I picked up Steven Hill’s 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy on a whim.  I didn’t expect much and, for the most part, I wasn’t far off.  Reading it on the heels of American Creation provided an interesting perspective.

The book is off-put-tingly partisan (anti-Bush/Republican) and is lacking in historical discussion surrounding many of the issues it raises.  Just about all of the anecdotal evidence against current voting practices were pulled from the last few decades; a broader timescale would’ve been far more convincing.

There were some good points — certainly enough to warrant some reflection.  And so I will, step by step:

1. “Secure the Vote”
Translation:Have federal regulations around voting to eliminate fraudulent voting.

Disagree. I agree that the vote should be secured and fraud eliminated as best possible — but I think Hill’s centralizing approach is worse than our current system.  A decentralized state-run voting is less likely to be hijacked then a centralized voting system with centralized regulations. 

If states run their own elections, some will be better and some will be worse (Florida) — but at least there will be some competition and different approaches. Further, Hill calls for “creating a bureaucracy of impartial, non-partisan election officials.”  He follows up that sentence saying “We should have learned this lesson in the 2000 presidential election…” — yet I ask Hill whether he has learned that no one is impartial or non-partisan?  His idea is impossible and would be worse than decentralized systems.

My recommendation to secure the vote?  Let states manage their own elections and let the people in those states demand methods that ensure their vote counted.  If voters don’t care enough about that foundation, their votes won’t matter anyway.

2. Expand Voter Participation
Translation: Implement universal default voter registration, enfranchise Washington DC residents/criminals/expats, have weekend voting…

Generally Agree. I agree that Washington DC residents, criminals, … that every citizen should get a chance to vote.  If criminals aren’t allowed to vote, what would stop an overpowering government from incarcerating rebels and depriving them from democratically changing the government?  (of course if the government jailing dissidents, the government might not hold very democratic elections anyway…)

Where I don’t agree with Hill is universal default voter registration and voting holidays — but mainly in semantics and vision. Hill, as usual, argues for national committees for fairness, national holidays … everything in thick national brush strokes where I would rather have many thin, detailed pencil lines of regulations created on the state-level. 

I agree voting should be a right and should be easy; that right is black-and-white and should be constitutionally protected for every citizen at a national level … but making voting “easy” is a gray area that no one can really agree on.  That issue should be put to states, where citizens could vote to have a voting holiday or not, to auto-register voters or not, etc.So, yes — guarantee and protect the right to vote at a national level for everyone … but don’t try to regulate the ease of voting at a national level.

3. Instant Runoff Voting
Translation: Use instant runoff voting in which voters rank candidates and the tallying takes into account lower choices until one candidate has a clear majority.

Agree. The Constitution does not specify how elections are to be held, so using Instant Runoff Voting is constitutionally fine if voters desire it.  So, is it desirable?  I think so.

Instant runoff voting lets people choose their favorite candidate even if they don’t have a good chance of winning.  It would prevent the “I won’t vote for this candidate because he can’t win” mentality that makes our current elections look like a flash mob.

We’ve got the technology to tally IRV votes quickly.  Let’s make people aware of it and get them demanding their local elections are run that way.

4. Proportional Representation
Translation: Divide single-seats into multiple seats with guaranteed representation after a certain percentage.

Disagree/Don’t Understand.  I really don’t understand this argument.  Hill seems to be saying that a single seat should be divided and then that if candidates reach a certain percentage they get one of those seats, thereby promoting bi-partisanship, which the current ‘winner-take-all’ system doesn’t.

I can sort-of understand the reasoning … but this sort of system seems like it would simply create more parties (no a bad thing-in-itself) to fill the extra slots.  If a seat used to only have one representative and suddenly had three, we’d probably soon have four parties vying for those slots.  That’s not really bad … but it’s also a somewhat arbitrary limit on how many parties could exist.  If we have IRV, we solve part of the two-party system problem and this proportionate stuff wouldn’t be needed.

5. Direct Election of the President
Translation: Have the President elected by the people directly instead of the electoral college system that provides ‘more’ representation to the less populous states.

