<DrumBeat: October 2, 2006 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: October 3, 2006>

266 comments on JHK: "A Hard Place"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Nick on October 3, 2006 - 1:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What system would you suggest instead??
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on October 3, 2006 - 2:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We have the best system but, like the former soviet union, it is too stable.  Gerrymandering has become a science that perfectly places party majorities in nearly all districts, with very few truly competitive ones. In this system the critical thing is to get the majority party's nomination, and follow this by avoiding an explicit sex scandal; you are guaranteed reelection forever, or at least until the next gerrymandering exercise.  So, we end up with left and right wing extremists in the US house, who of course have little polite things to say to each other.

The public has so far been resistant to changing from this system, generally with a compromise (with at least a modest number of competitive districts) occurring only when one party controls the statehouse and another the governorship.  Obviously, extremists in general, and most elected officials themselves, have a strong interest in the status quo.  

Perhaps, in those states with term limits, the officials could be bribed with a temporary increase in term in exchange for a permanent change in how districts are created.  The public must be bribed, too, because they like term limits and the current reapportionist system.  

So, my proposal for a CA ballot initiative "Eficiency in Government": change the legislature from bicameral to unicameral (single house) with total legislature spending to decline in proportion with the change in total elected officials, and with half the savings going to schools and the other half a reduction in sales tax; allow a new clock for term limits for the new senate; and, most important, invite various groups, inncluding, say, the black and hispanic legislative caucuses, the league of women voters, each party, the legislature and the governor to each submit a redistricting plan to teh CA supreme court, with the court determining which plan has the largest number of competitive districts. In the case of ties, the court would select the one most likely to result in representation of minorities in proportion to their share of CA population.

CA has sufficient US representatives to also have the number of state senators be the same as the number of US representatives, and could therefore have coincident districts.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on October 3, 2006 - 3:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So, what you're saying is 1)  we have too little democracy, not too much (due to gerrymandering), and 2) we need reform to eliminate gerrymandering, and 3) we need fewer representatives to save $.  Do you feel an increase in district size will also promote democracy?

I understood Nate Hagens to be saying we needed less democracy, and that we need a scientific ruling elite - Prof Goose seemed to agree, and then to say that we needed more representatives.

I have to say I'm baffled by the idea that we need a scientific ruling elite.  I don't think it's an exaggeration (or even disproportionately inflammatory) to say that it sounds like something from 1920's fascist literature, or 1890's socialist literature.  I think scientists like Andrei Sakharov would strongly disagree.

Prof Goose: Do I understand you correctly?  And, if so, what do you suggest as an improvement?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on October 3, 2006 - 4:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, no.  I was saying that representation is so diluted in our current democracy (by having a representative for every 700k in the HoR) that it just further reinforces/allows elite governance.

The problem with democracy, as Madison put it, is that the public will is so subject to emotional decisionmaking that, sooner or later, it will make a decision that is fatal if left to its own devices, hence the creation of the representative republican system.  

In my opinion, we need smaller districts/MORE representatives, which would mean concomitantly a MORE representative government, if we're going to stay with the system we have now that is.  

I would not favor a pure technocracy, though I think that's where we're heading.  A technocratic and corporate elite that controls the massive behemoth of government, whether it's fascist or socialist or whatever, we can all debate that.  

Either way you look at it, the size of government is continuing to grow...and the growth that has occurred in the past five years is all attributable to the maintenance of order.  Let's see, let me look up the word "reactionary" and "fascist."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on October 3, 2006 - 11:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"The problem with democracy, as Madison put it, is that the public will is so subject to emotional decisionmaking that, sooner or later, it will make a decision that is fatal if left to its own devices, hence the creation of the representative republican system. "

Of course, Madison was just guessing, as no one had any experience with real democracy at that point.  The original design had senators appointed by governors, the franchise limited to a small % of the population, etc., and yet an expansion of participation has, I think, been clearly an improvement.  Has there ever been any real evidence that there can be too much democracy?

I agree that our recent problems with the "current occupant" have been the result of too little democracy, not too much.

"we need smaller districts/MORE representatives" an intriguing idea, and it kind've makes sense to me.  OTOH, I wonder why the Senate now seems to be the moderating influence over the much larger house?

"the growth that has occurred in the past five years is all attributable to the maintenance of order. "

And yet, it seems clear to me that all this growth of "maintenance of order" has been counterproductive.  The long-term interests of the US would clearly have been better served had we never tried to control the Middle East, starting 60 years ago.  The sooner we give up the illusion of control, the better.

The example of Japan seems illustrative.  They've prospered with no extension of military power at all, just a mercantilist approach.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on October 4, 2006 - 12:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good post. I have to quibble with this though:

The example of Japan seems illustrative.  They've prospered with no extension of military power at all, just a mercantilist approach.

So now if the U.S. can just get someone else to spend their money to protect them, they can follow the same path.

I think it is inaccurate to suggest the Japan or Europe would have stay unmilitarized if the US wasn't providing their security servcies for them.

If the US withdrew from Asia, Japan's view of self defense would change very quickly, as would that of every other country in the region.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on October 4, 2006 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What I was referring to was the projection of power: the use of military power to influence, dominate or replace foreign governments, such as Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, etc., etc.

AFAIK, the US defense of Japan really has been defensive, leaving the corporations of Japan on their own to negotiate with other countries.  That has worked very well for Japan economically: their Self-Defence Force has stayed at roughly 1% of GDP, and yet their corporations have been extremely successful. Contrast that with the pre-WWII Greater Japan Co-Prosperity Sphere, or the US's counterproductive projection of power post-WWII.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on October 4, 2006 - 2:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The senate is more moderate, with fewer extremists from the left and right, precisely because senate seats cannot be gerrymandered.  Senators must appeal to at least some of the middle to be elected in most states.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on October 4, 2006 - 4:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I imagine that Madison was thinking of the Athenian experience. That remains (if we agree to overlook the slave-owning aspect) probably the apogee of direct democracy, and it is extremely well-documented (I recommend reading the plays of Aristophanes to get the flavour of it. It reads like something absolutely contemporary, full of anecdotes about corrupt politicians and hypocritical sexual morals. And it's funny as hell).

It's with respect to the conduct of war that democracy posed the biggest problems to the Athenians. They did best when they appointed a dictator for the duration; and they did disastrously badly when the democratic institutions conducted the war themselves.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on October 4, 2006 - 2:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The bicameral sysem does not provide more democracy, only more a) checks and balances, or b) more obstruction.  In CA, at least, one senate seat is precisely two house seats; the same voters are represented in both the house and senate.
My main point is to do away with gerrymandering that creates non-competitive districts.  Changing from 40 senators and 80 representatives to 53 senators is not increasing teh size of senate seats, but reducing their size.  And, it matters not that representatives have smaller districts since the more powerful seneate remains less democratic.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

266 comments on JHK: "A Hard Place"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version