How do we start to heal as a country?
Abridged version
Regardless of your political leanings, there’s no debate that politics in the United States are more divisive than ever. American freedoms start to fade when we cannot tolerate the free exchange of ideas and have competitive elections. We think we’re stuck with the current political landscape, but we’re not. I’m not talking about choosing between Democrat or Republican, because that choice has failed us.
Political innovation is being stifled in this country for two reasons. One is more endemic: congressional districts. The other is more recent: the unrestricted flow of money from PACs. I will focus on the former.
As long as we have congressional districts, we only have the illusion of choice. Congressional districts are created in a biased way (regardless of who draws them). Politicians have been choosing their voters and it should be the other way around.
In a world where we had fair districts, we’d still only have winner-take-all type competition. That discourages third party voting and often leaves many folks feeling disenfranchised. Consider a congressional district that routinely votes 55% for party A, 43% for party B, and 2% for party C. The minority of people (but still 45% of the population) have “lost” the election and may not have their view points represented. Voters, who may want to vote for a third party, feel like they cannot because they would splinter the vote. People feel like they have to vote for a certain party.
Let’s expand this example: consider a state that has ten (10) congressional districts with a similar makeup. Now, across the state in a given election, you have 55% voting for party A, 43% for party B and 2% for party C. The state now sends 10 representatives to congress for party A, even though 45% of the state has voted for someone else. We can do better.
We should eliminate congressional districts and vote at the state level for a party (ideally using ranked choice voting). Going back to my previous example (and doing some rounding), the state has eliminated the 10 congressional districts and adopted statewide voting, and the results are the same. Now party A has 6 seats and party B has 4 seats; party C realizes it has a chance for subsequent elections…
This solves a few problems:
People feel represented (and the people start choosing the politicians again). Many voters in this country feel disenfranchised and that’s only getting worse with the erosion of free speech that’s happening under the current administration. The current administration aside, consider the experience of a Democrat in Oklahoma or a Republican in Massachusetts, or an Independent in any state really.
With this change, voters can make a more meaningful choice. Even if you continue to vote for the same party, your vote is now counting more. Over time, you may find a different (third) party better suits your voice and you may vote for that party instead. Now you vote for a party that reflects all of your values and not the party you dislike less.
In the state with 10 representatives, a third party may not get representation at first, but if a party can go from having no representation to having four seats, why couldn’t a third party gain traction? Consider a state that has 50 representatives; the breakdown, using the same voting patterns of the previous example, could yield 27 representatives for party A, 22 for party B, and 2 for party C. Once the word gets out that even a small percentage of the vote can yield a third-party candidate, that number starts to grow.
Without a clear majority in congress, coalition building (per vote) would be needed. One party can no longer rule with an iron fist and representatives would no longer vote on strict monolithic party lines. It’s a return to civil discourse.
This system, that I call Parliamentary Federalism, can be implemented regardless of a stalled congress in two ways. A state controls its election law, so it could decide to dissolve its districts on its own. This could leave the initiating state feeling vulnerable.
Instead, we should pursue a constitutional amendment that once adopted would be nationwide. We wouldn’t need to wait for Congress to adopt this amendment (and why would they), instead we should call for a constitutional convention. This amendment route has not been used before, but it’s designed for today’s climate: a deeply divided congress and an authoritarian regime.
It won’t be easy to adopt this system. We need candidates to fight for its adoption (and ultimately be willing to lose some of their own power). If existing leaders won’t do it, we need new leaders. Irrespective of these changes, we should fight for the adoption of ranked choice voting for all federal elections. That way, third parties can start gaining traction and we can start showing our voting preference in a more meaningful way. Change can happen.
Opponents of this system will also argue that coalition governments are flawed. That’s true! But voters can choose their representation and remove representatives that don’t hold true to their promises in the following election cycle. It’s better than the establishment and machine that our political parties follow today. We vote for candidates that don’t follow through with campaign promises only because we don’t like the other party more.
I will conclude with a reminder that US politics are more decisive due to recent changes that turbocharged the amount of money spent on politics. In 2010, Citizens United v. FEC fundamentally changed the game and introduced the PAC system as we know it.
We no longer have civic discourse. We’re letting special interests divide us from fighting the real issues. Let’s fight back and choose leaders that know an America that isn’t for everyone, is an America for no one. When there isn’t true competition in politics and elections can be purchased, our freedoms and the republic suffer.