Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Our Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad ELECTIONS
Duverger’s Law – Why we have a duopoly (a two-party system).
In the 1950s, French sociologist and political scientist Maurice Duverger conducted an extensive study of political systems around the world and observed a strong correlation between the electoral systems of various countries and the number of viable political parties in a country. He found that systems with “winner-take-all” elections, with plurality winners, combined with single-member districts for legislative bodies, tended to have two dominant political parties (a "duopoly"). On the other hand, countries with some form of proportional representation nearly always had more than two viable political parties.
This observation has come to be known as "Duverger's Law". And while there are occasional exceptions to the pattern Duverger noted, unfortunately the United States is not one of the exceptions. Most of the flaws within our electoral system are related to, and/or made worse by, the fact that we have a two-party system with plurality winners and single-member districts.
Maurice Duverger
"Business interests “gave much more heavily to the Republican Party organization, helping the GOP to outperform Democrats in closely contested elections. Money to Democrats plays a different, if no less critical, role. It was a form of insurance. Revealingly, the money went largely to individuals rather than to the party as an organization. It was destined for the powerful and “moderates,” with the goal of minimizing any prospect of distasteful legislation. Carefully targeted contributions could effectively exploit the multiple channels American political institutions make available for blocking, dilution, or delay. Even grudging or quiet support from a handful of Democrats – particularly well-placed ones – could make a huge difference. Such allies could help keep issues off the agenda, substitute symbolic initiatives for real ones, add critical loopholes, or insist on otherwise unnecessary compromises with the GOP. Willing Democrats could also provide valuable bipartisan cover for business-friendly Republican initiatives. Here, as in so many ways, Democrats and Republicans could play distinct but complimentary roles in supporting business interests.”
Anti-Democratic Provisions in Our Constitution
Our Constitution and Our Ideals Are in Conflict
Our Constitution has always been revered by Americans, most of whom have never read it and even fewer who have read it with a critical eye. The form of the government put in place by our Constitution conflicts with the democratic ideals set out in our other founding document - the Declaration of Independence, which says that governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed”.
John Locke referred to the “consent of the governed” as the only “lawful basis” for government and described, in considerable detail, the essential elements of a pure democracy: majority rule, an equal vote for all, and the supremacy of the legislative power. All three of those elements are limited or missing completely from the form of our government as established by our Constitution.
Checks and Balances = Gridlock by Design. "In American politics it is hard to get things done and easy to block them. With its multiple branches and hurdles, the institutional structure of American government allows organized and intense interests - even quite narrow ones - to create gridlock and stalemate." - Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson (from Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class).
No part of the federal government clearly reflects the will of the people. Majority rule is the essential element in a democracy. Given the many problems with our elections, even the House of Representatives, with members elected directly by the people, rarely represents the will of the people. Combined with the fact that we have no provision for conducting national referendums, there is no part of our government designed to reflect the will of a majority of the people, which is largely rendered irrelevant by our system of government.
Super-majority requirements violate the principle of majority rule. Super-majority requirements for overriding a presidential (or gubernatorial) veto, proposing an amendment to our Constitution, ratifying proposed amendments, or impeaching a president, allow a minority to overrule the majority.
The legislative branch is not supreme at either the state or federal level. Presidents have the power to veto bills passed by Congress and governors have the power to veto bills passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court has granted itself the power to nullify acts of Congress by declaring them unconstitutional. (A power that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.) Supreme Courts in the states have assumed similar powers. Far from being supreme within our political system, the legislative branch is the weakest branch of our governments at both the state and the federal levels.
Unequal Representation.
The Preamble to our Constitution says that “We the people…ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. [Emphasis added.] The body of our Constitution establishes a government where geographical areas are represented, not, people. States are represented in the Senate. Congressional districts are represented in the House of Representatives. As a result of significant variations in population among the 50 states and the 435 congressional districts that make up the United States, we the people do not have equal representation in either chamber of Congress.
In the U. S. Senate each state is represented by two senators. But the population of each state varies widely. Giving each state equal suffrage in the Senate makes the votes of citizens from the states with the smallest populations considerably more powerful than the votes of citizens from states with the largest populations. Wyoming, with a population of 576,851, is the least populous state. California has the largest population (39,538, 223). The vote of each voter in Wyoming is equal to 69 voters in California in the U. S. Senate.
In the U. S. House of Representatives each congressional district is represented by one representative. There is less variation, but are still significant variations, between the populations of congressional districts.
