Radical Islam and the West: It’s Time to Give Women a Chance to Lead and Make Peace

Radical Islam and the West: It’s Time to Give Women a Chance to Lead and Make Peace

 

The San Bernardino terrorist attack makes this a good time for us to stop and think about the way America and the West have been dealing with radical Islam for the past several decades.  Reflection suggests it’s time for a sharp change of course.  We need to give women on both sides of the conflict a chance to lead and make peace.

 

To begin, though, we need to be clear:  the terminology that everyone is so sensitive about doesn’t really matter here.  Whether you call it “radical Islam,” as Senator Marco Rubio does, or “jihadism,” as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does, it comes to the same thing.  Today, many people like the San Bernardino killers think that they’re entirely justified in killing innocent people because of their superior ideology.  It is futile to dismiss this deep ideological problem by saying they’re just “criminals.”  We can call their terrorism criminal if we want, but that means we’re completely missing the point that ultimately we have no choice but to defeat the ideology that supposedly justifies it. [1]  “Radical Islam” as used here is a theological view that justifies killing anyone, including innocent noncombatants, who opposes the spread of Islam or its domination of those subject to its idea of religious law.  Many people–especially young people–espouse it.  It may well be a perversion of Islamic thought, but it’s what we need to address.

 

How has the conflict between radical Islam and the West been going?  The answer is pretty easy to find if we’re realistic with ourselves:  we’ve spent trillions of dollars to fight Islamic terrorism and its allies, lost thousands of lives and permanently shattered thousands of others, and gained almost no real ground.  If we had, we wouldn’t be facing ISIS today.  But the news for the Islamic radicals is no better:  although they’ve forced us out of a couple of countries, they’ve done nothing that wouldn’t have happened anyway, because the West has at least in theory given up being colonial occupiers.  So what should the West do now?  I recommend that we put women—on both sides—in charge of peace talks.  Men on both sides have had their chance, and they’ve failed.

 

Men have been running the conflict between Islam and the West for the past several decades (ok, forever).  Their conflict model is strictly military–use violence to crush opponents.  What are the limits of that model?  You can take territory with it–but you cannot win hearts and minds with it.  That’s what the lives of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King prove.  American Founder John Adams thought that the same thing was true about the American Revolution.  Adams believed that the Revolution did not begin with (or even consist of) America’s war against Great Britain.  Instead, he wrote, it “was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people…”  What this shows us is that even if the West takes territory in today’s war, we will lose it again. Civilian populations that hate westerners will aid terrorists. The West’s citizens are simply unwilling to support or pay for the only alternative that can hold territory in that situation–large, expensive permanent military garrisons to impose a form of long-term colonial rule over Islamic countries whose citizens hate us.  So the military model for this conflict has no real future, because it is demonstrably losing—not winning—hearts and minds.[2] This is realism, not defeatism. And that’s where women come in.

 

The war between radical Islam and the west is doubtless sometimes a geopolitical or natural resources conflict—Afghans want to run Afghanistan (and drug traffic), everyone wants to own oil resources, etc.  But just as was true in the Cold War, it seems clear that an important part of today’s conflict is ideological—fundamental political, religious, and moral principles are at stake.  And just as was true in the Cold War, that is where the most important fight is today.  And it is a fight the West can win, if it puts women in charge.  Need I say it?  Radical Islam’s brutal, repressive, and utterly deplorable treatment of women is its Achilles’ heel.  How can it survive a challenge that requires it to treat its women as equals by making them peace negotiators without making peace in a way that gives Islamic women rights that women in the West today often take for granted but that Islamic women are told by their extremist male leaders they will never receive?  The resulting permanent alteration of Islamic societies should lay the groundwork for an end to radical Islam.

 

In theory, women in the West are supposed to be equals with men in every way.  This means that they should be equally capable of finding ways to make peace, using a non-military model to win hearts and minds. NATO can consult with its members and appoint a peace delegation led by women–and it can challenge Islamic countries to do the same.  I personally doubt that it’s a challenge they’ll take, but we’ll never know unless we put women in charge of the West’s efforts.  If we’re trying to find the basis for a lasting peace, it has to be in the hearts and minds of people who mostly see us as enemies today–and this is where women are far better equipped than, let’s face it, the guys’ club that has been running this conflict for decades.  Almost to a man, they have no real comprehension of the political and religious culture they’re opposing, or any real ideological strategy to combat it except spreading “democracy,” which means far too many different things to many different people to be useful.  If we put women in charge, and the Islamic radicals and their allies won’t, the West can then best spend its resources making sure that every Islamic woman knows they refused.  That will be a good place to start the next round of the cold war we are now fighting and losing.

 

 

 

 

 

[1] On terminology, see the thoughtful column by Ramesh Ponnuru, December 2, 2015, in http://www.thestate.com/opinion/op-ed/article47629395.html.

[2] For a former ISIS prisoner’s view that hearts and minds are the key issue, see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/nicolas-henin-the-man-who-was-held-captive-by-isis-for-10-months-says-how-they-can-be-defeated-a6757336.html.

WANT GREAT 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES? KICK THE PRESS OFF THE PODIUM

WANT GREAT 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?  KICK THE PRESS OFF THE PODIUM

You might think that it’s too early to be thinking about the 2016 presidential debates, but it’s not.  Even today, it’s easy to tell that next year’s presidential debates are going to be very important to the outcome.  The election will be close, and will be fought mostly in a small number of swing states.  Therefore, the best way for most voters nationwide to find out if their preferred candidate matches up well against his or her opponent will be to watch presidential debates.  Voters certainly think so:  more than 59 million of them watched the final 2012 debate between President Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney.

This post argues that the best way to have great presidential debates in 2016 that really help voters decide is to kick press moderators off the podium.  Here’s the problem: by doing their jobs, they quite effectively prevent the kind of no-holds barred debates the country actually deserves and really needs.  It’s time the candidates stopped hiding behind the moderators, and let voters see how they really compare to their opponents.  Here’s a historical example that shows why this is so important.

When Abraham Lincoln ran for the United States Senate in 1858, his opponent was the incumbent Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas.  Douglas was a powerful national figure and a formidable debater.  Yet Lincoln challenged him to a series of debates.  As a result, he not only nearly won the election, he went from being an obscure Illinois state politician to being a national figure.  The debates gave Lincoln a chance to challenge Douglas on his major claim to national prominence:  his willingness to allow slavery to expand.  But Lincoln’s ability to challenge Douglas successfully depended critically on the debates’ format.  Here’s how they worked.

Lincoln and Douglas debated seven times, at different locations across the state of Illinois.  “In each debate either Douglas or Lincoln would open with an hour address. The other would then speak for an hour and a half. The first then had 30 minutes of rebuttal.”[1]  There were no press moderators–or moderators of any kind.   All told, the two candidates spoke for ten and one-half hours each, so they had time to come back to an issue repeatedly if they wanted to, and whenever they wanted to. (The three presidential debates in 2012 lasted four and one-half hours total–or two hours and fifteen minutes per candidate (???!!!)).  As a result, each candidate could and did use every political weapon he had available–from humor and sarcasm to political philosophy to history to religion, and even open appeals to voters’ prejudices such as white racism.  And the other candidate got to respond to every one of those tactics, far more successfully than could have been done by other campaign techniques.  The debates were also fully reported in the press.  The results make remarkable reading, unlike political speeches today.  The debates were thoughtful and often moving.  The candidates got to the heart of the issues.[2]

Lincoln spent much of his time in the debates trying to force Douglas to take a clear position about his views on the spread of slavery.  He finally succeeded in compelling Douglas to take a specific stand, something Douglas had tried hard to avoid because doing so would cost him votes.   No one who watched or read the Lincoln-Douglas debates could have been left in doubt about where each candidate stood on issues that mattered, especially slavery.  Isn’t it obvious that the open Lincoln-Douglas format is a far better way of conducting political debates and forming our government’s future agenda than the press moderator method used in presidential debates today?

But if that’s so, why do presidential campaigns continue to agree to use the press-moderator format?[3]  Because both the press and the campaigns get something out of it.  The press gets exposure and legitimacy for its role as a “neutral arbiter” of the debates.  Even more important, though, the format protects the candidates by letting them perform with scripts.  It protects them from unanticipated attacks (press questions rarely surprise anyone), from factual errors or downright ignorance, from appearing to have run out of ideas because they have to talk about an issue for more than five minutes, or from having the nation see that they are unable to respond to an opponent’s really good argument.  And it often protects them from being subjected to a really effective response if there is one.

In short, today the candidates get to stick to their scripts because they never really end up confronting each other in an extended dialogue.  After the debates, they can go back to giving speeches just to supporters.  After all, if a candidate thinks a presidential  election is not about changing voters’ minds, but just about getting enough of his or her supporters to the polls, preaching to a choir of supporters is all that’s needed.  Debates just get in the way of that critical mission–so such a candidate just wants the debates over without having cost him or her votes.

Ironically, the existing moderator format means debates now are just the opposite of the realities of political life and negotiation–which constitutes a series of often unplanned confrontations in an extended public and private dialogue.  If you’ve ever voted for a presidential candidate and been disappointed with your candidate’s actual performance once in office, the existing debate format surely deserves some of your thanks.  So, if you’d like to know what your favorite presidential candidate is really like and really thinks before you vote in 2016, let the campaigns know you want the press off the podium. This time, let’s make the candidates actually face each other as they face the nation.

