Would you like to recreate this scene in your neighborhood? |
Is my ballot in there anywhere? |
I guess he ran for NASCAR president too. |
So here's my plan to fix all that.
Ready?
It's simple:
Give up your vote. Rather than voting individually we can unite together and vote collectively. We would divide our country into equal sized wards of say 1000 people. These wards would have regular meetings, discussions, and rules of order. Each ward could cast one vote on any issues that we vote on currently: ballot measures, representatives, bonds, levies, as well as mayors, governors, and presidents.
This might sound like a radical, anti-democratic ploy by a half-baked, half-educated half-wit. Well…I’ll only deny the first bit of that…because really this is not such a radical idea. These wards would be democratic, so I’m not really asking you to give up your vote. In fact, I hope to amplify it. This is a tactic that states have been using for a long time. For example, in Oregon we expressed a slight preference for Obama in the last election, but we gave him all of our electoral votes so that we could maximize our influence on a federal level. At this point, state populations have grown so large that it would be helpful for us to have more manageable civic units so that politics could be thought of as a social enterprise again rather than a smattering of inchoate private preferences that we’d better not discuss with the in-laws. Take another look at the School of Athens painting by Rafael and imagine they are discussing political issues. It seems like truly democratic people shouldn't just be driving to the library twice a year to drop off their ballot, but should be lounging in some public square now and then to discuss their ideas with friends, acquaintances, and even strangers.
When I think of the democracies I would most like to have been a part of I think of small polities where political discourse is not limited to a handful of demagogues, talking heads, and television pundits, but truly involves everyone. Perhaps this has never existed in the way that I idealize it, but I think it is much more likely to have existed in smaller sociopolitical assemblages like ancient Athens, some Native American tribes, the Republic of Venice, or a Swiss forest canton. In these smaller civic units I think it must have been much harder to disengage from politics. I believe that a ward system would draw us out from our private delusions and force us to expose them and refine them. Just like a flabby stomach, we are much more likely to tone up our political thinking if we know someone is going to be checking it out. Let's dare to make this "res publica" a truly public thing again. And while we're on word derivations, let me remind you that the word “idiotes” in Greek was originally the word for a private person, someone who didn’t participate in public life.
Anyway, I decided to break this post up. In the second half I will enumerate more specifically what I believe to be the benefits of this "ward system" of democracy...or maybe if I could just find some people to talk to about politics I could stop blogging entirely.
Who has time to fill out ballots? Can't I just "phone it in" like I do for DWTS? Text "citizenship is dead" to 20500 to vote for Barack or Sara |
If you don't like my plan then Socrates
thinks you're an idiot. |
Anyway, I decided to break this post up. In the second half I will enumerate more specifically what I believe to be the benefits of this "ward system" of democracy...or maybe if I could just find some people to talk to about politics I could stop blogging entirely.
Under the original wording of the Constitution, the House of Representatives was meant to represent the interests of the People, while the Senators were meant to represent the interests of the several states. Representatives were meant to represent 30,000 people, not an average of 689,655. If we were to bring the House of Representatives up to the constitutional maximum we would be looking at approximately 10,000 members in the House. This, I feel would be a good first step toward shrinking the size of government. You may ask yourself how an increase of 2299% in one branch of Government would shrink the size of the government. Each member of the house currently possesses undo influence in the direction the government is headed, Lobbyists only have to buy off 218 people to point the government in their direction. If they had to buy off 5,001, then lobbying would get far more expensive. Next consider how responsive they could be if they only had 30,000-40,000 constituents.
ReplyDeleteNow on to the details of your specific proposal. This sounds similar to how caucuses have been described to me. As I have heard, at a caucus those who are passionate about an issue get up before the assembled locals and give a speech about their topic. After the stump speeches the people vote for the person that they like best on the topic. That person then goes to regional caucuses and on to state level if they win at the regionals. At the state level each person casts the vote that represents the will of their region. I find the concept very interesting, and I believe that it would be an interesting goal to try and get your state to implement a similar system. However, I would fight against any campaign to implement it in a nationwide, top-down approach. Such a system should rise from the people to overthrow the current system, not be imposed from above.
I agree 100% with your first paragraph and 99% with your second paragraph. Maybe that means I'm becoming a libertarian. Of course, I don't know if you label yourself like that.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't think the federal government would ever want this to happen so it would have to start at a local level I suppose. It seems like something that states could try out but then I wonder if there is anything about it that the old Supreme Court would find unconstitutional.