The rigged system
How can we fix it?
Our election process is broken. On the right, they believe it’s rigged through computer systems, illegal ballots, and George Soros. On the left, they believe it’s rigged through voter suppression, Russian hackers, and the electoral college. Some of it is based on reality and some is a complete fallacy, but the fact is people don’t trust the system. When people are screaming about Russia, Soros, suppression, and ballots, what they are saying is: WE WANT TO BE HEARD! Congressional approval ratings are at historic lows and yet those in power keep their power. That is a far cry from Madison’s vision of having the house accountable to the people. We must ask ourselves, is this how it’s supposed to be?
No, it’s not supposed to be this way.
In the beginning, candidates for office were nominated they didn’t volunteer. Those who ran for office didn’t campaign either. Aaron Burr was the first candidate to attempt campaigning, he did so while running for VP during the 3rd presidential election, but it didn’t take hold in the system. For forty years campaigning was not the American way until after the corrupt bargain when Andrew Jackson brought the vote to the people using Martin Van Buren’s partisan political machine. For the next sixty-plus years campaigning and party politics was the norm in America. The process was further corrupted during the gilded age with money which led to the expansion of political advertising during the McKinley campaign in 1897. He was heavily funded and influenced by corporations and they used their money to get him elected. Since then, corporations have been in a battle with the parties and the people for control of the process. The influence of money has rotted our institutions and led to the distrust of our system. So how do we fix it?
Some federal officials spend 30-70 percent of their time each week fundraising. Instead of working on their primary job of running our government, they are working on a second job so they can keep their first. Representatives spend campaign funds and their time on events designed to raise money so they can put on more fundraising events; and advertising dollars are spent with an emphasis on fundraising. They need to raise money, so they can spend money, so they can raise more money. Over the years the American taxpayers have slowly funded the legislator rewriting the rules so they could have a side hustle. Fundraising pads the pockets of those inside the power circle and creates a barrier that regular citizens struggle to cross. If a citizen shows interest in running for public office, one of the first things they will be told is they need to learn how to fundraise. That should concern all of us. Imagine selecting your child’s pediatrician based on how good they were at throwing great parties for rich people and not their personal and medical expertise.
What is the responsibility of our representatives? They should listen to and inform those they represent. To put it simply their job is a matter of communication. We should create an election process that cultivates these qualities in our representatives.
The first thing we can do is uncapping the House of Representatives and expand the representation out to a larger number of the populous. If we expand the number from 435 to 870, it will shrink the size of the districts by half. This will make it easier to communicate with our Congressional Representatives. Imagine being in a room full of 50 people trying to get one-on-one time with your rep, now cut that number in half to 25. Which do you think gives you a greater opportunity to be heard?
The next thing we need to do is design an election process that caters to the people rather than the parties and corporations. We need a process that inspires thought and discussion rather than emotion and division. Right now, the communication process flows from the representative through the advertisers to the people. We need to cut out the middleman and bring the rep and the people together. In the recent VA-10 GOP primary race 15,174 people voted, but most of them were contacted by the Candidate through advertising, and therefore could not voice their opinions or get to know them on an individual level. If we cut the number in half by shrinking the districts, we would be left with 7,587. Instead of the candidate spending time fundraising, they could spend their time in a series of public discussions with the other candidates. Frequent and numerus events, combined with smaller districts would ensure that each citizen who wants to be heard would have that opportunity. Recording and facilitating the discussions on a public website and breaking them down into podcast form will help to reach everyone who wants to be informed. This process would give the citizen a better opportunity to understand a candidate running for office. Instead of creating a marketing department to spend fundraising dollars with big corporations like Facebook and Google, we create a communication avenue to bypass the corporation and bring the representative and the people together.
If we don’t address the core problem, then radical and dangerous ideas to reshape our government will start to sound rational to those who can’t be heard. We need a political movement centered around helping the government and people communicate better. If a marriage is in trouble, there is a good chance it’s because of problems in communication which leads to a lack of understanding. This can drive one partner or the other to lash out, isolate, or run away. The radical behavior combined with the lack of communication and understanding could doom a marriage if it continues too long, the same could be said about our republic. Remember republican government was designed to bring the power as close to the people as possible and we do that through our House. Ask yourself, are our leaders doing that? Or do they just keep telling us it can’t be done? If they don’t believe in republican government and don’t want to put the work in to make it function, then they should step aside and let someone else take over the experiment in self-government.
P.S. If you would like to learn more on this topic, click the hyperlinks and listen to our new Podcast.
Very good approach to "uncapping." I like the number of expanded seats you propose, but wonder if it is beyond the pale of public opinion. That is why in my posts on FB I have often included the Wikipedia link to "The Wyoming Rule" proposal, that justifies expansion of House seats by 138.
When a Republican controlled Congress wrote its' version of the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, they used the 1910 census as their guide. The 1920 census was too "messy" for them because the 1920 numbers reflected a significant shift between rural and urban places (showing dramatic changes brought by the "great migration" during and following World War One). . . Republicans wanted nothing to do with the new dominant urban population reality. .
. . There were 121 million people in the country when the Apportionment Act was signed by Herbert Hoover. We have 333 million people now. California gained one million people between 2010 and 2020, yet they lost one Congressional seat. The "Wyoming Rule" plan gives the state 17 more seats instead. . . Texas plays out in a similar fashion, only gaining 2 seats when a dozen should be added.
. . . Uncapping by 138 seats places a manageable number of people in each Congressional district. . . Currently we have an average of 760,000 people in each. . . . Even the American Enterprise Institute supports the effort to expand the number of house seats. It points out that when Congressional staff time is dominated by answering citizen inquiries, it takes staff away from legislative matters at hand. It creates a sort of intellectual vacuum. When there is less and less Congressional staff time devoted to crafting legislation, guess where the help comes from? . . . LOBBYISTS on Capitol Hill are more than happy to fill the void. . . .
. . . Anyone who says a larger Congress would be unwieldy is either misinformed, or they are just too comfortable with the status quo. . . . We have been living with a Congress that operates as if it is still 1929. The late Congressman Alcee Hastings introduced H.R. 996 in 2021 to have Congress study the workings of Congress, including its' size, so recommendations could be made to improve Congressional operations. . . H.R. 996 had just four co-sponsors. No one has picked-up the gauntlet. Any voting rights reform bill brought before Congress should include the "Wyoming Rule" plan, or something else which expands the number of seats in "the people's house." It would also increase the number of electors in the Electoral College, bringing that ancient institution into the 21st Century.
. . . We cannot continue as a democracy/republic by still living in 1929.