because of the serious legal limitations on putting majority sentiments into government practice.
The creation of the United States as a nation - no longer under English colonial rule - was a step forward. Yet, despite words such as "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights," there have always been restrictions on rights such as voting. Over time, some have been removed, some have been added, some have gone through ups and downs..
Today, the legal barriers blocking real majority rule include:
• The Electoral College. In 2016, the Electoral College gave the presidency to the candidate who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. Historically, in round numbers, the Electoral College has given the presidency to the loser of the popular vote about 10% of the time.
• Each state gets two Senators regardless of population. Wyoming has so few people it only gets one member in the House of Representatives. California's population qualifies it for about 50 times as many members in the House. Yet, the two states have an equal number of Senators. This distorts government even more because the Senate is in charge of approving nominees proposed by the president.
• Gerrymandering. Perhaps, in the past, it could have been argued that it's difficult to draw district lines to optimize fair representation. However, today, states that choose to gerrymander have software designed to help them maximize how unfair the representation is. Clearly, we could have software which would guarantee fair representation.
• Disenfranchisement of former prisoners. Because the US has a very high incarceration rate compared to other countries, millions of Americans are denied the right to vote. It cannot be reasonably argued that this is to keep bad people from leading our government astray. When politicians are convicted of corruption or abuse of power, the law does not forbid them to run for office or be appointed to public office after being released from prison. When businessmen bribe politicians or violate campaign finance law, the law doesn't forbid them to make campaign contributions after being released. Yet, those would be much more relevant restrictions. And the right to vote is a more fundamental - I'd say it would be worse to let women run for office but not vote, than to let women vote but not run for office. So, taking away the right to vote for non-political crimes is less justifiable than taking away the right to hold office for political crimes.
• Citizens who have never been convicted of a crime, but are in jail awaiting trial, technically have the right to vote. However, they can often find it difficult to cast a ballot.
• Selective under-supplying of polling sites. By giving too few resources to polling sites in poor communities, voters in those areas are forced to wait in line for hours to vote. Voters in these communities are more likely to have to work multiple jobs and/or have less job security. Therefore, they are less able to take time from work to wait at a polling site.
• Selective elimination of polling sites. By closing polling sites in certain neighborhoods, voters are required to travel further to vote, and may have to search for an unfamiliar location. This is done to discourage unwanted voters.
• Selective voter roll purges. Registered voters are taken off the rolls and must re-register by a deadline, or less they won't be allowed to vote. This is done with the expectation that some will not re-register in time.
• Other forms of "voter suppression" make it more difficult for disadvantaged citizens to register to vote or be accepted as a registered voter at the polling place.
• Having Election Day on a "work day" disproportionately affects people with less job security.
• Big money in politics. Let's face it, the wealthy wouldn't spend huge amounts on campaigns and lobbying if they didn't think it would give them disproportionate influence in government. Big business and its supporters rationalize this money as "freedom of speech." Nonsense. Foreign nationals and US 17-year-olds have the right to free speech, but they neither have the right to vote nor the right to contribute to candidates. I would also note that corporations make decisions on a "one dollar, one vote" basis - not "one person, one vote." I would argue this runs counter to how we want our country run, and therefore we should exclude influence from such a source. Imagine if our candidate debates gave more time to candidates who gave more money to the debate organizers. That's sort of what happens now - except the candidate with the most money gets more time for months during campaign season - not just for a few debate show hours.
It's a long list of tricks to deprive the majority of their control of government. Recently, the most significant impact from these anti-majority methods have come from the Republican Party. However, they're not the only ones. For instance, if you look at the vote totals for all of a state's US House of Representatives districts and compare that with the number of district seats won by Democrats and Republicans, you'll see some serious discrepancies suggesting gerrymandering. The majority of those cases are in "red states," but some are in "blue states."...
In any case, it's been over 200 years that some of these issues have persisted through governments dominated by Republicans and governments dominated by Democrats. Nor will you find either party taking a stand *as a party* to fight any of these anti-majority mechanisms. These restrictions seem to be "politics as usual."
Above, I've generally discussed the anti-majority aspects of the electoral system and government structure. However, there are other factors which block majority will. There's big money lobbyists. There are businesses that can offer politicians cushy jobs if and when they leave office. Corporations can blackmail the government with threats of laying off workers, closing operations or relocating to other places if the government doesn't meet their demands. (And in these cases, you never hear politicians say, "We don't negotiate with terrorists and blackmailers.")
There are so many current limits on the right to vote that the composition of elected offices doesn't reflect the real majority. What's worse, the Constitution makes it very difficult to pass amendments to eliminate the anti-majority elements. More than a simple majority of elected officials are required to change the Constitution, and (as a result of these election system biases) more than a simple majority of US citizens are effectively required to elect officials that would legislate as the citizens wish. In effect, we would need over a 70% majority among the people in order to get enough elected officials to amend the Constitution. There are too many difficulties in attempting to gain majority rule solely by working through this biased system. It's necessary to build movements which are independent of these minority-run structures. Independent movements can implicitly or explicitly tell the establishment that they can make changes to let in the majority, or they can be left behind by the majority.
Comments
Post a Comment