States, not the people, elect presidents.
There are several provisions in our Constitution related to the method of electing presidents that are antidemocratic. Our presidents are elected by states, through the Electoral College, not by the people of the United States. Electors are appointed “in such Manner as the Legislature (of each state) may direct”. Between 1800 and 1876, more and more states moved to a system of choosing their Electors by means of a popular vote, but the provision allowing them to appoint Electors in whatever manner they choose remains in the Constitution. Some states are considering legislation that would allow the state legislature to set aside the results of the popular vote and appoint their slate of Electors.
The fact that each state is given “a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in the Congress” means that the votes of the citizens of the smallest states are more powerful than the votes of the citizens of larger states.
And the votes of citizens who live in states where presidential elections are competitive are more impactful than the votes of citizens where presidential elections are not competitive.
The Electoral College system that is in place makes it possible for a candidate for president to get a plurality, or even a majority, of the popular vote and still lose in the Electoral College. That has now happened five times in our nation’s history – twice so far in the 21st century.
The fact that states, not the people of the United States, elect our presidents becomes even clearer if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral vote. When that happens, our Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to elect the president, with each state casting a single vote. That happened in 1824 and could happen again unless we amend the 12thAmendment before a viable third party or independent candidate wins enough electoral votes to send an election to the House of Representatives.
Competing Agendas: Corporatists versus Populists
The Corporate Agenda
Despite the rulings of five dark robed Supreme Court Justices, corporations are not people. If they were, they would not be nice people. They would be selfish, inconsiderate, greedy people who would do whatever they thought necessary to get rich.
Over the past century, as corporate interests have gained effective control of our government, the focus of nearly all corporations has narrowed to maximizing profits to the exclusion of all other considerations.
The corporate agenda is designed to help corporations take as much as they can from governments (and society) and give as little as possible in return.
The "pro-active" part of the corporate agenda is what corporate interests want from government:
- TAX CUTS. Corporations are not people, but they have one thing in common with people – they do not like paying taxes. The difference between corporations and people is that, having contributed lots of money to lots of candidates, when corporate interests lobby for tax cuts they are more likely to get them. Their efforts to eliminate (or minimize) the taxation of corporations (and billionaires) have been very successful. A rare moment of honestly from Republican Representative Chris Collins during the run-up to the tax cut of 2017, which was heavily weighted in favor of corporations and the wealthy, offered a prime example of this simple reality. He told reporters, “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again.’” When corporations and the wealthy use their influence with elected officials to avoid paying taxes, or minimize the amount they pay, one of two other things happen: either the tax burden is shifted to middle-class and working-class taxpayers or funding for government programs is cut (or some combination of the two).
- DEREGULATION. Regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the environment add to the cost of doing business and reduce profits (although the costs are often passed on to consumers, especially in markets where a company has little or no competition). “Deregulation” is the term preferred by corporatists for repealing and eliminating hard-won protections for workers, consumers and the environment.
- PRIVATIZATION. Corporate interests want services and operations that are more properly the domain of the public sector: such as schools, utility companies, and prisons, to be turned over to private corporations to operate at a profit.
- Corporations want subsidies and contracts from the government.
- FREE TRADE. Corporations want to be free to locate their factories in low wage countries and then bring finished goods back into the United States duty-free (to sell them to any consumers who can still afford them after losing their jobs).
The flip side of the Corporate Agenda is what corporate interests do not want governments to do:
- NO INCREASES IN THE MINIMUM WAGE. With labor costs being a major part of the cost of production for many companies, corporations want to keep wages as low as possible. They are opposed to increases in the minimum wage. The Republican Party platform supports the elimination of the minimum wage.
- NO JOBS PROGRAMS. Corporatie interests are opposed to a federal job guarantee or even major job programs, with the possible exception of infrastructure programs (paid for by the public) that makes it easier and more efficient for corporations to move goods.
- CUT SPENDING ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS. Corporatists want to see the amount of money and resources governments devote to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, the Affordable Care Act, food stamps, subsidized housing, and other social welfare programs reduced dramatically or eliminated completely.
Gaining and retaining control of governments is the key to implementing the corporate agenda. Since no item in the corporate agenda has the support of a majority of the people, the promoters of corporate interests know that they cannot succeed within a true democracy. The CEOs of multi-national corporations and the army of lobbyists they employ are among the most dangerous and most effective of the false friends and true enemies of democracy.