posted
Someone asked me on here awhile ago how I would restructure Congress and I didn't answer because I really didn't have a good answer that I thought was particularly workable.
But today in my Civil Rights History class we were talking about a constitutional convention thrown by the Black Panthers in 1970 and it really hit home with me just how unfair the current Congressional structuring is to minorities, and not just racial minorities, and not just other groups like gays, but also social groups, like environmentalists.
So here's my suggestion (which I'm sure has been suggested elsewhere, I'm just throwing out my support for it): We keep the bicameral legislature, but we get rid of one of the houses as it currently is and replace it with a sort of parliamentary house. Instead of voting for individuals for individual states or districts, we vote for national platforms.
I think this gets rid of a number of problems. First of all, it eliminates cults of personality. Instead of voting for politicians, we vote more for ideas. Of course, those ideas will still have to largely be represented by people, but they'll no longer be subject to same sort of character attacks that they are now. That will come with term limits. The same individual can never be in congress for more than two consecutive terms. If we really like the guy, he can come back after a one-term break. But that stops the party or platform from continually sending the same guy back, and makes it harder for individuals to gather clout, power and influence.
What I like the most about this is that it allows disparate groups to concentrate power and get a voice in government. More and more, we're no longer a nation of individual states or even just individuals. Despite the fact that a lot of us demonize collectivism, the internet has made ad hoc issue-oriented alliances easier than ever to form. We currently allocate voices to the House per something like 750,000 people. At any given point, if you can find 750,000 people who find your issue paramount, you can get a voice into Congress, but they don't all having to be living in one small foot print of the country.
I think we're far too limited under the current form of government by spatial limitations, which is bizarre at a time when we're more connected than ever, and when distance matters less than ever. This wouldn't destroy parties as we know them, at least not right away, but I think you'd see a lot of groups splinter.
My only real problem with this is, say a group gets together and elects three environmentalists to Congress. They're issue is the environment, so okay, you can guess the sort of things they'd advocate, but how do they vote on everything else? Do they view every issue through an environmentalist lens? Or does this force single-issue groups to form alliances of their own and develop more complex views on governance? Regardless, I think it generates a lot of conversations that we need to have, and I think almost anything that kills the two-party system is good for the country.
My only other real hitch is, obviously this has to be a large group of people. My instinct is to make it one member per 500,000 or 1,000,000 people. That'd create a group between 330 to 660 or so people. Not an unreasonable number I think. But I still think a lot of people have a serious problem with losing that state-based representation. So we'd have to keep something like the Senate around to address regional or local issues. Personally I think the idea of the Senate is a little silly in a lot of ways. I'm not in favor of screwing Wyoming over, but I also don't know why they get the voice they do in such an important chamber of Congress to the point where a Wyomingian's vote is worth a hell of a lot more than a Californian's. Something has to be done about that, but I'm not sure what would satisfy enough people.
I'm convinced some version of this is the best way to make our society fairer to everyone who lives here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