[1] http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debates.htm (accessed 061415).

[2] Books that reprint the entire text of the debates are readily available today.  One example is The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, edited by Robert W. Johannsen, Oxford University Press, 2008 (paperback).

[3] In theory, this format is arranged through a “bipartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates, but this is a meaningless formality–both campaigns and the press have to agree or nothing would happen, and the commission just provides political cover and a way of excluding “minor” candidates.

Political Corruption in America: The Lobbying Problem

Political Corruption in America: The Lobbying Problem

On June 10, 2015, the New York Times published a column by the thoughtful political journalist Thomas Edsall about the wealth gained by lobbyists in Washington, DC. (Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/opinion/the-lobbying-bonanza.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad). Edsall writes that lobbyists are being paid millions of dollars a year, and that many people in Washington are rich as a result. As of 2012, more than a dozen lobbying group executives made more than $2 million a year. There are stores in DC that sell suits for nearly $5,000. As I wrote in an earlier post on corruption (9/22/14, https://mpands.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/to-get-along-go-along-political-corruption-in-america-part-1/ ); for the whole series, see the posts of 9/22/14, 9/29,14, and 10/6/14), the DC metro area is getting richer every day–much richer than most of the country. Edsall goes on to argue that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on lobbying each year influences public policy, often in favor of the rich. What can be done about this?

In order to deal with the lobbying problem, it’s going to be necessary to face up to some harsh realities. The first is that all members of Congress are part of the problem. Let me repeat: all members of Congress–not just the ones in the party you dislike–are part of the problem of corruption in Washington, of which lobbying is just one symptom, not a cause. As I explained in an earlier blog post (see above for series list), Members of Congress are: 1) often wealthy (median net worth more than $1 million); 2) exceptionally well-paid and protected by very generous health benefits, pensions and large staffs (top ten percent or better on every point); 3) face almost no competition for re-election; and 4) are automatically eligible to become members of the wealthy lobbyists’ club. Edsall says: “A former member of Congress entering the influence business can easily double or triple his or her government salary….” Do you think that people whose jobs meet all these criteria are likely to bite the hand that feeds them? Really?

In short, becoming a member of Congress means becoming part of a system of corrupt influence–if you think of lobbying as corrupt, as many people do.  But that’s the second reality you need to come to terms with–lobbyists who don’t actually violate existing laws such as bribery statutes, but instead simply buy and sell political influence, are not inherently corrupt, they are “power brokers.” In other words, they get paid for collecting and concentrating influence, and then using it on designated targets. How is that different from buying and selling companies, or being a sports agent representing a major NFL quarterback who is negotiating with an NFL team? There has to be a market for political influence for lobbyists to get rich, just like there have to be NFL teams (with TV stations and fans who pay a lot to broadcast and watch them) for quarterbacks and sports agents to get rich.  Can we get rid of this market for political influence?

This brings us to the third harsh reality–the public creates the market for political influence by demanding money (or tax breaks) and services from the government. People today don’t typically object to such demands (though they would if they believed, as President Andrew Jackson did, that the rich and powerful would inevitably win that contest).  Instead, they object to the idea that the rich and poor don’t have a level playing field when it comes to lobbying. But let’s look more closely at what lobbyists do, and how their influence works, to see whether that can realistically be changed to create a level field.

Take a fictional lobbying organization that represents tens of thousands of senior citizens in Washington. I’ll call it GRIP. GRIP has hundreds of staff members, most of whom are well-paid professionals. It gets the money to pay them from its members. It would be pleasant to think that GRIP’s members belong to it just because they think senior citizens are nice people, and want to help them without getting anything in return. Pleasant–but wrong. Most of GRIP’s members will directly benefit from its activities, which usually involve trying to protect or expand government benefits for senior citizens. GRIP has the ability to communicate almost instantly with its members if Congress does something it doesn’t like. GRIP’s lobbyists are not above telling members of Congress that GRIP members may (will?) vote against them–or withhold campaign contributions–or both–if Congress votes the wrong way on GRIP issues. GRIP isn’t fundamentally different from most lobbying organizations. It just happens to represent one of the politically most potent groups in American politics–one that might even determine the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by deciding the outcome of the election in Florida. When GRIP speaks, Congress listens. So how can we get rid of the influence of GRIP and similar lobbyists?

We need to start by recognizing that you can’t legislate GRIP–or any other legitimate lobbying group–out of business. GRIP’s members wouldn’t stand for it, especially if GRIP were singled out. So unless all lobbying groups are put of business, GRIP will stick around. So, you say, let’s put them all out of business. What would happen then? If ordinary senior citizens who had been GRIP members started to lobby Congress instead, would we stop them (ignoring for this purpose any First Amendment rights)? Suppose they took their friends along? Wouldn’t that be a lobbying group; and would we outlaw it? If not, what’s the difference between people and their friends lobbying and their hiring someone to lobby for them?

Although existing laws should be reviewed carefully to make certain that the public knows how much money lobbyists spend, and where that money goes, it’s not clear how much else should be done (other than to clamp down hard on lobbying for foreign governments and perhaps also foreign corporations with government ties). The real source of the problem may instead be voters who support the existing system of Washington corruption (pay, benefits, lobbying club eligibility, no term limits, etc.) by mindlessly re-electing their Congressmen and Congresswomen even if all they do is to protect the status quo. If you want government reforms, don’t spend too much time worrying about lobbyists. Concentrate instead on persuading your neighbors that government policy needs to change, and that if it doesn’t, they should join you in throwing out their Congressmen and Senators who won’t go along. When following the “don’t rock the boat” philosophy dominant in Washington now becomes a surefire way to lose a Congressional seat, then, and only then, Congress will change–lobbyists or no lobbyists.

The Electoral College: An Internet Age Dinosaur (Part 5): Is the National Popular Vote Proposal a Workable Alternative to Electoral College Abolition?

The Electoral College: An Internet Age Dinosaur (Part 5):

Is the National Popular Vote Proposal a Workable Alternative to Electoral College Abolition?

This post discusses the National Popular Vote (“NPV”) proposal, a widely supported alternative to amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. Supporters argue it would achieve the same result as abolition. And they contend that it will be exceptionally difficult, perhaps even impossible, to amend the Constitution instead. [1] Anyone who supports popular election of the President should support the NPV proposal, for reasons given in previous posts in this series as well as those below. However, there are important questions about supporters’ claims that it is guaranteed to work in practice under current law. To ensure that it will work, supporters should get it approved by Congress as an interstate compact.

What is the National Popular Vote Proposal?

Here’s how the National Popular Vote (“NPV”) proposal works. Each participating state adopts legislation agreeing that it will cast all of its electoral votes for the national popular vote winner if enough other states (that is, states together possessing 270 electoral votes or more) agree to do so. Once enough states adopt the NPV proposal, it will go into effect. [2] For purposes of this post only, let’s assume that the NPV proposal is constitutional. [3] It is carefully thought out. In principle, it achieves the same results as amending the Constitution to provide for direct election of the President by a national popular vote.

How Much Support is there for the NPV Proposal?

As of early 2015, eleven states (including New York and California), with a total of 165 electoral votes, have passed this legislation. It has also passed at least one legislative house in several other states. Supporters state that there is strong popular support in every state for which polling data are available for electing the president by a national popular vote. [4] And they claim that the NPV proposal has bipartisan support. According to nationalpopularvote.com, “For example, the most recent state to enter the compact is New York, in April 2014. In the Republican-controlled New York Senate, the chamber approved of the bill 57-4, and majorities of both parties voted for the bill in both legislative chambers.” [5] Now, to simplify life even more, let’s assume that the NPV proposal is adopted by enough states so that it goes into effect. [6]

Is the NPV Proposal Guaranteed to Work in Practice?

But is the NPV proposal guaranteed to work in practice as supporters claim? Unfortunately, no. It has an Achilles’ heel that must be overcome: it is very likely under current law that the NPV compact would be unenforceable if a State reneged on an agreement to observe it during an election. [7] Here’s what has happened in the past, and might happen in a future election even under the NPV.

During the 1800 election, in which John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the major party candidates, legislatures in at least four states (three of them very large ones) deliberately changed their laws for distributing electoral votes to try to alter the outcome in favor of the candidate preferred by the state legislature. In Pennsylvania alone, Thomas Jefferson probably lost 7 out of the 15 Pennsylvania electoral votes as a direct result of the legislative change (about 10 percent of his total vote). [8] Thus, it is not unrealistic to think that in a future close election, partisans of one candidate or another might try to persuade a legislature to renege on its agreement to observe the NPV.

