The contents of this bill should come as no surprise, since generations of lawmakers have successfully rigged the rules to concentrate power in the hands of a few committee chairmen, and to avoid ever being held accountable for their actions. The result is a process whereby the American public and the lawmakers themselves have no idea what a bill contains until after it has passed. This is antithetical to the fundamental concept of democracy.

I’ve thought for years about possible solutions to the systematic abuse of power in Washington. I’ve come up with several ideas that would, in theory, solve the problem. However, just as incumbent lawmakers successfully killed the term limits movement, they would never stand for any other weakening of the corrupt system they have worked so hard to put in place. Unfortunately, my humble suggestions for more honest and effective governance will remain nothing but a fantasy.

End Committee Chairmanships Based On Seniority

Committee chairmen hold all the cards in Washington. They determine which bills reach the floor, and what provisions they contain. This is an awesome power, and one that is highly coveted. Unfortunately, these appointments are not made on any qualitative basis. Instead, they are virtually always decided on the basis of seniority. This means someone with 30 years in the Senate would be chosen to chair the banking committee, ahead of a member with 30 years of banking experience. As ridiculous as this may seem, it’s not the worst problem with the seniority system.

The awesome power of incumbency means that once a member is elected, they become virtually impossible to defeat. It doesn’t matter if their political views no longer represent those of their state or district. Name recognition and the power of pork are almost always enough to ensure re-election. What this means is that the people who occupy the most powerful positions today were first elected 30 or even 40 years ago. Their political views are a more accurate reflection of the 1970’s than the 21st century.

End Omnibus Legislation

The single most effective way to end legislative abuse is also the least likely to ever be implemented. The vast majority of wasteful and abusive spending occurs when unrelated provisions are attached to larger bills. Sometimes these are tucked into a package under cover of darkness, but it’s far too common for a bill to be held hostage in return for an entirely unrelated provision. This has become a favorite sport of lawmakers. In theory, the solution is simple: Ban the practice of omnibus legislation altogether. If a bill related to the Defense Department is under consideration, it should be illegal to attach any provision unrelated to defense. A provision that cannot pass on its own merits in the light of day should never become law.

Require Lawmakers To Read Bills Before Voting

Lawmakers routinely vote on massive bills that run hundreds or even thousands of pages without knowing what they contain. This practice is patently absurd. My proposal would require that before casting a vote, every member of the House or Senate would be required to sign a pledge stating that they have read the entire bill. This would make it much more difficult to sneak hidden provisions into a package, and it would require lawmakers to slow down and consider the possible unintended consequences of their actions. It would also have the benefit of forcing them to craft legislation that is more concise and more understandable to the voting public.

Require Bills to Be Posted Online For 72 Hours Before Voting Takes Place

Voters rarely have enough information to make informed decisions when it comes to supporting a particular piece of legislation. Both sides do everything possible to distort the facts about what a package does or does not contain. Citizens deserve the opportunity to know exactly what our representatives are voting for or against. There should be a 72 hour waiting period between the time a piece of legislation reaches the floor and any voting takes place. During this time, the bill should be posted online for voters and the media to see exactly what it contains. We can never hope to hold our elected representatives truly accountable for their actions unless we understand those actions more clearly.

Barack Obama will be sworn in as our 44th President today, 77 days after the November 4th election. In that same 77 days, the state of Minnesota has been unable to determine the winner of the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. The outcome will eventually be decided in court since the results of the voting were too close to determine a statistically reliable margin of victory for either candidate.

Out of 2,885,555 ballots cast in Minnesota, the difference between the two candidates in the recount is a mere 225 votes, or .0078% of the total. This situation is nearly identical to the 2004 race for the Governor’s office in the state of Washington. In that contest, the winner was also determined by a hand recount with a margin of 133 votes out of 2,810,058 ballots cast, or .0047% of the total. In both cases, the margin of victory is far too small to be trusted to a process as potentially unreliable as counting by hand.

Let’s take away the politically charged atmosphere surrounding the recount, along with any incentive that either side may have to cheat. Let’s also set aside any consideration of illegible, absentee or provisional ballots, or the fact that precincts in both states reported higher combined vote totals for the two candidates than the actual number of ballots cast. Forget about counting votes and think instead in terms of bottle caps or baseball cards. Consider only the challenge of counting 2.8 million of anything by hand and coming up with a reliable result. I am not a mathematician, but my inclination is to believe that the margin of error for this kind of hand counting procedure is probably greater than .0047%

RELATED POST

Minnesota Debacle Points To Need For Electoral Reform

In spite of the sizable margin, Georgia law called for a run-off election since no candidate broke the 50% threshold. On December 2nd, a run-off was held between the top 2 finishers in the race. Chambliss garnered 57.4% of the total votes cast for a decisive victory that cannot be called into question.

In the Minnesota Senate race, incumbent Norm Coleman faced Democrat Al Franken, along with 3 other third-party challengers. Coleman and Franken both won approximately 41% of the total votes cast, while the third party candidates garnered a combined total of nearly 17%. For the sake of comparison, the total for the Libertarian candidate in Georgia was only 3.4% of the votes cast.