Disagree. Agree. At first, I felt like a direct election of the President trampled on the founding father’s desire to have the President represent the United States, in which case the Electoral College is a fairer system for state voting rights than direct election.

My biggest gripe with the Electoral College is simply that it’s makeup — the “whole number of Representatives and Senators” in Congress, currently 100 senators and 435 representatives (plus three spots for District of Columbia) for a total of 538 Electoral College representatives — under represents the populous states. California is 55-times more populous (36M) than North Dakota (600K) yet only has 18-times the number of electoral college votes (55 to 3).  That’s not right.  However, to fix it and stay constitutional, you’d have to add a bunch more politicians to the House of Representatives beyond the current 435-cap … do we really want that?  California would need 163 House Representatives (165 electoral votes) to North Dakota’s 1 House Representative (3 electoral votes) to have the proportional representation in the Electoral College.  Yikes!  [And at that point, Cali’s would have 163-times more representation in the House than North Dakota even though the difference is only 55-times.]

[Note: the Constitution originally called for one representative for every 30,000 people … but that didn’t quite work out.  The history of apportionment is pretty interesting/complicated.  A good read.]

My second gripe isn’t so much with the Electoral College but with the state practices of winner-take-all (so that all of the state’s electoral ballots go to the winner).  Maine and Nebraska split proportionately … why don’t more states do it?  Why don’t more voters ask to change their state’s policies?  The winner-take-all is what really breaks the electoral college to me and seemingly disenfranchises voters.

I would prefer to be ‘constitional’ by adding more congressmen for the more populous states and also hope that states would change from the winner-take-all mentality … but maybe it’s just easier to have the President elected directly? 

[Note: One of Hill’s strongest points is that the current system creates ‘battleground’ states like Ohio and Florida where the candidates spend all of their time since they know the decision will come down to those states.  The winner-take-all electoral policies seem to be the biggest culprit behind this … if the difference between winning 70%-30% and 60%-40% actually mattered in electoral votes candidates would need to campaign more broadly to win every critical %-point.]

6. More Proportional Senate
Translation: Change the 2-Senator per state rule to make the senate representative of population.

Disagree. Hill brings up that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were originally very strong critics of the 2-seat-per-state Senate system and election by the house rather than the people.  The ‘Great Compromise’ was the two-branch legislature that we have now, with proportional representation in the House and equal apportionment in the Senate (and until the 17th Amendment in 1913, Senators were elected by the Representatives rather than the people.)

The 2-per-state Senate system is an important reminder that the United States is a Republic of states, not one borderless nation. [Hill neglects to mention that Madison (and Jefferson) founded the Democratic-Republican party in support of a weaker central government that the 2-seat Senate system helps protect.] 

As the Federal government has grown, the desire to make it more representative of the populace grows … but the solution is not to make the Senate more representative … but to make the Federal government smaller and give power back to the States, where representation is naturally closer-to-the-voter. 

The problem is not proportion of Senators, it is the proportion of power given to the Senators. 

Changing the Senate into a proportional body (or moving to a one-branch system of just the House) pushes more power into a central government than the founders desired.

I am glad the 17th Amendment made senators directly elected since that change removed a fairly silly barrier between the people and their Senators … but changing the equal apportionment composition of the Senate is a step towards one national identity that the Founders rightfully distrusted.

7. “Free the Airwaves”
Translation: Force television/radio/etc groups to provide free airtime for political discussion, debate, advertisements, etc.

Disagree. Hill argues that “a modern democracy requires broad public access to free and fair media.”  Yes, certainly.  But why would we want to the government (run by self-interested politicians) to control media subsidies?  That’s a recipe for disaster.  When did Americans start supporting political propaganda?

Hill’s utopian vision of a open-minded and state-mandated political discussion is a paradox reminiscent of his ‘impartial, non-partisan election officials’.  If the subsidies for political debate are coming from the government, I guarantee they will be affected by political power.  Having citizens believe state-programs are impartial is even worse than having none.