Imagine what the 2000 presidential election (George W. Bush v. Albert Gore, Jr.) would have been like if states that together had a small majority of Electoral College votes (say, 280 or 290), including Florida, had adopted the NPV prior to the election. Suppose Florida’s legislature had then changed its mind and given its twenty-nine (29) electoral votes to the national popular vote loser (Bush), changing the election outcome. NPV supporters’ argument that if the NPV had been adopted by Florida, its legislature could be prevented from changing its mind in such a case (for example, by an NPV provision or by a federal law purporting to limit the legislature’s freedom of action), is likely to lose under current Supreme Court precedents interpreting Article II. Instead, the Supreme Court would quite probably uphold the election of the Electoral College winner (see note 9). [9] Therefore, there is no guarantee that the NPV will work as intended in cases where states renege.

What Should NPV Supporters Do to Assure It Will Work?

Because state legislatures would retain their ability to renege even after adopting the NPV, its supporters would be well-advised to get Congress to approve the NPV as an “interstate compact” under Article I of the Constitution. Congressional approval would guarantee the NPV compact’s enforceability because the Supreme Court would then unquestionably be willing to enforce the compact’s terms (including limits on withdrawal) against participating states.

While getting Congressional approval would not be easy—given pressure from small states, partisan groups, etc.—the debate on the proposal would be healthy. Remember that, in 1969, the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives voted—by a very large margin—in favor of a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College—and it did so with the support of Republican President Richard Nixon, among others. [10] For various reasons, it should be easier to gain approval for the NPV than it would be for an amendment abolishing the Electoral College. Getting Congressional approval would also avoid a situation where Americans in states that were not parties to the compact—which together might well have nearly as many electoral votes as the NPV compact states—felt as though they had been disenfranchised by the NPV.

NPV supporters have stated that it is their position that Congressional consent for the NPV compact is not required but that “nonetheless, National Popular Vote is working to obtain support for the compact in Congress.” [11] Congressional consent is more than simply desirable—it is necessary to guarantee that the NPV will actually work even in the heat of a sharply contested election like the 2000 election. The alternative is to risk politically tragic Supreme Court intervention on behalf of the popular vote loser in yet another presidential election.

Notes

1. History suggests that at least if an abolition proposal were considered by itself, they’re probably right. But note that politically, this is completely different from whether it would be possible to eliminate the Electoral College as one of a series of changes to the Constitution proposed as part of its general revision by a national convention, a concept that will be explored in a later post.
2. Details on the proposal and its current status and support can be found at supporters’ websites: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com; http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/national-popular-vote (accessed 01/07/2015). For a history of the Electoral College and efforts to replace it with direct election of the President, including detailed legal analysis of a National Popular Vote proposal see http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EveryVoteEqual_web.pdf (accessed 01/10/2015).
3. For a contrary argument, see Norman R. Williams, “Why the National Popular Vote Compact is Unconstitutional,” 2012 BYU Law Review 1523 (2012). For other analyses of the constitutional questions, see particularly the sources cited by Williams at 1525 n. 6, 1526 n. 10, and 1538 n. 67.
4. See state-by-state data in discussion of Myth No. 24, http://www.nationalpopularvote.com.
5. The bill passed the New York Assembly by a vote of 100-32. See http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/03/8542603/legislature-approves-national-popular-vote (accessed 01/09/2015).
6. It’s not clear that this will actually happen. Each of the states that has adopted the NPV proposal to date has uniformly voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every one of the past six presidential elections (1992-2012). Some observers believe that it will be difficult for NPV supporters to line up enough additional states to reach their goal of passage by states with more than 270 electoral votes. Some resistance may be based on the same sorts of parochial reasons that have prevented the Electoral College from being abolished so far (see earlier posts in this series). Popular election of the president isn’t a “partisan” issue. Of course, true partisans probably won’t see it that way—so “red” states aren’t especially likely to sign up to the NPV proposal. And key “purple” or “swing” states may not want to do so either—precisely because at least some of them are “winners” under the Electoral College system, since they have more influence under that system than they would under the NPV proposal. See the discussion in James Joyner, “New York becomes 11th state to pass national popular vote law,” April 18, 2014, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/new-york-becomes-11th-state-to-pass-national-popular-vote-law.(accessed 01/07/2015).
7. The NPV has a provision that is intended to prevent states from reneging in this way—but the important question is whether it can be enforced.
8. For the details, see Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2005), 98, 822 nn. 57-58.
9. In the Supreme Court’s view, under Article II of the Constitution state legislatures have unrestricted rights to determine how a state’s electoral votes will be cast—they don’t even have to hold a popular vote to decide this. Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (New York: Basic Books, rev. ed. 2009), 20. For arguments in favor of enforceability, see http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EveryVoteEqual_web.pdf, Chapter 8, section 6.2, p. 352-58. The determinative question regarding enforceability is this: given the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II’s Electoral College provisions and its interpretations of the Contract and Compact clauses, which provision will the Supreme Court decide “trumps” the others in the event of an apparent conflict (assuming that there is a conflict, which itself is debatable). Suffice it to say that the arguments for enforceability made by supporters are, unfortunately, quite unlikely to persuade the Supreme Court. It would be very desirable for supporters of the NPV to be realistic about the strength (or lack thereof) of those arguments.
10. In 1969, the House of Representatives passed a proposed constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of the President by an overwhelming vote of 338-70, or 83 percent of the House members voting. At the time, the idea of direct election of the President was supported by a broad range of interest groups with differing political views, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to the AFL-CIO, to the American Bar Association, to President Nixon. The proposed constitutional amendment died in the Senate, though it had substantial support there as well. Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun, The Politics of Electoral College Reform, 2d ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 150, 172-75.
11. See Myth 1.16.5, The National Popular Vote compact requires congressional consent to become effective, http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=16.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Electoral College: An Internet Age Dinosaur (Part 4)

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: AN INTERNET AGE DINOSAUR (PART 4)

Faced with persuasive evidence that the Electoral College is remarkably anti-democratic and even dangerous to America in today’s world, its supporters make two primary arguments in its defense. [Note 1] They argue that it should be preserved because it protects the interests of the states, particularly small states, as distinct political entities by giving them added influence in presidential elections (and thus in national policy). And they argue that it protects limited government. Both claims are badly flawed.

Do States Need Electoral College Protection?

Whether it was desirable to treat states as entities deserving special constitutional protection was hotly debated when the Electoral College was created in 1787. Most large state delegates in Philadelphia—and here we can include illustrious Founders such as Madison, Wilson, Hamilton, Franklin, King, and Washington—thought that there was no legitimate reason whatsoever to give states special political advantages in the national government without regard to their population size or wealth merely because they were states. Quite to the contrary, delegates such as James Madison adamantly believed that proportional representation of states based on wealth or population should be the rule for both Houses of Congress in a truly republican government.

Nor was this a new view in 1787. As early as 1776, John Adams of Massachusetts said during Congressional debate over representation in the Confederation that “the individuality of colonies is a mere sound.” [Note 2] By this Adams meant that it was profoundly erroneous to treat colonies as sovereign and equal political entities in the process of building a nation. Yet small states were able to force the 1787 Philadelphia Convention to protect their corporate interests in a variety of ways, such as equal state voting in the Senate and the Electoral College. But this was merely powerful testimony to their bargaining leverage given the urgent political and military need for consensus Convention members believed existed, not proof of the merits of their position. [Note 3]

But continuing a two-century old expedient compromise that gave states as states special influence in Presidential elections is no longer necessary or desirable today. We do not elect Presidents to represent states; they are elected to represent the nation and all of its people. State power in presidential elections cannot be enhanced for some states without prejudicing the interests of the nation, of other states, and of individual voters; it is a zero-sum game (i.e., a game in which when someone wins, someone else must lose, as in dividing up a cake). Other features of the Constitution adequately protect federalism and state interests, without the serious negative side-effects created by the Electoral College. Both the Senate and the Supreme Court have historically been both willing and able to protect state powers and prerogatives under the Constitution. The Court’s federalism decisions in recent years confirm this. For example, look at the Court’s decision in the Affordable Care Act case, in which the Court majority held that Congress had no power to force states to expand Medicaid against their will. [Note 4]

Can Protecting Limited Government Justify the Electoral College?

The argument that the Electoral College is needed to protect limited government is also deeply flawed. Of course, many people think that “limited government” (which often means different things to different people) is desirable. [Note 5] And it is quite possible that the Electoral College effectively supports that view, because its operation exaggerates the political influence of areas of the country (often, small “red” states) where a majority of residents prefer more limited government. But this is actually further proof that the Electoral College is inconsistent with the underlying spirit of the Constitution itself, not an argument in favor of the Electoral College.

America’s history over the past century shows that most Americans reject the view that the Constitution’s purpose is to cast in concrete a particular set of social and economic relationships. Instead, Americans periodically have decided that government’s role in American life should be changed or expanded as social conditions change. For example, Congress did this in adopting major New Deal legislation such as the Social Security Act, and labor and stock market regulation. Since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has generally accepted such changes, except where they clearly violated constitutional rights or structural principles. In the process, the Court has essentially agreed with Justice Holmes’ famous dissenting view, in a case that struck down New York state protective social legislation, that:

…[A] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. [Note 6]

Instead, as Holmes saw, the Constitution’s primary purpose is to provide a fair and orderly mechanism through which the people, the ultimate source of political power and legitimacy in our democracy, may peacefully decide (through representatives) that fundamental social or economic changes are needed and put them into effect. [Note 7] In contrast, to argue that the Electoral College is needed because it effectively protects limited government by exaggerating its supporters’ influence is in reality to argue that it is desirable to prevent constitutionally permissible political changes sought by the majority of the people by artificially blocking or distorting the operation of their will. This is inconsistent with the underlying spirit of the Constitution and especially with our nation’s pressing need for peaceful but effective change to improve our government, so this argument for the Electoral College must be rejected. If supporters of limited government are going to prevail, they need to do it through the democratic process, not through the Electoral College.

