[from JohnS]Premise:
The evolution of the two party system has distorted the intent of the founders in choosing our elected representatives by preselecting candidates for office without direct input from the electorate thereby making office holders more obligated to their party than the people and by creating career congressional office holders by perpetuating terms of office.
Consider the following:
1. The parties provide our only choices for our President, we the people do not.
2. The parties choose who runs for the Senate and House, again we the people do not.
3. If the people become discontent with their federal congressmen the parties provide alternate candidates.
4. The Electoral College makes the final choice for our President.
5. Party loyalty can assure one of a lifetime career in politics.
6. Today, fund raising is the primary tasks of our congressmen.
7. The two-party system, as exists today, thwarts the intent of our founders.
8. The two-party system, as exists today, isolates the people from the government.
Pressure from the electorate cannot change the system and there is no resolve or incentive within the congress to change their gravy train; the system will continue to reach new lows until it is changed. The only solution is to change our constitution. The following amendment will effectively control the two-party system while retaining the intent of our founders. (My comments appear in blue)
Proposed Amendment to the Constution
Article XXVIII
Bill of Citizens Rights - to provide a more representative government.
Section 1. Term Limitation.
a. Legislative term limit shall apply as follows: Members of the Senate two terms of six years, Members of the House of Representatives four terms of two year. Having served at least one term in office, members of either the Senate or House of Representatives shall not run for reelection until one full additional term has passed.
b. Federal justices, with the exception of Supreme Court Justices, shall be limited to two terms of 5 years. (Term limits will break the stranglehold the two-party system has on our federal government. Those running for legislative seats, knowing their time in office is limited will be less inclined to tow the party line knowing they will be returning to civilian status shortly and will have to live with the consequences of their legislative action. Assuming this amendment passes a review will probably be needed examining the benefits congressmen receive upon leaving office. I include judicial limits in this legislature although I am reluctant to limit terms for Supreme Court Justices; there is already too much politics in their appointment.)
Section 2. Voting Procedure.
Article XII is repealed. The following replaces paragraphs 1 through 3 of Section 1 Article II.
Each State shall appoint, in such manner, as the Legislature thereof may direct, an Elector, but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Each State shall receive, a number of Electoral votes, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. These votes must be assigned to the person receiving the greatest number of votes within the State for President and the person receiving the greatest number of votes within the State for Vice President.
The Elector shall tally the votes within his State, certify the vote and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole Number of Electoral votes. and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. However, in choosing the President, States, the representation from each State having one vote, shall take the votes; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the Person having the greatest number of electoral votes shall be the Vice President. However, if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President. (This eliminates the Electoral College and the electors’ ability to override voter’s choice while retaining a fair vote amongst all states.)
Section 3. Sunset Laws.
All legislation authorized under section 7 of Article I shall
a. Contain a termination clause not to exceed 10 years. The legislation may be re-introduced at any time up to and including the termination date.
b. Be confined to a single purpose. All additions, amendments, modifications or adjustments shall only address the single purpose of the legislation. (The purpose is to stop pork and earmarks outside the specific purpose of the legislation, and omnibus legislation that our legislators do not have the time to read and understand.)
The evolution of the two party system has distorted the intent of the founders in choosing our elected representatives by preselecting candidates for office without direct input from the electorate thereby making office holders more obligated to their party than the people and by creating career congressional office holders by perpetuating terms of office.
Consider the following:
1. The parties provide our only choices for our President, we the people do not.
2. The parties choose who runs for the Senate and House, again we the people do not.
3. If the people become discontent with their federal congressmen the parties provide alternate candidates.
4. The Electoral College makes the final choice for our President.
5. Party loyalty can assure one of a lifetime career in politics.
6. Today, fund raising is the primary tasks of our congressmen.
7. The two-party system, as exists today, thwarts the intent of our founders.
8. The two-party system, as exists today, isolates the people from the government.
Pressure from the electorate cannot change the system and there is no resolve or incentive within the congress to change their gravy train; the system will continue to reach new lows until it is changed. The only solution is to change our constitution. The following amendment will effectively control the two-party system while retaining the intent of our founders. (My comments appear in blue)
Proposed Amendment to the Constution
Article XXVIII
Bill of Citizens Rights - to provide a more representative government.
