I recently had an interesting discussion with Jim Fonseca. He had an original idea about reforming the electoral structure of the United States. I’ll just cut and paste this part of our discussion here:
Only states with at least 1.5 million people get 2 Senators. That frees up 10 Senate seats that could be assigned somehow to the more populous states. And it would re-balance the Electoral College a bit without getting rid of it.
This is a worthy idea! The trick is herding it through the political process.
I find the amending formula in the US Constitution quite forward thinking, even by today’s standards. It has a super-majority vote (3/4 of the state legislatures) to ensure the reform is not a fickle response from the public. The ¼ of states who disagree cannot hold the country back with a veto. And the federal government cannot do anything to stop that change if the states really want that change. In my opinion, the amending formula is an amazing piece of democratic engineering! In contrast, my country Canada has a rather impossible formula to amend its constitution.
But in these days of extreme partisanship, the Republicans will not support anything that might take away that little electoral advantage they currently have. And Democrats have enough challenge with getting progressive legislation passed, let alone championing any kind of constitutional change. Don’t expect USA’s political elite to help constitutional reform along. If Americans want a change like Mr. Fonseca suggests, they are going to have to work for it.
The 17th Amendment
I did some research for the 17th Amendment, the one where senators are elected by the people and not by the state legislatures. Do you know it took about 30 years for this movement to traverse from a significant grass roots force to actually effecting the amendment in 1913? In other words, the “good idea” did not immediately take root. It needed to build public support; then it needed to apply continuous political pressure.
Mr. Fonseca’s idea will be no different. If he is serious about this constitutional reform, he must look at the long haul. I can see this project taking five to 10 hours a week of Mr. Fonseca’s spare time. His tasks would be building a website, interacting on political forums, attending conferences, gathering supporters, and sometimes mobilizing these supporters.
This project could be a nice little hobby that could turn into a future constitutional change. But it would be a long-duration hobby. His Medium bio says he is a retired professor. So if his health is there, he could start building this movement.
But to think that this kind of reform could happen with a few internet posts and discussions is naïve.
Let’s assume this movement will be successful.
In 20 or 30 years, USA will have implemented that constitutional reform. The less populous states will have one fewer senator. The more populous states will have one more. Voting by Electoral College will be more democratic.
Most likely, the movement will have dragged the Democrats and Republicans kicking and screaming across the finish line. But once the amendment is in place, the two parties will adapt to the new rules. The parties will still be running the show.
So what has this movement really accomplished?
At this point, this article must sound a downer for many readers. Why expend so much effort for such little improvement?
If we are to get the political change we so desire, may I suggest that we put any long-haul efforts into a much bigger change: a change that will alter our understanding of democracy.
Tiered Democratic Governance
In 1992, I invented an alternative democracy called Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG). I have provided a blueprint with these four salient features:
1. Tiered indirect elections
2. Voting based on good character and capacity for governance
3. Decision making based on consultation and consensus.
4. An advisory board to assist the elected, decision-making bodies.
Beyond these four salient features, each TDG will design itself. Building the TDG will be great experimentation in democratic structures.
Similar to any constitutional change, building the TDG will require a long time. While gathering public support is still important, the early TDG builders will also have to acquire the skills and attitudes to make the TDG work. And building the TDG is the forum to learn and practice these skills and attitudes. And as it acquires these skills and attributes, it will get more public support. In other words, the TDG will be the example in governance many of us what to see in governance.
I estimate 10 to 20 years — after the TDG gets about 1% of the population to support it.
The first task of the early TDG builders is to write their local TDG constitution. I envision one meeting every two weeks with four to 10 neighbors. This meeting should last about 90 minutes. In between the meetings, there should be some email communications to refine the clauses discussed at the meetings. Each local TDG group should have a writer to facilitate these emails and draft the consensus of their constitution.
So I estimate that these builders will need about 10 hours a month to put their document together. So we are looking at a movement that would not require a lot of time. Early TDG builders would still go to their work, spend time with family and friends, and enjoy their recreation. But when they spend that 10 hours a month in the TDG, they will be training themselves for this new way. And when they realize that the new way is indeed better, they will be passing their understanding to the new TDG builders. This societal training will build that kinder, wiser democracy we so yearn for.
What’s our political legacy?
The long time to implement the change is a commonality between Mr. Fonseca’s reform and my alternative democracy.
For many readers, this lengthy time will be a deterrent to not engage in either of these two political activities. We have been conditioned to expect quick results. Like our politicians, we cannot look beyond the next election cycle, so 20 or 30 years seems destined for science fiction novels. So many of us will revert to believing that our noise making will somehow bend the will of the individuals aspiring for political office: “Do this, or we won’t vote for you.”
Where is such an attitude likely to take us? Should we not be surprised that the same status quo is still around a generation from now? Should we not be surprised if the status quo gets worse?
Ten years ago, no one was talking about authoritarian rule in the USA.
Now many people are.
For the few readers who realize that long-term effort is required to effect change, where should they put their efforts? Toward a movement that is likely to produce superficial results? Or toward a movement that offers an elevation of the human condition?
Think of Mr. Fonseca’s great grandchildren. Will they be more impressed that their great grandfather moved a few senators from less populous states to more populous states — or helped build a wiser, kinder democracy?
What about your grandchildren and great-grandchildren?
Published on Medium 2022
So Politically Paralyzed We Are
The American Constitution & the TDG