In deciding whether to continue the Electoral College, therefore, it is important to weigh the evidence of its serious disadvantages only against real benefits to the nation as a whole, not against the supposed benefits to states or to supporters of limited government.

NOTES

1. For this evidence, see Parts 1-3 of this series of posts.
2. Adams in Thomas Jefferson, Writings (New York: Library of America, 1984), 29.
3. Though, unlike Adams, various individuals then did believe that states should be treated as sovereigns, this is beside the point here. We can also disregard for present purposes the fact that the Electoral College politically strengthened slavery during the early American republic.
4. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 567 U.S. ___ (June 28, 2012).
5. Observations about the role of government here are not intended to imply any view on the desirability (or lack of desirability) of government’s role in any part of national life–instead, they concern only how such views relate to the structure of the Constitution.
6. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), at 198 U.S. 75-76 (Holmes, J., dissenting).
7. Justice Holmes’ extensive service as a soldier in the Civil War made him exceptionally well-qualified to advance a view of the Constitution conducive to peaceful social change. For Holmes’ moving reflections on the Civil War, see his May 30, 1884, Memorial Day Address, “In Our Youth Our Hearts Were Touched with Fire,” http://people.virginia.edu/~mmd5f/memorial.htm.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Electoral College: An Internet Age Dinosaur (Part 3)

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE:  AN INTERNET AGE DINOSAUR (Part 3)

Earlier posts in this series showed that the Electoral College is not only anti-democratic; it is also potentially dangerous to America’s future.  This post discusses another reason to abolish the Electoral College that will appeal to many citizens:  it artificially protects the dominant political position of the two major political parties.  Many people believe that as coalitions of strange bedfellows, those parties have lacked coherent ideas for decades.  An important reason they still survive is the strong protection against competition they receive from the Electoral College.  It permanently prevents the rise of serious national third-party candidacies.  This protection is so obvious that some political scientists have even described it as one of the benefits that justifies the College’s continued use.[1]  Here is how that protection works.

Throughout America’s history, presidential candidates with strong regional appeal have periodically arisen, such as South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond in 1948 or Alabama Governor George C. Wallace in 1968.  There have also been a smaller number of truly national third-party candidacies such as that of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912.  The Electoral College affects these regional and national third-party insurgencies in distinctly different ways.   As two political scientists who studied the system extensively conclude:  “The Electoral College system is quite clear in its bias:  it favors third parties with a sectional orientation, and it discriminates against those with a national orientation.”[2] As a result, strong sectional third party candidacies such as the Wallace candidacy might sometimes be able to throw presidential elections into the House of Representatives by denying either major party candidate a majority of the Electoral College vote.[3]  In that event, there will be some bargaining for the votes of Congressmen from states supporting the third party candidacy which may in turn influence national policy, but the third party candidate is highly unlikely to win the election and become president.  And national third-party candidates are unlikely to ever win either.

National third-party candidacies are seriously impaired by the effects of the “unit rule” (statewide winner-take-all voting for the Electoral College electors) and the need to compete in party stronghold states where the dominant major party is protected by that rule.[4]  The unit rule helps Republicans who are in control in some states boost the chances of Republican candidates there, and it helps Democrats who control other states to do the same thing for Democratic candidates.   But in both cases it leaves minority voters in those states without any voice.  In 1992, for example, businessman Ross Perot received more than 19.7 million votes—18.9 percent of the total vote cast—and did not receive a single vote in the Electoral College.[5] In the 1992 presidential election, George H.W. Bush won all twenty-five of the electoral votes of Florida even though he received only 41 percent of the vote there, as opposed to the 59 percent of the vote received by Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.  On the other hand, Bill Clinton won all fifty-four of the electoral votes of California, though he received only 46 percent of the votes there.

Third-party candidates with national popular appeal—such as Ross Perot or Theodore Roosevelt—can draw votes away from the major parties across the country.  In those parts of the country where one major party is politically dominant (so-called “Red” or “Blue” states), even the votes lost to a nationally significant third-party candidate are likely to leave the dominant major party with a plurality, so it will still receive all of the Electoral College votes.   It is possible, though, that a third-party candidacy will change the outcome that would otherwise occur between the two major parties by drawing votes away from the leading major party candidate (as an example, Ralph Nader’s 97,000-plus votes in Florida vs. the state’s loss by Vice-President Albert Gore to George W. Bush in the 2000 election by 537 votes).[6]

But the national third-party candidacy would need to be exceptionally strong before it would change the outcome so much that the third-party would win.  Under the Electoral College, the third-party candidate will normally be shut out entirely or receive an electoral vote far smaller than its popular vote.  This is what happened to Theodore Roosevelt, probably the most popular third-party candidate of the twentieth century, when he ran in 1912. Roosevelt won 27 percent of the popular vote, or nearly 70 percent of Woodrow Wilson’s popular vote total.  Roosevelt received only 20 percent as many Electoral College votes as Wilson, however.

In the presidential elections from 1992 through 2012, more than half of all states have been won consistently by one major party or the other, and these states have a total of more than 344 electoral votes (more than sixty percent of the Electoral College total vote).[7]  This means that to win, a third-party candidacy must be strong enough either to seriously challenge one of the two major parties in its stronghold states by winning a plurality of votes in some or all of those states, and that it must also win a plurality in all of the states that shift allegiances from election to election.  This level of electoral success is a tall order, a heavy burden imposed entirely by the Electoral College, since a strong national third-party candidacy like Theodore Roosevelt’s might well survive in a system that used a national runoff.  Roosevelt, after all, came in second to Wilson in 1912 in the popular vote.  So the College serves as a formidable barrier to third-party candidacies.

The long and short of it is this:  if you like one or both of the the two major parties, and think that they’re just the right folks to lead America into the future, you should want to keep the Electoral College.  If, on the other hand, you think that they’re both pretty much bankrupt and would like to see some real political competition for a change, you should favor getting rid of it for this reason as well.

Notes

[1] Larry Sabato, A More Perfect Constitution (New York:  Walker & Company, 2008), 138-39.

[2] Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun, The Politics of Electoral College Reform, 2d ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 9.

[3] In 1968, Wallace carried five states and received 46 electoral votes.  By May, 1972, he had already won three state primaries, including Florida, and was favored to win two additional primaries and expected to have at least ten percent of the total votes at the Democratic convention when an assassination attempt left him permanently paralyzed.  See William Greider, “Wallace Is Shot, Legs Paralyzed; Suspect Seized at Laurel Rally”. Washington Post, May 16, 1972 (accessed 12/28/2014).

[4] Although the use of the “unit rule” is not required in allocating state electoral votes, at present it is used in forty-eight states.  In 1800, when Thomas Jefferson was elected, it was used in two states.  In any two-party system where the unit rule is a permissible option, there are strong incentives to adopt it, so it’s fair to think of the unit rule as part of our Electoral College system.

[5] Joseph A. Pika and John Anthony Maltese, The Politics of the Presidency, 6th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004), 68.

[6] Ralph Nader denied that his candidacy had had a “spoiler” effect, but it is clear that there will be elections where a third-party candidate will actually change the election result.  This is an important reason why major parties periodically engage in surreptitious support for third-party candidates, hoping to draw votes from an opponent.

[[7] Dan Balz, “The Republican Party’s uphill path to 270 electoral votes in 2016 elections,” Washington Post, January 18, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gops-uphill-path-to-270-in-2016/2014/01/18/9404eb06-7fcf-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html (accessed 12/28/2014).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE—AN INTERNET AGE DINOSAUR (PART 2)

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE—AN INTERNET AGE DINOSAUR (PART 2)

This post discusses two important political costs that the Electoral College imposes on America’s political system.  The first is that it periodically elects “minority” Presidents; that is, candidates who have lost the popular vote can become President.  The second is that it confers great political influence on strategically located special interest voting blocs—influence that is often grossly disproportionate to their actual size.  Our increasingly strained system can no longer afford these costs.[1]

The Electoral College has elected Presidents who lost the popular vote several times during our history, most recently President George W. Bush in 2000.  Some would dismiss this “minority president” problem as being the result of a small series of unpredictable flukes.  But political scientists believe that it is precisely when Presidential elections are closest—i.e., most competitive—that the chances are greatest that using the Electoral College system will result in the election of a Presidential candidate who receives a popular vote minority.  Of the eleven presidential elections in our history through 2008 in which the leading candidate had a margin of less than three points over his closest competitor, the Electoral College (assisted by the Supreme Court in at least one case) has chosen a candidate who did not receive a popular vote majority in at least three (some would say four), elections. [2]  In other words, we overrule the popular will and elect a minority President between one out of every three and one out of every four times in close elections.  Yet those are precisely the elections when voters think that the outcome matters most and when the violation of democratic principles is most harmful.

