Is There A Way To Reform Our Political System?

I pose this as a question, despite the fact that legal professor Jonathan Turley presents the issue in the indicative. In other words, he appears to believe reform of the political system is a real possibility, a doable thing:

“You Say You Want A Revolution”: How To Reform Our Political System

Turley starts from the proposition that the fundamental problem with American politics is the stranglehold that the two political parties hold over the system—constituting what amounts to a Uniparty. The result, as Turley points out, is that “change” in American politics too often amounts to one wing of the Establishment stepping aside—temporarily, they hope—for the one other wing. It follows, then, that the key to reforming the system should lie in breaking that stranglehold to provide the governed with the means to demand accountability from their representives. Easy peasy—why didn’t anyone think of this before?

Of course, there is a caveat from American history. The Founding Fathers shared Turley’s attitude toward political parties and thought they had devised a system, i.e., the US Constitution, that was designed to, at a minimum, throw up serious roadblocks to a partisan system of politics that ruled over the heads of the citizens. Within a few years after the constitutional coup the authors of that coup had all divided into partisan groups themselves.

Another caveat is that past attempts at reform were largely pushed by Progressives and, in my view, those “reforms” have contributed mightily to the sad state of American politics. In other words, be careful what you wish for—reforms often turn out to be difficult to undo, because they often empower groups that are unwilling to relinquish their newfound powers. For example, the institution of an income tax has facilitated political bribery of a citizenry that is all too susceptible to such bribery. How many politicians want to give up that source of power? Again, the change in how US senators are elected has allowed senators to set up independent power bases—independent, that is, to a great extent from the politics of their states. The result is that senators become more focused on the interests of the national establishment in DC, and the senators are largely under the thumb of national monied interest groups who can guarantee their reelection.

All of which leads me to wonder whether the real problem with representative democracy of any sort, when exercised on a mass scale, lies with the people themselves. That is to say, very simply, that imperfect human nature is bound to screw things up, whether out of selfish desires for power or financial benefit, bizarre ideological urges, racial or other identity group concerns being placed above national interests, or simple lack of interest.

On the other hand, I have no alternatives to offer. In the meantime, perhaps tweaking the current system is the best we can do. Here are Turley’s ideas for a more perfect union.

Turley begins by asserting that a focus on campaign finances mostly misses the point. His list of reforms that could make a difference are these:

“Remove barriers to third parties.” Under this heading, beyond petition requirements, Turley especially focuses on requiring debates among all candidates. Publicly funded.

“End the practice of gerrymandering.” I can see the merit in this—a glance at district boundaries should convince anyone of the desirability of such reform. The problem is, how to go about it. Turley’s view is:

Districts should have geographic continuity, and should be established by a standard formula applied by an independent federal agency.

Independent federal agency?

“Change the primary system.” Here, Turley is seeking to break the power of incumbency. He suggests a system in which the two top vote getters in the primaries—regardless of party—proceed to the general election.

“Abolish the electoral college.” Turley advocates for direct presidential election, to insure legitimacy. This is his argument:

… in states that are solidly red or blue, the opposing parties and candidates rarely invest much time or money campaigning given that they are clearly not going to get the electoral votes in the end. If there were direct voting for presidents, candidates would have good reason to campaign hard to grab pockets of, say, Democrats in Salt Lake City or Republicans in downstate New York.

I would add what is perhaps only explicit in what Turley says about direct presidential election: it would encourage voter turnout, especially in states that are currently one party states. As matters stand now, Republican voter turnout is almost certainly suppressed in solidly Blue states like California because GOP votes essentially don’t count in the presidential race. The same is probably true of solidly Red states, in the opposite direction.

On the other hand, it’s hard to see making direct presidential election work without also federalizing election rules and laws. That would involve a fundamental change in our federal system—or so it seems to me. It certainly could be done, but the mechanics of putting it in place would be important. A constitutional amendment? Another statutorily established “independent federal agency?” It seems a big step, even if the goal may be desirable.

“Require a majority for presidents to be elected.” I’ll quote Turley’s full statement here:

If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there should be a runoff of the two top vote-getters — as is the custom in most other nations. This would tend to force candidates to reach out to third parties and break up monopoly control of the two parties.

There’s a lot that could be said about these ideas. It might lead to something in the nature of proportional representation, as in parliamentary systems. Those systems are just as prone to corruption—if not more so—than our current system. The problem, as I see it, comes back to human nature.

Turley is a realist, and so he recognizes the difficulties in actually adopting such reforms. To me, I think the obstacles to any of the routes to reform he suggests are pretty much insuperable. For example, what individual states are likely to “lead the way”? I don’t see that happening.

It is unlikely that members of Congress would implement such sweeping changes.

But Article V of the Constitution allows citizens to circumvent Congress and call for their own convention “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states.” To be successful, a convention would have to be limited to addressing political reforms and not get sidetracked by divisive issues such as same-sex marriage or abortion.

Individual states could also lead the way in enacting some of these reforms, such as requiring electoral votes to be divided among candidates according to the popular vote.