Section 1. Term Limitation.
a. Legislative term limit shall apply as follows: Members of the Senate two terms of six years, Members of the House of Representatives four terms of two year. Having served at least one term in office, members of either the Senate or House of Representatives shall not run for reelection until one full additional term has passed.
b. Federal justices, with the exception of Supreme Court Justices, shall be limited to two terms of 5 years. (Term limits will break the stranglehold the two-party system has on our federal government. Those running for legislative seats, knowing their time in office is limited will be less inclined to tow the party line knowing they will be returning to civilian status shortly and will have to live with the consequences of their legislative action. Assuming this amendment passes a review will probably be needed examining the benefits congressmen receive upon leaving office. I include judicial limits in this legislature although I am reluctant to limit terms for Supreme Court Justices; there is already too much politics in their appointment.)
Section 2. Voting Procedure.
Article XII is repealed. The following replaces paragraphs 1 through 3 of Section 1 Article II.
Each State shall appoint, in such manner, as the Legislature thereof may direct, an Elector, but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Each State shall receive, a number of Electoral votes, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. These votes must be assigned to the person receiving the greatest number of votes within the State for President and the person receiving the greatest number of votes within the State for Vice President.
The Elector shall tally the votes within his State, certify the vote and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole Number of Electoral votes. and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. However, in choosing the President, States, the representation from each State having one vote, shall take the votes; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the Person having the greatest number of electoral votes shall be the Vice President. However, if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President. (This eliminates the Electoral College and the electors’ ability to override voter’s choice while retaining a fair vote amongst all states.)
Section 3. Sunset Laws.
All legislation authorized under section 7 of Article I shall
a. Contain a termination clause not to exceed 10 years. The legislation may be re-introduced at any time up to and including the termination date.
b. Be confined to a single purpose. All additions, amendments, modifications or adjustments shall only address the single purpose of the legislation. (The purpose is to stop pork and earmarks outside the specific purpose of the legislation, and omnibus legislation that our legislators do not have the time to read and understand.)
John Sullivan said:
ReplyDeleteThe evolution of the two party system has distorted the intent of the founders in choosing our elected representatives by preselecting candidates for office without direct input from the electorate thereby making office holders more obligated to their party than the people and by creating career congressional office holders by perpetuating terms of office.
Joel responds:
I don't agree that political parties are the source of our problems. The Founders lived at a time when voting was indirect and limited to landholders in several states. They were concerned with the very logical notion of Plato, that direct democracy will always degenerate into tyranny. Getting the vote from the masses eventually involves taking from the few and giving to the many. It's only a question of time until the masses learn their power.
Repair of the situation is impossible. For example, a literacy test would be a logical requirement for voting, but would be seen as a means to disenfranchise those who vote for the Democratic Party. Currently, people suffering from dementia are permitted to vote as a consequence of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Partisans round up homeless people for voting. The age voting requirement of 21 years was lowered to 18 years old during the Vietnam War with the irrelevant cry of "old enough to fight, old enough to vote". This added millions of inexperienced voters to the rolls. No amount of modification of the Constitution can reverse the trend toward indirect mob rule. The recent legislation taxing AIG executives which passed the House, is illustrative of how far we have come. With respect -Joel
Thanks John for your Amendment but I don't see what it has to do with changing our two-party system (nor do I want to change the party system).
ReplyDeleteAs I read it, the Amendment imposes term limits to make our representatives more likely to be "citizen servants" of the people than a special ruling class with near-lifelong hold on their offices, which I agree with. I do not agree with term limits on federal judges, however.