Electing minority presidents is also dangerous, because it can lead to the election of a President who is viewed as illegitimate by a large part of the American people.[3]   As the events of September 11, 2001 proved, America cannot afford to have a President who is seen as illegitimate.  When the United States came under terrorist attack, President Bush needed to be able to perform his role as Commander-in-Chief without facing any questions about his legitimacy whatsoever.  But Bush had lost the popular vote in the 2000 election to Albert Gore, Jr.  That fact, together with the Supreme Court’s extraordinary intervention in the 2000 election through its Bush v. Gore decision, had brought Bush’s legitimacy as President into question for many people.[4]  More than two years after the election and well after the 2001 attacks, 38 percent of the American population still did not consider George Bush the legitimate president of the United States.[5] We need Presidents who can exercise the full powers of that  office with unquestioned public support for his or her right to exercise them.  Minority presidents lack the needed legitimacy to gain that support.  And there is another large cost imposed by the Electoral College on our political system—it unfairly gives disproportionately large influence to special interest voting blocs in strategic states. Here’s how.

Under the Electoral College structure (combined with the “winner take all” unit rule for choosing electors), small blocs of interest group voters located in strategic states who will all vote the same way based on an issue of overriding concern to them can “swing” the outcome of Presidential elections.  The result is that satisfying the political interests of those bloc voters becomes far more important to candidates than it would be otherwise.  The nature of the membership of such strategically placed blocs has changed over time as our population has grown and the concentration of various demographic and political groups has shifted from one part of the country to another through migration. For example, during the 1990s, it appears that rural voters were disadvantaged by the Electoral College because their vote was concentrated in electorally less important smaller states, while Hispanic voters were given a significant voting advantage by it because their vote was concentrated in electorally influential large states.[6] During some earlier time periods, it appears that the Electoral College may have given a significant advantage to Jewish voters, who tended to be concentrated in states that had large numbers of electoral votes.[7]

In some states where the major parties are very competitive, these strategic blocs may consist of as few as 100,000 voters.  By comparison, in the 2012 election, more than 129 million votes were cast, and Barack Obama was elected president by a nationwide margin of about 5 million votes, so the loss of 100,000 votes would be of little consequence in a popular vote system.  If the Electoral College did not exist, therefore, these same bloc voters would have no more influence on Presidential politics than any other similarly-sized group of voters.  The possibility of presidential “rewards” to favored blocs is especially troublesome in the context of national security and foreign affairs, when policies not in the national interest may be adopted to curry favor with a particular bloc of voters, such as an ethnic group whose members are concentrated in a few strategically important states.[8]

The temptation to pander to bloc voters in order to win close elections can be very great.[9]  In 2016, for example, it is quite likely that enormous attention will be paid to the political demands of relatively small voter blocs in fewer than ten contested swing states with roughly 100 electoral votes (out of a total of 538 votes), since they may well decide the election outcome. To allow the special interests of such small groups of voters to control presidential election outcomes cannot be good for the country, and would occur far less often in a popular vote system.

That the Electoral College elects minority-vote presidents and also gives vastly disproportionate influence to strategically located special interest groups are only two of several very good reasons to abolish it.

.

[1] The Electoral College also prevents the rise of national third-party presidential candidates, a large cost that will be discussed in a later post.

[2] These three elections are 1876, 1888, and 2000.  Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Pierce, The Electoral College Primer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 135; George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 45.  Some political historians would add a fourth, based on the fact that the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams as President in 1824 over Andrew Jackson, although Jackson led the Electoral College voting by a large margin (but failed to achieve a majority) and quite probably would have been the popular vote winner (had popular votes been cast).  If 1824 is included, the rate of Electoral College failure to choose a popular vote majority candidate correctly in close elections would be greater than 35 percent.  Some might see Abraham Lincoln’s election with less than 40 percent of the popular vote as a counterexample, though.

[3] Joseph A. Pika and John Anthony Maltese, The Politics of the Presidency, 6th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004), 52, 67-70.

[4] Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in Bush v. Gore persuasively argued that the 2000 election should have been decided by the House of Representatives.  Doing so would very probably not have changed the election outcome.  Thus, the argument that the Court’s decision was both legally wrong and misguided is not “sour grapes.”  Bush et al. v. Gore et al., 531 U.S. 98 (2000), at 144 (Breyer, J., dissenting).  The decision’s greatest political vice was the damage it did to Bush’s political legitimacy, which would have been greatly strengthened by winning a contested House election, just as Jefferson’s was strengthened by the hotly contested 1800 House election he won.

[5] George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), xvi.

[6] Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Pierce, The Electoral College Primer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), Table 21, 148.

[7] Id..

[8] For a good recent example of these potential election dynamics, see Nate Cohn, “Why the Cuba Issue No Longer Cuts Against Democrats in Florida,” New York Times, December 17, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/upshot/why-the-cuba-issue-no-longer-cuts-against-democrats-in-florida.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0 (accessed 12/19/2014).  Note that the merits of President Obama’s decision are irrelevant to the political analysis here.

[9] For a classic example of the political calculations that result from the existence of strategic bloc voting in an Electoral College system, see the memorandum to President Truman from his senior adviser Clark M. Clifford, “Memorandum for the President,” November 19, 1947, available at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/1948campaign/large/docs/documents/pdfs/1-1.pdf. (accessed 12/19/2014). Though it was written in 1947, this memorandum is still entirely relevant to today’s presidential politics.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

MEXICO’S FAILED GOVERNMENTS ARE AMERICA’S PROBLEM TOO LOS GOBIERNOS NO DE México SON PROBLEMA DE AMERICA TAMBIEN

Note to Readers:  The English version of this article is followed by a Spanish translation.

Nota a los lectores: La versión en Inglés de este artículo es seguido por una traducción al español.

MEXICO’S FAILED GOVERNMENTS ARE AMERICA’S PROBLEM TOO

Public outrage in Mexico over the murders of forty-three innocent college student teachers by drug traffickers after they were handed over by corrupt local officials recently led to a dramatic response by its government.  On December 1, 2014, Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto proposed seven constitutional amendments to its Congress.  Their major goal is to replace all 1,800 municipal police forces in Mexico by thirty-two state forces.[1]  The Economist reported that: “The crime has horrified Mexicans like no other in recent memory. Though the country has been plagued by mass slayings since drug violence surged in the mid-2000s, the fact that the victims were young, with no link…to criminal gangs, and yet were seized by municipal police and savagely handed over to their executioners, has left many people disgusted at the level of lawlessness.”[2]  There are estimates that as many as 100,000 Mexicans have been killed or have disappeared over the past decade as a result of drug wars.[3]  Parts of Mexico today are failed governments.  These failures are a major problem for America.  We need to take vigorous action now to help the Mexican government combat their source: drug terrorism.

To understand this issue, we need to face a very unpleasant reality.  Mexico’s failed governments are dominated by drug cartels that are largely engaged in supplying American drug demand.   Mexican heroin primarily supplies American drug users, many of whom are turning to heroin as a substitute for prescription pain drugs.  Mexico’s transshipments of drugs such as cocaine are supplying mainly American customers.[4] American consumers are the largest single world market for illegal drugs.  Increasingly today, these drug customers are lower-middle and middle-class suburban whites, not poor minority inner-city dwellers.  More than ninety percent of American heroin users are white, and more than half are women.[5]  Government data suggest that the percentage of people consuming illegal drugs has changed little since America’s “war on drugs” began, while many poor, often minority, people have been needlessly jailed.[6]  Our drug war has primarily been a “war” on the foreign supply of drugs, not a serious attack on the American demand for drugs—and there are obvious political reasons for this.  Fighting drug wars in Colombia is much easier politically than fighting them in Chicago or Miami.

The immense profitability of the drug trade makes it possible for drug traffickers to finance widespread corruption of Mexican governments and thus to murder with impunity.[7]   The marijuana trade by itself is an enormously profitable business.  In Mexico, these drug businesses are clearly worth killing for—and there is evidence to suggest this is increasingly true in the United States as well.  It won’t be long before most Mexicans will no longer be willing to bear the costs of widespread corruption and death that are imposed on their innocent citizens as an indirect result of America’s drug demand.  In all likelihood, without powerful assistance, they will reach tacit agreements with drug traffickers that permit them to operate freely in Mexico as long as they minimize the harm done by the trade to Mexican citizens.

If Mexico becomes a haven for drug cartels, the drug trade there will remain highly profitable and receive maximum protection and freedom to operate.  This in turn will permit drug traffickers to spend additional money on corrupting American police and government officials.  Cops can be paid to look the other way when drug sales or drug terror crimes occur.  And with enough resources, bribes can be concealed without difficulty—through cash payments, offshore bank accounts, or by providing officials with low or no cost stakes in front businesses.  It is unrealistic to expect public employees uniformly to resist corruption when it becomes part of a broad culture or when payments rise beyond a certain level.   And at the same time, drug traffickers will be even more able to organize and use large, well-armed criminal gangs in the United States as ruthless distributors.  American law enforcement lacks the resources to fight gangs that are willing to intimidate witnesses using murder, arson, and threats against family members.  Gangs also force minors to commit violent crimes, knowing that they face far more lenient punishment in America than adults.