In a prolonged and hotly contested recount procedure, the margin between Coleman and Franken has never been greater than a few hundred votes. In percentage terms, this difference is well within the margin of error for the imprecise science of counting ballots by hand. The same 2.8 million ballots could be recounted by hand any number of times and never produce the same final tally.

The Constitution leaves the conduct of elections up to the states, but the procedural differences between states creates a problem for the nation as a whole. Georgia law calls for a run-off, even in a case where a clear winner emerges in the general election. Minnesota law has no provision for a run-off, even when it is not possible to determine a statistically reliable margin of victory on the basis of a recount.

Georgia was able to hold a run-off and produce an undisputed winner within one month of the general election. The recount in Minnesota is likely to drag on for months, and the ultimate winner will be chosen by the courts and not by the voters. If Minnesota law allowed for the run-off procedure, a clear winner would have emerged already between Coleman and Franken, and whoever was ultimately elected would go to Washington with a clear mandate rather than a cloud of illegitimacy.

Bloggers played a larger role than ever before in the election of 2008. Unfortunately, we did not contribute nearly as much to the spread of worthwhile information as we did to the breakdown of rational discourse. One of the problems is that blogging permits anyone to make themselves heard, even when they have nothing worthwhile to say. Unfortunately, the loudest voices are often the most venomous and least informed. If your only contribution is an endless loop of regurgitated partisan talking points, then you have made no contribution at all. The only thing you accomplish by flooding the blogosphere with mindless diatribes and incessant repetition is to drown out the voices of reasonable people, making it harder for those engaged in thought provoking discussions to actually make a difference.

The words we use to vilify our political opponents tend to make us lazy. It is far easier to apply a derogatory label than it is to explain why we support a specific candidate or cause. If we ever hope to engage our opponents in a civil fashion, we must stop relying on negative labels and choose words that force us to actually think about our positions. Let’s banish words like socialist and neo-con from our vocabularies. Let’s quit calling our opponents fascists, radicals and extremists, and concentrate instead on defeating them with the power of our ideas. If we can learn to behave ourselves like adults, our politicians may one day follow our example.

Where am I to turn when I no longer recognize the party I have supported for so many years? Who represents my voice when my party abdicates its traditional mission in favor of promoting “Christian” beliefs like racism, homophobia, and the denial of every principle of the scientific method? In too many cases, the candidates put forth by the Republicans now represent the greater of two evils.

My dissatisfaction with the Republicans does not make me any more inclined to support the Democratic party, at least not in its current incarnation. My libertarian beliefs place me at opposite ends of the spectrum from those who continue to promote the naïve proposition that government can produce a Utopian society through social engineering and massive income redistribution. Given the insurmountable odds faced by third parties under our rigged two-party system, I am feeling more left out than ever before.

If there is a single ray of hope left in Washington, it is the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats in the House. While the members of the coalition represent a range of ideological positions on social issues, they are all committed to the basic principle that our government must live within its means. They are despised by traditional liberals within their own party for their support of the radical notion that spending increases must be offset by reductions in other parts of the budget. They may not represent my views perfectly, but at least that’s the kind of radical idea I can live with.

Homosexuals and blacks are the two minority groups in our country that have been discriminated against in the most blatant and persistent fashion throughout our history. Both groups have made tremendous advances in recent decades as a result of legal protections, and a general shift in attitudes among the population. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, virtually every form of discrimination based on age, race, religion, physical disability and sexual orientation has been outlawed. For some reason, we still see fit as a society to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage.

One would think that blacks and homosexuals would be well served to combine forces in their efforts to eradicate the last vestiges of discrimination, but the exit poll results from California and Florida tell a very different story. White and Asian voters in California were almost evenly split on the issue, with each group voting 51% to 49% in opposition to the amendment. Hispanic voters were 53% to 47% in favor of passage. Black voters, however, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the marriage ban by a 70% to 30% margin.

Voters in every racial category supported the same-sex marriage ban in Florida by varying degrees. The least intolerant group was made up of whites who voted to pass the amendment by a 60% to 40% margin. 64% of Hispanic voters were in favor of the ban, while a shocking 71% of black voters cast their ballots in favor of legalized discrimination against homosexual couples.

The pundits have already begun the endless debate over what the 2008 election really means in terms of our shifting attitudes. Does the fact that we freely elected a black man to the most powerful office in the world mean that we are finally prepared to give up our old prejudices, or does it simply indicate that dissatisfaction with the current administration was so great that any Democratic candidate would have won by a convincing margin? I suspect the latter to be true. The fact that one aggrieved minority is so obviously willing to enforce legal discrimination against another indicates that we are still a long way from becoming a truly tolerant society.

RELATED ARTICLES

Will Gay Marriage Decide Our Next Election

CNN Exit Poll Results

American voters have fallen hook line and sinker for the notion that the president has the ability to somehow “manage the economy”. For the past eight years, the Democrats have pointed to the record of Bill Clinton as proof that they are the more responsible stewards of our economic well being. The suggestion is that by returning to the Clinton era policies, they can recreate the economic conditions of the 1990’s. Of course it is much easier to make these claims when they are not in power and they cannot be substantiated.