You retain the state-by state Electoral Votes (one for each senator and representative of that state) which is good. You require all the Electoral Votes of the state to go to the Presidental and VP candidates who get a plurality of the popular vote in that state. That would prevent any state from having a proportional system, as some now do. I would not want my state to have proportional representation but I think states should have a right to do so if they please.
You abolish the Electoral College which is a mixed blessing. What if the candidate who received the plurality in a given state dies before the Elector votes are counted? At least with the Electoral College, we have real people, the Electors, who supported that candidate, and they can decide on an alternative, based on their party leaders and their personal judgement. What would the single Elector in your plan do?
Finally, you require legislation to be "single-purpose" (way subject to interpretation :^) and to sunset in ten years. I support that idea as well.
None of the above seems to have anything to do with our two-party system. Please elucidate!
By the way, I happen to be in favor of a party system, with two major parties and some limited number of effective minority parties. I would rather have candidates chosen by experienced leaders in a "smoke-filled room" (I guess it would be filled with something else nowadays, but you get the idea :^) than the current wildly democratic primary system. I certainly would not like to see any type of non-party system because I think the major parties, screwed up as they are, contribute some stability that "pure" democracy would not offer. Don't let us jump out of the frying pan into the fire!
I look forward to the opinions of others and John's reply.
Ira Glickstein
I premised the discussion on the basis that the two party system is at fault and then attempted to amend the constitution appropriately while retaining its language and phraseology. I submitted it as a starting point for discussion.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to agree with Joel, repair of the situation is impossible; however I refuse to accept it. If we agree, if only for discussion purposes, that our executive and legislative branches of government are not functioning well and are deviating from the intent of the founders then we need to seek corrective solutions. We could stage what I call a peaceful revolution as occurred in the 1970s, however, we will need a dynamic leader such as Martin Luther King (I don’t see one on the horizon) and specific goals that will enthuse the masses. What other solutions are available?
Joel makes another point that I would like to expand on. As the United States grew from an agrarian nation to an industrialized nation, from a nation of farms and small towns into an urbanized nation, from a relatively poor nation to the wealthiest, most powerful nation problems have arisen that could not be anticipated by our forefathers; runaway debt, socialistic tendencies are two examples. Correcting the two-party system will not solve all problems. We may need an amendment requiring a balanced budget, another to make government more transparent, which I partially address in section 3 of the proposed amendment.
Ira covered many different subjects in his response so I am going to reprint his remarks and respond in (parenthesize where appropriate).
As I read it, the Amendment imposes term limits to make our representatives more likely to be "citizen servants" of the people than a special ruling class with near-lifelong hold on their offices, which I agree with. I do not agree with term limits on federal judges, however. (I am inclined against any governmental position being held for life. In the case of federal judges, we have recently seen attempts to change the constitution through judicial fiat; a judge supporting that position can cause great harm over a lifetime. Fresh blood at least has the potential to rectify past views).
You retain the state-by state Electoral Votes (one for each senator and representative of that state) which is good. You require all the Electoral Votes of the state to go to the Presidental and VP candidates who get a plurality of the popular vote in that state. That would prevent any state from having a proportional system, as some now do. I would not want my state to have proportional representation but I think states should have a right to do so if they please. (I am not sure how a proportional vote works so I can’t comment, off hand it seems to contradict the intent of each state being fairly represented.)
You abolish the Electoral College which is a mixed blessing. What if the candidate who received the plurality in a given state dies before the Elector votes are counted? At least with the Electoral College, we have real people, the Electors, who supported that candidate, and they can decide on an alternative, based on their party leaders and their personal judgement. What would the single Elector in your plan do? (Probably appropriate language is required to resolve that and similar loopholes. Other language in the constitution addresses the problem, as I remember in one case the governor decides. I would be inclined to let each state solve the problem as they desire.)
Finally, you require legislation to be "single-purpose" (way subject to interpretation :^) and to sunset in ten years. I support that idea as well.
None of the above seems to have anything to do with our two-party system. Please elucidate!