America therefore has a strong interest in helping Mexico to resist drug cartel corruption.  In recognition of this, the US has already provided more than two billion dollars worth of assistance to Mexico through the Merida Initiative. [8]   But a much more vigorous effort is needed.  The US can help in two ways.  First, it can attack the problem at home, by beginning a serious attack on drug demand in the United States.  That can be done by substantially increasing drug treatment resources and driving up the cost of illegal drugs.  Drug treatment is expensive—a month at a good clinic can cost $27,000—and so these resources are often now unavailable to those who need them.[9]  American police need to be given additional resources to combat drug trafficking. Local governments should not be asked to provide all of these resources, because some localities are clearly incapable of providing them, and will be overwhelmed, corrupted, or both.  American police departments—and federal law enforcement agencies, including the DEA, as well—need to be placed under additional scrutiny to combat possible corruption.   Second, the United States can offer considerably increased assistance to Mexico, both in direct funding and in institution building.  The United States should also consider negotiating a treaty with Mexico that creates the possibility of full cooperative law enforcement for drug crime, to the extent this is not currently permitted by law.

It is very much in America’s interest for Mexico effectively to combat drug cartel corruption.  Our companies and citizens do business there, and it is in our interest to expand this trade.  And our own governments and law enforcement will be put under enormous pressure if Mexico’s governments fail.   Mexico is an important line of defense for us against drug terrorism.  We need to make Mexico our partner in every sense of the word in dealing with a problem we have done much to help create.[10]

Notes

[1] The Economist, December 6, 2014 at 39. The report criticized the proposal in part because “in some states, governors and their police forces are just as corrupt as the municipal authorities.” Ibid.

[2] The Economist, November 8, 2014.

[3] According to The Guardian, February 3, 2014: “Supported by the US-financed Mérida Initiative, in 2006 the Mexican government declared a war on the drug cartels that has killed or led to the disappearance of 100,000 Mexicans so far…”

[4] “90% of the cocaine that enters the US passes through Mexico, a trade that is now valued at between $19bn and $29bn.” Ibid.

[5] The Economist, November 22, 2014 at 25-26 (chart).

[6] For data on illegal drug use trends see “Drug Abuse:  Nationwide Trends,” at http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends (accessed 12/12/14).

[7] According to a PBS Frontline special, “What keeps the drug industry going is its huge profit margins. Producing drugs is a very cheap process. Like any commodities business the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product. Processed cocaine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail). Heroin costs $2,600/kilo in Pakistan, but can be sold on the streets of America for $130,000/kilo (retail). And synthetics like methamphetamine are often even cheaper to manufacture costing approximately $300 to $500 per kilo to produce in clandestine labs in the US and abroad and sold on US streets for up to $60,000/kilo (retail).”  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html (accessed 12/12/14).

[8] For details on the Merida initiative, see http://www.state.gov/j/inl/merida/  (accessed 12/12/14).

[9] According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse:  “There continues to be a large “treatment gap” in this country. In 2012, an estimated 23.1 million Americans (8.9 percent) needed treatment for a problem related to drugs or alcohol, but only about 2.5 million people (1 percent) received treatment at a specialty facility.”

[10] With thanks to Mary A. Van Cleve for perceptive and helpful comments.

Following is a Spanish-language version of this post created by Google translate:

LOS GOBIERNOS NO DE México SON PROBLEMA DE AMERICA TAMBIEN

La indignación pública en México en los asesinatos de los cuarenta y tres inocentes estudiantes de pedagogía de la universidad por los traficantes de drogas después de que fueron entregados por funcionarios locales corruptos recientemente llevado a una respuesta dramática por su gobierno. El 1 de diciembre de 2014, el presidente Enrique Peña Nieto de México propuso siete enmiendas constitucionales a su Congreso. Su objetivo principal es reemplazar los 1.800 policías municipales en México por treinta y dos fuerzas del Estado [1] The Economist informó que: “. El crimen ha horrorizado a los mexicanos como ningún otro en la historia reciente. Aunque el país ha estado plagada de asesinatos masivos desde la violencia del narcotráfico surgió a mediados de la década de 2000, el hecho de que las víctimas eran jóvenes, sin vínculo … a las bandas criminales, y sin embargo, fueron incautados por la policía municipal y salvajemente entregó a sus verdugos, ha dejado a muchas personas disgustados a nivel de la iniquidad. “se fracasó [2] Hay estimaciones de que unos 100.000 mexicanos han sido asesinados o han desaparecido en la última década como consecuencia de la guerra contra las drogas. [3] las partes de México hoy gobiernos. Estas fallas son un problema importante para los Estados Unidos. Tenemos que tomar medidas enérgicas ahora para ayudar al gobierno mexicano a combatir su fuente: el terrorismo de drogas.

Para entender este problema, tenemos que hacer frente a una realidad muy desagradable. Gobiernos fallidos de México están dominados por cárteles de la droga que se dedican principalmente en el suministro de la demanda de drogas de Estados Unidos. Heroína mexicana suministra principalmente consumidores de drogas estadounidenses, muchos de los cuales están dando vuelta a la heroína como un sustituto para los medicamentos recetados para el dolor. Transbordo de drogas como la cocaína de México están suministrando a los clientes, principalmente estadounidenses. [4] Los consumidores estadounidenses son el mayor mercado mundial único para las drogas ilegales. Cada vez más hoy en día, estos clientes drogas son blancos suburbanos de clase media y media-baja, no pobres minoritarios habitantes de las zonas urbanas deprimidas. Más del noventa por ciento de los consumidores de heroína de América son de color blanco, y más de la mitad son mujeres. [5] Los datos del gobierno indican que el porcentaje de personas que consumen drogas ilegales ha cambiado poco desde que comenzó la “guerra contra las drogas” de Estados Unidos, mientras que muchos pobres, a menudo minoría , la gente ha sido innecesariamente encarcelados. [6] Nuestra guerra contra las drogas ha sido principalmente una “guerra” en el suministro extranjero de drogas, no un grave ataque a la demanda estadounidense de drogas -y hay razones políticas obvias para esto. La lucha contra las guerras de drogas en Colombia es mucho más fácil políticamente que luchar contra ellos en Chicago o Miami.

La inmensa rentabilidad del negocio de la droga hace posible que los traficantes de drogas para financiar la corrupción generalizada de los gobiernos de México y por lo tanto para asesinar con impunidad. [7] El comercio de marihuana por sí mismo es un negocio enormemente rentable. En México, estos negocios de drogas son claramente vale la pena matar y no hay evidencia que sugiera que es cada vez más cierto en los Estados Unidos también. No pasará mucho tiempo antes de que la mayoría de los mexicanos ya no estarán dispuestos a asumir los costos de la corrupción generalizada y la muerte que se imponen a sus ciudadanos inocentes como resultado indirecto de la demanda de drogas en Estados Unidos. Con toda probabilidad, sin ayuda de gran alcance, van a llegar a acuerdos tácitos con los traficantes de drogas que permiten operar libremente en México, siempre que minimizan el daño causado por el comercio a los ciudadanos mexicanos.

Si México se convierte en un paraíso para los cárteles de la droga, el tráfico de drogas no seguirá siendo altamente rentable y recibir la máxima protección y libertad para operar. Esto a su vez permitirá a los narcotraficantes que gastar dinero adicional a los funcionarios policiales y gubernamentales estadounidenses corruptoras. Los policías se pueden pagar a mirar hacia otro lado cuando se venden drogas o delitos terroristas drogas. Y con los recursos suficientes, los sobornos se pueden ocultar sin pagos en efectivo de dificultad a través, cuentas bancarias en el extranjero, o proporcionando funcionarios con apuestas bajas o nulas de costes en las empresas delanteros. No es realista esperar que los empleados públicos de manera uniforme para resistir la corrupción cuando se convierte en parte de una cultura amplia o cuando los pagos se elevan más allá de un cierto nivel. Y al mismo tiempo, los traficantes de drogas serán aún más capaz de organizar y utilizar grandes bandas criminales, bien armados en los Estados Unidos como distribuidores despiadados. Aplicación de la ley estadounidense carece de los recursos para combatir las pandillas que están dispuestos a intimidar a testigos, utilizando asesinatos, incendios y amenazas contra miembros de la familia. Las pandillas también obligan a los menores a cometer delitos violentos, a sabiendas de que se enfrentan a penas mucho más indulgente en América que los adultos.

