WWID?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,..." begins The Constitution, clearly indicating this is a living document for a living country. It also indicates it is not perfect and that it is up to us and our posterity to build it into something that any generation of Americans can be proud of. I recently wrote "Our One Party Democracy" commenting on a current situation between the Republicans and Democrats. A situation which was harming the very people they are sworn to serve for self-interested party politics. One question that arose out of the commentary I received on this was what I would change. I intend to point out three specific issues that I believe would help alleviate this sort of destructive partisanship.

The first is the elimination of the simple majority as an acceptable form of policy selection. We believe in majority rule, but not without limits. Individuals have unalienable rights as well as a civil consideration they are due as participants in the process. The simple majority is abusive of this because it allows small and transient groups to have abnormal say in the process. It can cause damage that can take a long time to repair. By moving to a super majority we force the consolidation of groups and opinions and it provides a better buffer against abuse by transient events.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." [1]

The second point I would like to suggest for consideration is a mechanism to alter the voting process to allow for greater participation in smaller less powerfull groups. As pointed out in my previous piece, we are seeing a situation where because of partisan power plays the country is being harmed because a clear and active dialog over issues and solutions is not possible. It's as if the kids next door got mad and took their toys home. This is not an acceptable situation for our representatives to be in. We must be carefull in our selection as there are some inherent issues in voting mechanisms using more than two choices. The goal, irrespective of the actual mechanism chosen is to break the two party system and force some level of discussion and compromise onto the floor of Congress.

The third, and final suggestion I'd like to make is to change the way the executive branch operates. Currently we have what is called a single executive, or an executive where only the head is elected and all others are appointed. This has shown to be a poor structure because it allows a monotonicity to invade the executive. An alternative is called a plural executive, which is what many states use and operates quite well. This strikes many modern readers as absurd but it actually has a history going back to the very beginning of our country. When the executive branch was formed there was much discussion as to its detail. A popular selection was in fact the plural executive. It was so popular it was called The New Jersey Plan. What we need to do is increase the number of department heads in the executive branch who are elected rather than appointed.

There are other issues that still need to be addressed, an almost unending litany much too long to discuss in detail here. I feel that these three changes would alter the political landscape of our country in a positive way. In particular it would increase the necessity of compromise and allow a wider range of perspectives to be discussed while ensuring that the minorities are better protected.


[1]  http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html