We Need an Entire Slate of Electoral Reform Amendments

by: Anthony de Jesus

Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 18:28


Russ Feingold has announced plans to introduce a Constitutional amendment requiring special elections for Senate vacancies.
Anthony de Jesus :: We Need an Entire Slate of Electoral Reform Amendments
This is, obviously, a good idea.  I think there is an opportunity here to use this as a spearhead to get several ideas into the mainstream about changing how we do in elections.

The highest-profile idea out there is the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.  I don't see instant-runoff voting as something that has a chance of being adopted but it can be thrown out there, as well.  I doubt getting rid of the Senate has a chance of happening though, so be realistic.  Perhaps people would go for a non-partisan (post-partisan?) amendment for changing how we handle the drawing of Congressional districts. Maybe not proportional representation, but something that isn't an incumbent protection scheme.

One of my own ideas is to allow amendments to be ratified by referendum in 3/4 of states rather than by state legislatures or conventions.

Given how the recent Senate appointments have been covered heavily in the news, this would be a good opportunity for the progressive blogosphere to serve as a widely-dispersed open think tank and come up with ideas.  What other changes to the constitution do you want to make?  


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Forcing the Increase of the House's Size (0.00 / 0)
Sometime during the early 1900's I believe that there was a law passed that froze the current size of the house to the size it is today.

Why?

Maybe at the time it seemed like a house with 500 or even 800 members would be be too large to function, but there are other nations with larger parliament than ours, like India, and there haven been technological advances that have made it easier for a larger congress to work. IOW, it wasn't possible then, it is now.

Perhaps the reason that it hasn't changed in the mean time is because each individual congressman likes the power they have and would fear it being diluted by an influx of new members.

Anyway, my idea would be to:

1ST: immediately expand the size of the house to between 500 and 800 members.

This would lower the population of districts and allow more of a connection between a congressperson and their constituents and a more responsive congress in general which is what our Founding Fathers intended.

2ND: Force the house every ten years to expand to keep up with population growth.

That plus the idea of non-partisan redistricting would bring our government a lot closer to its people.


I think I would expand the Senate, too (0.00 / 0)
150 Senators with someone up for election every cycle might be better.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Why not just an ordinary runoff? (0.00 / 0)
I think we've now demonstrated that recounts are clearly severely fucked up, both in MN 2008 and FL 2000.  Just hold a damn recount if no candidate gets a majority, or if the margin is less than X%

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search