We live in an age of technology that lets anyone voice their opinion on the internet and reach millions.  Way back when Madison and Hamilton managed to distribute the influential Federalist Papers and Thomas Paine changed public sentiment with Common Sense … people get their ideas out.  Yes, TV and Radio dominated communication over the last fifty years without enough skepticism … but that’s changing. 

I don’t disagree with Hill that voters should be better informed.  I don’t disagree it’s disappointing that major television networks dedicate less time to politics than they used to.  But forcing the networks to provide political time isn’t going to make the viewer any more interested or informed (and the networks will find a way to charge normal viewers for their lost opportunity cost).  Having a better educated populace that wants political commentary and analysis is really the only solution to having a better informed populace. If consumers wanted it, networks would provide it. 

My recommendation: Keep the government out of shaping political discussion.  Let private foundations, companies, groups, and individuals act in their own self-interest to promote their own agendas.  People can judge for themselves which to believe.  If people don’t naturally question the motives of their source of information, we’re doomed anyway.  I believe people will question, though.

P.S. I forgot to mention that I disagree with Hill’s recommendation to use anti-trust laws to break up media conglomerates and subsidize daily newspapers, among others.  Again, I believe voters are smart enough to be skeptical in the face of conglomerates.

8. “Minimize Money’s Role”
Translation:Support public financing of campaigns, set ‘appropriate’ donation limits, create spending caps, give airtime to candidates on radio and tv …

Disagree. Hill goes all out on this one to limit the right to free speech.  He’s also extraordinarily hand-wavey with regard to any of the “gray” words like “appropriate” donation or spending limits, or how “free” media time will be allocated between candidates, or which third-party and independent candidates will be allowed in debates. Who will decide?  Another impartial bureaucracy?  Fairyland.

Again, all of these ‘reforms’ rest on the premise that money can win an election rather than ideas.  But I’m not swayed by money.  I actually care about ideas and judge them on their merit.  If America is composed of people that vote based on the fancy jingle on a political commercial, the government can’t save us from ourselves.

My recommendation: Work to make sure the populace is smart enough to be skeptical of commercials, to care about issues.  People that are worried about the populace not voting well should donate money to non-profits that educate voters about how to seek information and care about issues.  Teach uninformed voters how to fish rather than just give them fish.

9. “Reform the Supreme Court”
Translation: Get rid of life-term appointments for Supreme Court Judges, change the appointment process, have age limits.

Agree: I reluctantly agree that the Constitutional life-time appointments of Judges “overachieves” (my term) its goal of keeping Judges free from volatile political trends. 

Although the lifetime appointment ensures Judges are not beholden to appointers every few years, the current system leaves Judges on the bench and away from regular citizenship for too long.  The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, wrote earlier in his career: “A judge insulated from the normal currents of life for 25 or 30 years was a rarity then but is becoming commonplace today.  Setting a term of, say, 15 years would ensure that federal judges would not lose all touch with reality through decades of ivory tower existence.” [159]

Hill reminds readers that the Constitution did not originally have term-limits for the President, so amending it to have, say, 15 year one-time appointments is indeed possible. [note: My home state Massachusetts was one of only two states to reject ratifying the 22nd Amendment of presidential term limits.  Hah.]

What would the founders say?  Why didn’t they impose term limits on the President, Congress, or Judicial system, especially when they so-feared a monarchy and aristocratic ruling class?  Wouldn’t term limits have been a good idea by preventing career politicians?

Yes, term-limits would prevent lifetime politicians … but term-limits also limit the choice of the people.  If people want to elect a politician over-and-over, why not let them?  Further, a politician who is in his last term is not be as effective (’lame duck presidency’).  I do think career politicians often lose touch with reality … but that is a fault of the voters for not voting them out rather than a fault of the system.

And yet, if I don’t support term-limits for Presidents and Congressmen, why would I support it for Judges?  Simply because the Judges are not elected by the people and therefore not enough ‘beholden’ to popular opinion.  (Granted, the mob-mentality of popular opinion is not something to be entirely sought after, either.)  A long-term but not lifetime appointment - as almost every State currently has - would ensure more fluidity in the Court and closer ties to ‘the people.’