Por lo tanto, Estados Unidos tiene un gran interés en ayudar a México para resistir la corrupción cartel de la droga. En reconocimiento de esto, los EE.UU. ya ha proporcionado más de dos mil millones de dólares en asistencia a México a través de la Iniciativa Mérida. [8] Sin embargo, se necesita un esfuerzo mucho más vigorosa. Los EE.UU. puede ayudar de dos maneras. En primer lugar, puede atacar el problema en casa, empezando por un grave ataque a la demanda de drogas en Estados Unidos. Eso se puede hacer mediante un incremento sustancial de recursos de tratamiento de drogas y aumentando el costo de las drogas ilegales. El tratamiento farmacológico es caro-un mes en una buena clínica puede costar $ 27.000 y por lo que estos recursos son a menudo ahora disponible para aquellos que los necesitan. [9] policía estadounidense deben recibir recursos adicionales para combatir el tráfico de drogas. Los gobiernos locales no se debe pedir a proporcionar todos estos recursos, ya que algunas localidades son claramente incapaces de proporcionar ellos, y se verán abrumados, dañados, o ambos. Departamentos de policía estadounidenses-y agencias federales de aplicación de la ley, incluyendo la DEA, así, la necesidad de estar bajo un escrutinio adicional para combatir la posible corrupción. En segundo lugar, los Estados Unidos puede ofrecer aumentado considerablemente la asistencia a México, tanto en la financiación directa y en la creación de instituciones. Los Estados Unidos también debe considerar la negociación de un tratado con México que crea la posibilidad de aplicación de la ley cooperativa completo para el delito de drogas, en la medida en que esto no está permitido por la ley.

Es en gran medida en el interés de Estados Unidos por México para luchar eficazmente contra la corrupción cartel de la droga. Nuestras empresas y ciudadanos de hacer negocios allí, y es en nuestro interés de ampliar este comercio. Y nuestros propios gobiernos y la policía serán sometidos a una enorme presión si los gobiernos de México fallan. México es una importante línea de defensa para nosotros contra el narcoterrorismo. Tenemos que hacer que México nuestro socio en todos los sentidos de la palabra en el tratamiento de un problema que hemos hecho mucho para ayudar a crear. [10]

Notas

[1] El Economista 6 de diciembre de 2014 a 39. El informe criticó la propuesta, en parte, debido a que “en algunos estados, los gobernadores y sus fuerzas policiales son tan corruptos como las autoridades municipales”. Ibid.

[2] The Economist, 08 de noviembre 2014.

[3] De acuerdo con The Guardian 3 de febrero de 2014: “Con el apoyo de la Iniciativa Mérida financiada por Estados Unidos, en 2006 el gobierno mexicano declaró la guerra a los cárteles de la droga que ha matado o llevado a la desaparición de 100.000 mexicanos hasta ahora …”

[4] “El 90% de la cocaína que entra en los EE.UU. pasa a través de México, un comercio que ahora está valorada en $ 19 mil millones entre y $ 29bn.” Ibid.

[5] El Economista 22 de noviembre de 2014 a 25-26 (tabla).

[6] Para los datos sobre las tendencias de consumo de drogas ilegales ver “abuso de drogas: tendencias a nivel nacional,” en http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends (consultado el 12/12/14).

[7] De acuerdo con un especial de PBS Frontline, “¿Qué impide que la industria de la droga que va es sus enormes márgenes de beneficio. La producción de drogas es un proceso muy barato. Al igual que cualquier negocio de materias primas mientras más cerca esté de la fuente el más barato el producto. Cocaína procesada está disponible en Colombia por $ 1500 dólares por kilo y se vende en las calles de Estados Unidos por hasta US $ 66.000 por kilo (al por menor). La heroína cuesta 2.600 dólares / kilo en Pakistán, pero se puede vender en las calles de Estados Unidos por $ 130.000 / kilo (al por menor). Y sintéticos como la metanfetamina son a menudo incluso más barato de fabricar un costo aproximado de $ 300 a $ 500 por kilo de producir en laboratorios clandestinos en los EE.UU. y en el extranjero y se venden en las calles de Estados Unidos para un máximo de $ 60,000 / kilo (al por menor) “http:. //www.pbs .org / WGBH / pages / primera línea / mostrar / drogas / especial / math.html (consultado el 12/12/14).

[8] Para más detalles sobre la iniciativa Mérida, ver http://www.state.gov/j/inl/merida/ (consultado el 12/12/14).

[9] De acuerdo con el Instituto Nacional sobre el Abuso de Drogas: “Sigue existiendo una gran” brecha de tratamiento “en este país. En 2012, se estima que 23,1 millones de estadounidenses (8,9 por ciento) necesarios para el tratamiento de un problema relacionado con las drogas o el alcohol, pero sólo alrededor de 2,5 millones de personas (1 por ciento) recibieron tratamiento en un centro de especialidad “.

[10] Con agradecimiento a María A. Van Cleve para comentarios perspicaces y útiles.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Electoral College: An Internet Age Dinosaur (Part 1)

The Electoral College:  An Internet Age Dinosaur (Part 1)

For 225 years, the Electoral College has elected the American President, not the American people.  In fact, it was created to prevent Presidents from being elected by popular majorities.  Constitutional scholar Akhil Amar called it “a constitutional accident waiting to happen” in 1998.  Shortly afterwards, it caused bitter political controversy.[1]  In 2000, George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote, was still elected president by winning Florida’s electoral votes–at least according to five unelected Supreme Court justices.  This post explains how the Electoral College works, why the Founders created it, and why it is a dinosaur in the Internet Age.[2]

The Electoral College may seem mysterious, but it is based on a few simple rules.[3]  All actual votes for President are cast by individuals called “electors,” not by ordinary voters. [4]   Electors are chosen  by states.  Each state receives one elector for each Senator and Congressional seat it has.[5]  State legislatures are free to decide how to choose electors.[6]  Individual Americans have no constitutional right to vote even for Presidential electors, let alone directly for President.[7]  All fifty state legislatures could decide to choose the Presidential electors themselves, and negate the results of a popular vote for electors, even after the popular vote had all been cast.  If no candidate for president receives a majority of the Electoral College vote, the House of Representatives decides who will become President, a process commonly called “contingent” election.  Why did we create such a system?

*******************

The Electoral College grew out of a compromise by the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention.  The Founders argued throughout their four month-long meeting about how the President should be elected.  That issue was among the last major ones resolved.  The College was a solution to a tug-of-war not only over who would elect the President but, just as importantly, how powerful the office of President would be.

Some delegates, such as Roger Sherman of Connecticut, favored election of the President by Congress because it would make the President far weaker than a king. They wanted the President to “exist primarily as an agent for carrying out Congress’s will.”[8]  Sherman said that he wanted the President to be “absolutely dependent” on Congress, as it was Congress’ will “which was to be executed.”[9] Making the president independent of Congress would be “the very essence of tyranny.”[10] Some delegates, including Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Gunning Bedford of Delaware, went so far as to propose that the President be chosen directly by the state legislatures.[11]  Other delegates, such as William Paterson of New Jersey and  his small state coalition, wanted to make the presidency so weak that they proposed that the President be removeable from office by a majority of state governors.[12]

Other prominent delegates, including Alexander Hamilton of New York, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and James Madison of Virginia wanted a stronger President.  They envisioned a leader who could be independent of a “state-dominated” Congress and instead represent the broad national interest.[13]  Wilson argued that the President should be elected directly by the people, which would avoid problems such as undue Congressional influence.  James Madison described popular election as the best way to choose an able President, at least in principle.  But others such as Elbridge Gerry described popular election as a “radically vicious” idea, pointing to the “ignorance of the people.”  Gerry believed that if the people were allowed to elect the president, they could be dominated by groups of “respectable, united and influential men.”[14]  Charles Pinckney of South Carolina thought that the people could be duped by “a few active and designing men.”  George Mason of Virginia added that popular election of the President would be “the equivalent of ‘refer[ring] a trial of colors to a blind man.”[15]  Ultimately, even most delegates who wanted a stronger president were unwilling to support direct popular election.   Wilson’s proposal for direct election was defeated by a vote of nine states to one.

Caught between significant opposition to popular election of the President and many delegates’ continued opposition to Congressional election, the Philadelphia delegates compromised by inventing the Electoral College.  Under this convoluted system, states could decide how to choose electors, who would then in turn actually choose the President.  But the advocates of strong state authority and a weak presidency extracted vitally important concessions in return.  Most relevant here, small states were assured a large “bonus” vote, by giving each state, no matter how small, a minimum of three electors in the Electoral College.[16]

By the early nineteenth century if not before, informed observers had concluded that at least parts of the Electoral College system violated republican principles of proportionality and voter equality.   As Sanford Levinson points out, James Madison acknowledged as much.  In 1823, Madison wrote:

The present rule of voting for President by the House of Representatives is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality…and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate and best friends.[17]

Today, the anti-democratic rationale underlying the Electoral College has been rendered obsolete by changes in American social conditions.[18]  In the Internet age, an overwhelming majority of voters can readily obtain necessary information about presidential candidates and discuss issues widely online, so there is a nearly level “information playing field.”  There would be no relative disadvantage to states from allowing popular elections due to differing voter eligibility rules.  And there is no longer any plausible justification for giving voters in different states votes of greatly unequal weight in Presidential elections.   It will strengthen our democracy to give the people the right to elect the President directly by majority vote.  The Electoral College is an Internet Age dinosaur, and it should be abolished.[19]

Notes

[1] Akil Reed Ahmar, “An Accident Waiting to Happen,” in Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies, ed. William N. Eskridge Jr. and Sanford Levinson (New York: New York University Press, 1998), 15-17.

[2] Future posts will explain other very unfortunate side effects of continuing to use it to elect Presidents.

