Moderate Majority

[selenite0]

"If the two presidential candidates this year were John McCain and Joe Lieberman..." Oh, don't tease me like that. Gosh, struggling over who to vote for, what a concept. This NY Times article actually makes me feel a lot better. Reading various extremists on both sides makes me worry about whether there's a civil war in our future. Articles like that remind me there's a lot of consensus in this country, and a small fringe that gets more money the worse they make things sound.

I kick around the idea of making one house of the state legislature proportional representation because that would expose how small some of the fringe groups are. Right now somebody can claim to be spokesman for his religion/ethnic group/cause and there's no way to refute him. Give him the chance to run statewide with every supporter casting a vote and he'd have to put up or shut up. Then the next he makes an angry speech the response can be "Oh, that's the guy who got 1.6%, never mind him." Implementing it would be pretty straightforward in California, I haven't dug into the Texas constitution yet to see what it'd take here.

Comments

Re: Pro_Rep?

[p-o-u-n-c-e-r.livejournal.com]

One house of -- how many? Two, again? Three? Seven?

I begin to wonder if we ought not experiment with legislatures that have more than two houses, each gaining members by various methods. That two is traditional is a strong argument in favor of that particular division, but why not more?

One chosen by proportional representational voting.

One chosen by pure lottery.

One of members appointed by municipal governments.

One consisting of life-time appointees, such persons awarded the post upon 2/3rd vote of all other houses.

One for which the seats are simply for sale to high bidders.

One for which there are strict competitive/academic examinations.


Say seven houses of legislators, and each act of law must be agreed upon by at least four of the seven... but must include the random/lottery group of citizens who'll shortly be returning to live under the rules made.

The veto power of the executive branch could then be repealed. The multi-cameral legislature checks-and-balances itself.

I note that the US Electoral College is essentially a special purpose third chamber of Congress convening only once each four years. Precedent!

Constitutions

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Proliferating legislatures gives me some qualms--right now there's a limited number of hoops to go through when an emergency requires a decision. If we were still in the DreamTime of the 90's I'd be a little more willing to let the government turn itself into a Gordian knot, but we do need it to take action sometimes.

The 4 out of 7 rule I definitely don't like. If a chamber isn't making decisions it'll be held accountable for it'll be taken over by posturing clowns. Arguably the US Congress is halfway there after turning decision making over to the courts and paying for it to the states.

A lottery/jury system for the legislature could work. The SCA functions pretty well by making the lawmaker live under the laws after stepping down. You'd need to make it a big group, or risk having a few random strong personalities dominating it.

Aristocratic selection--whether by birth, purchase, or Mandarin-style exams--doesn't thrill me. There's nothing like facing an angry electorate to make legislators stay focused on doing the right thing. That's a problem with the lottery system too--no feedback mechanism.

I'd want to have a legislature with one house proportional representation and the other geographic 50%+1 (i.e., what we have in the US now) because that takes two different cuts at the views of the electorate. Right now we can identify the most strongly held view, but views held by a large number of people not in the 5-10% of swing voters in the middle don't get noticed at all. Classic example--medical marijuana. Wins in initiatives but no politician gets elected supporting it, because the supporters are a mix of conservative "get the gov't off sick people's backs" and liberal "let people try whatever drug makes them feel good." The moderates don't want to change things, and they decide elections. Having a PR house would make those attitudes visible, and give their advocates a chance to convince more people--or realize they're permanently outvoted and shut up.

(This is building on a couple (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Faulttolerantdistributedc.shtml) of essays (http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/10/Instantrunoffvoting.shtml) by Den Beste)

Re: Constitutions

[p-o-u-n-c-e-r.livejournal.com]

"If a chamber isn't making decisions it'll be held accountable for it'll be taken over by posturing clowns. "

I'm less sure that's a bug than a feature. Given those oddball 3-7% fringe groups -- maybe all they really need is a auditorium and lectern from which to posture and orate.

Same sort of "feature" grows from the body in which a sufficiently wealthy individual can bid for memebership. The Ross Perot/George Soros/Steve Forbes sort of ego could divert itself safely without contaminating the actual process of crafting workable law ...

"Arguably the US Congress is halfway there "

Oh agreed. Too many senators inherit positions from spouses or fathers.
Clinton, Dole, Gore, Kennedy -- These seats are too subject to purchase as well. However, I'm less inclined to experiment with national institutions.

On the other hand, what is a federal system for if you can't run experiments at the state and local level? The campaign to get all the nations' libertarians to move to New Hampshire and take over amuses me greatly. Similar efforts to get all the non-Liberal Canadians to move to Alberta and take over THAT province are similarly worthy, in my view.