Two other points:

1. I do disagree with Hill’s argument to have age limits for Judges.  I think our Judges should be sane (and procedures to remove them from office if they are not) … but an age limit is unnecessary, especially if we have term-limits.
2. I disagree that the appointment process should require 2/3 of the Senate for confirmation rather than the current 1/2, which Hill argues would promote more bi-partisan selection of Judges.  It might, but I’m simply happy with term-limits. 

[And finally: Hill’s recount of the Supreme Court’s 2000 Florida recount (pun intended)  on pages 155-156 was a very nice summary of the decision. Makes me cringe.]

10. “Restore Faith in Government”
Translation: Promote “smart government” rather than “limited” or “big” government; have the government ‘market itself’ like corporations do, with branding and advertising to promote its successes.

Disagree. Yikes.  Hill takes a marketing approach to restoring faith in government rather than actually improving its services. Great.  Isn’t that what Ford/GM/Chrysler keep trying (and failing)?

He takes this approach claiming that people are too critical of the success of government programs.  I simply have to quote this entire paragraph for the full effect:

Americans can point to many public sector achievements.  Whether the service is mail delivery, the care of seniors via Social Security and Medicare, the construction of roads and highways, telecommunications, hospitals, schools, defense, scientific research, national parks, railroads, airways and waterways, environmental protection, the Internet, and much, much more, government has been a leading player, oftentimes partnering with America’s businesses, other times restraining business from doing harm to workers, communities, and the environment.  Government has been the driving force behind regulating the economy, interest rates, and inflation as well as creating policies that grow and maintain the middle class, such as pro-home ownership, worker protections, the 40-hour workweek, and paid vacations and holidays.  And, yes, the federal government has been there many times in the past to shoulder the burden following natural disasters.  The United States is acknowledged by all four corners as the world’s leading superpower, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in human history - how could we have achieved that status is government was such a blunder?  American’s myopia on this point is astounding. [173]

What’s truly astounding is that Hill holds up the same examples I would use … but uses them to support the opposite conclusion I would. 

Hill implies my disagreement with the “success” of government is a “distortion of reality and substantially a result of the relentless right-wing antigovernment propaganda blitz.” [174]  Is the right-wing propaganda the same reason the founders wanted smaller government?

Hill helpfully quotes Madison’s “defense” of government which much more eloquently states my position: “It has been said that all Government is evil.  It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any government is a misfortune.  This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.” [172]

I think the answer to how America achieved it’s greatness was to the degree that America was the best government out there - the least imperfect if you will - the government that promoted business and individual economic freedom more than any other nation.  Still, we can do better.

Oh — and the idea of the government launching a marketing campaign to promote it’s success?  As a tax-paying citizen - or customer, if you will - I don’t desire to pay for that service.  Call me crazy, but most people probably don’t want that, either.  And … ugh … services for the people is kind of the basis for government, right?

Conclusion
So  that’s all 10 of Hill’s steps … but one of the concluding quotes is too inciderary to ignore:

They [Republican leaders] argue that “government is the problem” and therefore should be kept as small as possible (at least when it comes to social programs, though not, apparently military budgets).  Government is not supposed to do much for you; instead, it is supposed to get out of the way and let a nation of rugged individualists fend for themselves.  Though many Republicans don’t care much anymore for Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolution, they sure seem to like social Darwinism and an elite society based on the survival of the fittest - they call it “the ownership society.”  Their stated goal is to support democracy around the world, but a truly representative democracy in the United States is the last thing they want because it’s likely that a more robust, representative system would choose to unshackle government to do more for average Americans. [185]

Kudos to Hill for the points about ever-rising military budgets and disbelief in evolution (too expensive and silly, respectively).  As for everything else: I defer to Friedman’s Free to Choose.

Final note: In the spirit of Madison, who notes that the search is always simply for the “least imperfect” form of government, I do expect that technological changes (cough, the Internet) have created opportunities for making government better.  Would’ve liked a discussion of some of those options …

Permanent URL, Trackback URL