[3] Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution established the Electoral College system.  A good general overview of its history and of the issues it raises is Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Pierce, The Electoral College Primer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).  Also informative is Lawrence D. Longley and Alan G. Braun, The Politics of Electoral College Reform, 2d ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975).   For incisive analyses of problems with the Electoral College see Amar, “An Accident” (see note 1); Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution:  Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It), 81-97, and  George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004).  Earlier scholarly analysis of various biases in voting created by the Electoral College is found in John H. Yunker and Lawrence D. Longley, eds., The Electoral College:  Its Biases Newly Measured for the 1960s and 1970s, vol. 3: 04-031, Sage Professional Papers in American Politics (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976).

[4] Though there is debate on the issue, electors do not appear to be constitutionally required to vote for any particular candidate for President.  Longley and Pierce, Primer, 102-109; Edwards, Electoral College, 17-27.  This leads to the problem of the so-called “faithless elector,” who decides to vote for a presidential candidate different than the one supported by the voters who elected the elector.

[5] Under the Twenty-Third Amendment to the Constitution, the District of Columbia also receives three electors, though it has no voting Senators or Congressman.

[6] Methods that legislatures have employed during our history (or could employ) include:  choosing electors directly; allowing them to be elected by plurality statewide vote in a “winner take all” system, the system most commonly used today, which is called the “unit rule”; allowing them to be determined by Congressional district majority vote, a system called the “district rule;” or even proportionally awarding them based on the statewide vote for different candidates.

[7] Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote:  The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, Rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2009), 262.

[8]  Richard R. Beeman, Plain, Honest Men (New York: Random House, 2009)(“PHM”), 231.

[9] The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, ed., 4 vols. (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1966)(“Farrand”), 1: 68.

[10] Id. At the Convention, Sherman also had a strong hand in making sure that under the Constitution, Congress in turn was strongly dependent on decisions made by the states’ legislatures.  At the time, state legislatures could exert powerful influence on Congress because the legislatures directly elected Senators and also strongly influenced the election of federal House of Representatives members by setting their district boundaries. The district boundaries drawn by state legislatures could be so politically arbitrary that the process of creating them became known as the “gerry-mander” after a district was drawn in an odd lizard-like shape specifically designed to protect an ally of Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry.

[11] Beeman, PHM, 135.

[12] New Jersey plan, Farrand, 1: 244.

[13] A majority of members at the Convention wanted the President to be able to serve more than one term, and they were concerned, among other things, that Congressional election of the President would lead him to curry favor with Congress in order to be re-elected.

[14] Beeman,  PHM, 252.

[15] Id (emphasis added).

[16] In a second key concession, the Convention accepted Roger Sherman’s contingent election proposal.  Under it, the House of Representatives would vote for President in certain cases.  But it would vote under special rules that gave small states far more power than they would otherwise have had, because each state would cast only one vote, no matter how large it was. A contingent election occurred in 1800, and resulted in the election of Thomas Jefferson by the House of Representatives.  Some historians conclude that it was commonly expected that under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would often choose the President, because the Electoral College would frequently not produce a majority for any candidate.  The contingent system should have been used to decide the 2000 election.  See the dissent of Justice Breyer in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[17] James Madison to George Hay, August 3, 1823, quoted in Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution, 95.

[18] Ahmar, “An Accident” (note 1).

[19] And it has become obvious in recent years that the Electoral College system has other serious political costs to be discussed in future posts.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

IS AMERICA REALLY A DEMOCRACY?

Is America Really a Democracy?

Many Americans think of the United States as one of the world’s leading democracies.  In theory, here the people rule.  But in reality, the American constitution was designed in part to prevent majority rule from trampling minority rights.  So the Founders added to the Constitution a series of checks on the popular will, including the Supreme Court, the Senate, the presidential veto, and the Electoral College.  But today, these same institutions prevent the majority will from operating far more often than was originally intended.

The Supreme Court’s tenure is a good example.  Justices are appointed for life.   The longer justices live, the fewer opportunities presidents have to choose new justices, who might alter the Court’s direction.  In 1787, there were competing ideas about justices’ tenure.  Some people thought that justices should serve for twenty-five years, others that they should serve for life.  But there wasn’t much difference then, because life expectancies were far shorter than today.  If a justice was appointed in 1789 in his mid-40s, and had a twenty-five year term, the odds were relatively good that he would die before it ended, so it didn’t make much difference whether his term was twenty-five years or life.  Today, differing terms would have far different effects.  If a justice is appointed in his early 40s, it is reasonable to expect that he or she might well serve at least 40 years.   So the Supreme Court today is far less amenable to popular input than many citizens probably wanted in 1787 or now.  At the same time, in cases such as Bush v. Gore (which decided the 2000 presidential election), the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself decisions the Constitution intended Congress to make.[1]

Another example is the presidential veto.  When it was created, it would typically have taken the votes of congressmen and Senators representing about two-thirds of the American population to override a veto.  Today, political scientists think that there may be times when it would require the votes of Senators representing seventy-five percent, or even a considerably higher percentage, of the population to override a veto. Only a very small fraction of vetoes are successfully overridden.  This means that the presidential veto is now far closer to the monarchical absolute veto advocated by a few Founders rather than a substantial check on the popular will.  Yet we still elect these more powerful presidents even when they fail to receive a popular vote majority because we elect them using the Electoral College.  It becomes more anti-democratic and dangerous with every passing day (for reasons to be explored in a series of subsequent posts).[2]

Congress’ broad lawmaking powers were originally seen as the principal means of expressing the popular will.  Other government branches were given their powers primarily as a means of restraining it.   But since the mid-twentieth century, at least, Congress has increasingly abdicated its authority on issues such as military intervention abroad and control of national defense and foreign policy.  In addition, since World War II, Congress has repeatedly delegated what practically amounts to lawmaking authority to the executive branch without agreeing on clear guidelines for its use.  These developments have substantially decreased Congress’ ability to represent the popular will.  Presidential power has been expanding for decades through regulatory action to fill the vacuum left by Congress’ chronic inability to reach meaningful agreements on legislation. We have moved from congressional government toward government through an imperial presidency.

There is one Congressional institution that is more responsible than any other for Congress’ failure to govern–the Senate “filibuster rule.”  Without getting into details, the effect of the filibuster rule is that ordinary legislation cannot pass the Senate unless at least sixty Senators agree to it.  This means that legislation cannot pass unless it is watered down to make it acceptable to a significant number of Senators in the minority on a legislative issue.  On any issue where the major parties are sharply divided, this means that legislation will not move forward unless the majority permits the minority to exercise a veto on its content.  The filibuster rule can only be defended on the grounds that it is necessary to ensure that minorities are reasonably consulted on legislation.  But why should minorities be able to hamstring progress when the issue is one of legislative policy rather than one that affects fundamental rights (which can be protected in court)?  Isn’t the purpose of electing majorities to give them the authority to govern?  If they choose to do so without addressing minority interests and voters are unhappy about this, they can retaliate at the polls by making a minority into a majority. [3]

The fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to end the filibuster rule–even though both have at times had the power to do so–shows that it is more important to both parties to continue to have a stranglehold on the entire Congressional legislative process than it is to them to actually govern by passing legislation.   This means that ensuring that they have the ability to protect the status quo–to prevent change–is actually their paramount objective. This means that needless gridlock will persist.  It also means that presidents become more powerful, and so presidential elections become the focus of politics.

America was not intended to be a pure democracy, or even a pure republic.  But it was surely intended by the Founders to be more republican than it is today.  Today, on many important issues, where sixty–or seventy–or even eighty percent of the population clearly wants change to occur, the government does not respond, or responds only when a crisis forces action.  It should come as no surprise that as a result popular support for government institutions has sharply declined over the past several decades.  It is high time for our antiquated constitution to change.[4]

[1] On this, see the brilliant dissent of Mr. Justice Breyer in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

[2]  A very small percentage of presidential vetos have historically been overridden (about 7 percent as of 2004).  Of course, the coalitions that would sustain a veto will depend on the nature of the issue, and on whether the president is willing to trade votes for support or opposition on other legislation.  But today the Senate consists of states so disproportionate in size that if Senators from the top fifteen or so states in population, which together have about two-thirds of the nation’s population, all voted to override a veto, they would not have nearly enough votes to override it, even if their only opponents were the Senators from the seventeen smallest states, which have much less than twenty percent of the population.  Similarly, the populous states would also lose whenever they were opposed by Senators representing only twenty-five percent of the population.  For more information and background on veto procedure, see http://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf (accessed 11/30/2014) and Elizabeth Rybicki, “Veto Override Procedure in the House  Senate,” Congressional Research Service report, July 19, 2010.

[3] For the history of the filibuster rule and details of its operation, see Charles Tiefer, Congressional Practice and Procedure:  A Reference, Research and Legislative Guide (Greenwood, 1989).

[4] A number of the points made in this post are discussed in broader context in Sanford Levinson’s perceptive book, Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It) (Oxford University Press, 2006), which also considers various reforms.  For another thought-provoking analysis of various possible constitutional changes, see Larry J. Sabato, A More Perfect Constitution: Why the Constitution must be revised:  Ideas to inspire a new generation  (Walker Publishing, New York, 2008).  Note:  Reference here to these books is not intended as an endorsement of their proposed reforms.