(My contention is that the two-party system as it functions today has become too powerful, disenfranchises the people, makes office holders more obligated to their party than the people and creates career congressional office holders by perpetuating their terms of office. I am not against a two or multi party system, rather my intent is to increase the power of the people through reducing the power of party leadership thereby achieving a legislature more responsive to the people. )
By the way, I happen to be in favor of a party system, with two major parties and some limited number of effective minority parties. I would rather have candidates chosen by experienced leaders in a "smoke-filled room" (I guess it would be filled with something else nowadays, but you get the idea :^) than the current wildly democratic primary system. I certainly would not like to see any type of non-party system because I think the major parties, screwed up as they are, contribute some stability that "pure" democracy would not offer. Don't let us jump out of the frying pan into the fire! (You have a very good point here, it’s why we are a republic rather than a democracy. I tried to be very careful to retain the intent of the founders while making changes I felt were necessary if we were to limit the power of the two parties.)
PS. Ira I wanted to make my remarks in blue to clearly differenciate them from your comments. I know it can be done using HTML tags but I don't know how. Can you give me an example I can use in the future?
John wrote at the end: "PS. Ira I wanted to make my remarks in blue to clearly differenciate them from your comments. I know it can be done using HTML tags but I don't know how. Can you give me an example I can use in the future?"John, as far as I know, you cannot change the color in comments (you can in main Topics). What you can do is use bold and italic or a combination of bold and italic.
ReplyDeleteTo get a phrase in italic you put the following ahead of it: a left caret "<" followed by an "I" and then a right caret ">". To stop the italic you put the following at the end of the phrase: a left caret "<" followed by a "/I" and then a right caret ">".
For bold you do the same but use "B".
For bold italic you put the following ahead of the phrase: a left caret "<" followed by an "I" and then a right caret ">" followed by a left caret "<" followed by an "B" and then a right caret ">". To stop the bold italic you pu$t the following after the phrase: a left caret "<" followed by a "/I" and then a right caret ">" followed by a left caret "<" followed by an "/B" and then a right caret ">".
Here is how your text would look [I'm using a brace "{" and "}" instead of the carets "<" and ">" so my code won't be executed]
John is a {i}very{/i} {b}good{/b} student of {i}{b}HTML{/i}{/b}.
Will come out as:
John is a very good student of HTML.
Ira Glickstein
PS: You can use the "A" tag to get underlined blue but I would rather people not do that unless it is a clickable link. Note that my previous example is not a clickable link. The following one is a clickable link.
Thanks Ira. I am going to try them out. I’m a little frustrated that my last blog did not elicit alternate suggestions or solutions. I am very concerned about the performance of our federal government during Bush’s and so far during Obama’s Presidencies. My frustration is no with the executive branch only but also with congress. Yesterday’s Tea Party exemplifies that it is not my concern only. Whether we agree with the demonstrations or not , I do not recall nationwide turnouts of this size demonstrating against the government since the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteObviously many of us are frustrated with our government. In the 70s it was mainly the young rebelling, yesterday it was all ages but mainly the middle aged.
Is there a need for change or isn’t there? Does the complaisancy of the American people mean that they are satisfied with our government or does it mean they have lost hope? The poll ratings of the Bush administration and the poll ratings of our congress indicated a lot of dissatisfaction, so I’d guess the latter. We need to actively seek to regain control.
PS Using HTML is rather a pain and it makes editing difficult still I’ll use it when necessary.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting amendment even if it's impossible to pass. I'm not in favor of universal sunset provisions. First of all there's a mathematical problem. That is the fact that the integral of essentially permanent legislation keeps growing. Each congress is burdened with renewing a growing amount of legislation ad infinitum. This seems too cumbersome. There's also the problem of it producing rule by a minority who can stall or block renewal, thus holding it for a "ransom" by the majority. Also, we have the Bush tax reductions as an example in which taxes can be raised anonymously by simply letting tax reductions expire. With respect -Joel