Yesterday I talked about why I believe the Senate is undemocratic in Part 1 of this diary series, and pretty effectively had the smack-down laid upon me for challenging the structure of our bicameral legislature. (I wonder if it was hard for our young legislature to come out as a "bicameral?" Was there an ugly confrontation, with the legislature's mother crying and it's father yelling, "No son of mine is gonna be bicameral!"?) Nevertheless, I stand by the idea that it is people who should be represented in a representative democracy, not smaller government entities like states. Frankly, I was a little surprised that such a notion didn't find greater acceptance on this forum.
That said, today I turn my attention to the Senate's little brother, the House of Representatives.
"Little brother" is an appropriate term. You might not be aware that in the early days of the republic, senators were allowed to randomly pin representatives to the floor and slap them with their own hands to repeated queries of, "Why do you keep hitting yourself?" We've come a long way since then.
The House is often referred to as "The People's House." As such, it is supposed to be the body that speaks directly for the American citizenry. Unfortunately, the corrupting influence of big money has changed the nature of House to something more closely resembling "The Lobbyists' House." So what to do?
- Get rid of the money. Duh. This one should be a no-brainer (hey, that means that George Bush should... oh, never mind). No more private contributions of any sort – corporate, individual, group, man-on-dog, etc. – should be allowed to congressional campaigns. In fact, this applies equally well to campaigns for senate, president, governor, etc. Instead, prospective candidates would have to demonstrate a certain amount of popular support (probably through signature petitions) in order to qualify for a certain level of public funding. Obviously, the details of this system would need to be hammered out, and the numbers would have to be periodically adjusted to account for demographic shifts, inflation, etc. Just off the top of my head, maybe a 1% threshold would be appropriate for the first "tier" of funding in a House race? This would mean that a would-be candidate in a district of 600,000 would need 6000 signatures to qualify. Getting rid of the money would also by necessity mean getting rid of the 527's and the "issue ads." Exactly how this might be achieved I'll admit I don't know. I'm tempted to say that no issue ads at all be allowed by these non-candidate entities during election time, but that smacks of curtailing free speech. Instead, maybe "interest groups" would also have to demonstrate public support and would also qualify for public funding, and would therefore not be allowed to spend "private" money? Alternatively, they might be allowed to spend private money up to a certain amount? Certainly smarter people than me can argue the nuances – the key is simply to level the playing field for everyone.
- End the practice of gerrymandering. This is vital. And, although the GOP took it to new levels under DeLay, BOTH parties have been guilty. Now, I'll be the first to admit that a majority of Democratic-leaning districts is appealing at first glance. But then, so is throwing all the Republicans into Re-education Camps. But if you think about it, such tactics would only result in entrenchment and domination of one party, which inevitably leads to stagnation, corruption, voter discontent, unrest, revolution, and public beheadings – usually in that order. I think everyone would agree that this is a path best avoided. But congressional districts do need to be redrawn to account for changes in population, so how to do it? First of all, I feel that it is important to have codified into law the idea that congressional districts should have as much geographic and demographic cohesiveness as possible. In other words, no more districts that look like they were drawn by epileptic monkeys on crack just to accommodate one or the other party. Neighborhoods and communities should be kept together wherever feasible. If a city's population is 700,000, and the congressional district size in that state is 700,000, then that entire city should comprise a district. Now, clearly what makes "sense" to one person might seem outrageous to another, so who should make the judgment? Certainly not the state legislatures. If we left it to them the districts would come out resembling something that had been done on an Etch-A-Sketch while riding in a rickshaw. Instead, I think states should empower citizen-panels to draw congressional districts. These would be made up of equal numbers of members from each major party as well as independents, and their sole task would be the creation of fair and balanced (no, the good kind of "fair and balanced") districts. Is it perfect? No, of course not. The last perfect person got nailed to a piece of wood about 2000 years ago for having the effrontery to suggest that everyone should just be nice to each other for a change. But it would be better than what we've got, and if the panels' deliberations are open to the public then at least they'd be subject to scrutiny, even input.
- Reconsider the number of representatives. This is where my OCD comes out. But, seriously, why 435? Why not at least make it a round number like 500? (I know, I know, it's related to the number of electoral votes – but that shiznit's on the agenda for the next diary, so just cool it). Better yet, how about 600? In a nation of 300 million, that would make each representative responsible for half a million (I'm all about basic math). Also, the state with the lowest population (sorry, Wyoming) has about 500,000 people (alright, 515,004 according to Wikipedia), so at least their having one at-large congressman would be mathematically justified. If we codified the representative-to-citizen ratio at 1:500,000, then at each census we would simply add the needed number of reps to maintain it.
- Make congressional districts independent of state boundaries. This sort of comes off of the last suggestion. Say we decide that, indeed, each congressman will represent 500 thousand people. What do we do if a state has, say, 750,000? Elect half a congressman? There's only so much of Dennis Kucinich to go around. (Alright, alright, just relax... I like Dennis Kucinich, too, but you have to admit that the guy is short. Nobody complained when I made fun of Mike Enzi yesterday.) So why not make the district boundaries irrespective of state borders if and where appropriate? It as, after all, "The People's House," so it should represent the people where they live, even if that means communities that might straddle a border. This would create complications in the seating of the citizen-panels I mention above, but this could be worked out on a case-by-case basis.
- Consider alternative means of election. I'm not so sure about this one, but it's worth exploring. Many countries use some variation of a "party-list" system, whereby voters choose a party, and if that party wins, say, six seats they are allocated to the top six people on their list. Germany elects half the members of its lower house by direct election, and half by party-list. This kind of voting tends to produce legislatures with a more diverse group of parties, and that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the United States and it's "Coke or Pepsi" electoral system. What if you like Mountain Dew? Or Sunkist? (I'm not counting Dr. Pepper because those people are just freaky, man.) It might be nice to have a few Greens, a couple of Communists, and a Libertarian or two in the House (or, if you prefer, "In Da House"), if just to keep things interesting.
That's about all I've got for today. I welcome other suggestions, and will calmly accept my fate at the hands of the mob of Dennis Kucinich supporters currently looking for my house.