| Posted: 03 March 2010 at 4:07am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Knut,
I hear you, my friend. Being originally from Canada, I'm pretty familiar with the parliamentary system, too, and having lived next to (and now within) the United States I'm familiar with the republican separation of powers system. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but the common denominator is the rise of the professional politician.
Perhaps the major problem plaguing the US system is incumbency. Not that incumbency is wrong per se, but lobbyists prefer to keep the same crowd around and will heavily fund incumbents regardless of party. And committee assignments are awarded on seniority rather than merit, so the focus becomes trying to stay in office long enough until you finally get the plum.
Thus, you have candidates whom as soon as they are elected begin fundraising for the next campaign. For example, the average congressional campaign is just a shade under $2 million dollars, so if you divide that by the 730 days of a two year term, that means you need to raise an average of $2,739.73 every day. An average of just over $19,000 a week, every week. While, of course, tending to your responsibilities in office. It creates a dynamic where lobbyists are more than willing to help incumbents with this fundraising problem in the -- shall we be charitable and say "hope"? -- that some attention might get paid to their issues.
Then, due to games that are played with redistricting, there are numerous congressional and state assembly seats that virtually safe for Republicans or Democrats. Without an epic sea change caused by outside events -- like the 1974 Watergate Congress or the 1994 Republican Revolution -- once you get elected in one of these seats you are virtually assured re-election for as long as you'd like.
A number of people support term limits to solve these problems, but it really isn't much of a solution. In California, where we have them, all it amounts to is shuffling the deck of the same 52 cards, with termed-out members of the State Assembly swapping spots with termed-out members of the State Senate, or taking a breather at the local level for a term before heading back to the Statehouse. And again, redistricting in California virtually assures a Democratic majority, so any new blood that gets brought into the system through term-limits essentially remains in proportion to the previous Assembly. With strict party discipline, little changes. (And let me state things would be no better if there was a permanent Republican majority.)
Frankly, I've never been a fan of term limits because we have a perfectly fine mechanism to limit terms called "elections". I'd rather put more energy into making elections more competitive. For example, a study I read about five years ago reported that virtually half the House of Representative elections are essentially uncontested, either because the candidate runs unopposed by one or the other of the major parties, or the opposition is dramatically underfunded, with ratios like 20 to 1 against. I doubt the landscape has changed all that much in the interim, and really, we shouldn't find this surprising news. The major parties are going to put their resources into districts they think they can win, and a gerrymandered seat with a well-funded incumbent is a poor bet to challenge. So they don't.
A long time ago, when I left playing court of politics to become a "referee" with the City of Edmonton's Office of the City Clerk (which oversaw municipal elections), I had what probably still remains my most satisfying moment of public service because I corrected a major injustice. The councillors for the City of Edmonton were elected by wards, and they were responsible for adopting their own ward boundaries. You had -- literally, I kid you not because I witnessed it firsthand -- incumbents who would ask for the line to be drawn down this street or that alleyway, or to hiccup here and there because "I know those people will vote for me." And that line would be approved because the other councillors got similar accommodations. That was wrong.
So I drafted a Ward Boundary Design Policy that established rules and methodologies for drawing the lines, with elements such as keeping neighborhoods and communities of interest together, spacial compactness, maintaining narrow range of variance between the wards in terms of population and electors, seeking public review, and other metrics. And, much to my satisfaction, I got it adopted by Council. Since that time, almost 20 years ago, the ward boundaries in Edmonton have been drawn impartially by staff in adherence to the policy directives and without interference from sitting councillors. My small contribution to fairer elections.
Which brings us back to how to make elections fairer and more competitive in the US. We need to ensure that boundaries for electoral districts that are designed impartially. We need campaign finance reform and/or electoral spending limits to level the playing field between candidates. We need to broaden our pool of citizen legislators to attract a greater array of skills and talents. We could use more engineers, scientists, small businessmen, historians, economists, social workers and artists to serve in public office rather than another crop of lawyers. (Nothing against lawyers, just that congress and the statehouses are supersaturated with them.) And, most of all, we need an involved, informed electorate who desires these things be done.
Edited by Matthew McCallum on 03 March 2010 at 4:19am
|
Topic Closed)