Now that the Democrats are poised to take control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government for the first time in 14 years, the American people have lofty expectations of a return to prosperity. Given the economic conditions that they will inherit, the Democrats will be hard pressed to deliver. Unless they can demonstrate that the Clinton economy was a direct result of Democratic policies, and not simply a product of natural cyclical variation, it will likely be another 14 years before they are in power again.

Even the most diehard GOP loyalists have to admit that things have not gone well under the leadership of George W. Bush. Whether he is entirely to blame for the problems we face, or if he was a victim of circumstances beyond his control is a matter that will be hotly debated by partisans and scholars alike. There can be little doubt that the attacks of 9/11 were the defining moment of his presidency, and that he had the political misfortune to begin and end his time in office at natural low points in the business cycle. These are circumstances that would have challenged the greatest leaders in our history, and we have no way of knowing how they might have responded differently.

The choice of Senator Obama as our next president is a clear indication that Americans are ready for a change. What we don’t know is exactly how radical a change voters are prepared to accept. The choice to move away from a far right agenda does not automatically mean that we prefer a shift to the far left in its place. The contentious primary race for the Democratic nomination is a clear indication that no real consensus exists, even within the Democratic party.

There is a great deal of pent up demand for a new era of big government among the hardcore liberals who have not had a truly sympathetic ear in the White House since Jimmy Carter. Already rumors are circulating that indicate Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are planning to introduce a series of pro-labor initiatives before a new president is even sworn into office. The most notable proposals would eliminate the secret ballot requirement for union elections, and require employers to provide paid sick leave for workers. The idea that job growth can be stimulated by imposing additional burdens on employers defies the basic laws of economics, but these are exactly the sort of ideas that make old school liberals salivate. They are also the sort of proposals that President Obama would be well advised to view with a healthy dose of skepticism.

As much as I dislike the man for his personal failings, I have to grudgingly admit that Bill Clinton was perhaps the most successful centrist president of my lifetime. He learned a few hard lessons early in his first term about how far left the American public was willing to lean. The healthcare fiasco ultimately brought about a voter backlash that cost his party control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years. From that point forward he put forth a series of moderate policies that allowed him to be the first Democratic president to win re-election since Franklin Roosevelt. The fact the meaningful welfare reform and NAFTA were both signed into law by a Democratic president, and that he left office with a 65% approval rating is a remarkable statement about the true sentiment of the American voter. President Obama would be wise to follow his example.

In a year when the Republicans faced insurmountable odds from the start, primary voters selected the candidate whose record least reflected the values of the radical right wing of the party. John McCain established his reputation by having the political courage to stand up to the agents of intolerance within his own party, and he has been one of the few members of the Senate to truly embrace the bipartisan spirit. In doing so, he has consistently placed the interests of the nation above those of his party.

Once the nomination was secured, McCain faced the most significant decision of the election. Would he run as himself and reach out to moderate members of both parties, or would he go against everything he has ever stood for in order to appease the far right wing of his own party. In his choice of running mates, McCain made it clear that he lacked the courage to stand up for his convictions when it mattered most.

When faced with a choice between a far left and a far right candidate, most Americans would prefer none of the above. Unfortunately, we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. McCain had a golden opportunity to fill the great moderate void, but when faced with the decision of a lifetime, the maverick of the Senate turned out to be a mouse.

We now face a situation where neither party is entirely satisfied with their choice of candidates, but the political pendulum has swung so far in favor of the Democrats that it will be nearly impossible for Senator Obama to lose. He has the enthusiastic support of the hard core liberal elite, and of the young people who are predisposed by their lack of life experience to believe that government policies can produce a utopian society. On the other hand, many traditional Democratic voters are wary of his liberal agenda, and would have preferred a candidate with broad moderate appeal.

Senator McCain was never an ideal candidate, but he was the least rabidly partisan nominee either party has put forth in recent memory. He could have taken advantage of his maverick reputation to appeal to a broad cross section of dissatisfied voters from both parties. Imagine how different the polls might look today if he had opted to hold the middle ground, and had the courage to tell the radical right to go to hell. Imagine if he had chosen a running mate with a record that complimented his own rather than contradicting it. Imagine if he had made his choice based on principle rather than partisanship.

Reports indicated that McCain’s personal preference for a running mate was Joe Lieberman, another man who has chosen time and time again to place his principles above his loyalty to the party. Like McCain, Lieberman is also despised by the radical elements within his own party. He has demonstrated that he values personal integrity above partisan politics, and like the McCain of old, he is admired by moderates from both parties. A McCain Lieberman ticket would have appealed to a huge number of voters who are disgusted with the purely partisan choices they now face, and if elected, they might have ushered in a new Age of Reason in American politics.

RELATED POST

It’s Time To Send The Parties Packing

The Senator is famous for pork barrel spending on notorious projects like the famous Bridge To Nowhere, but he has also been very effective in securing federal tax dollars for projects that directly benefit Ben. After Stevens earmarked $30 Million for the creation of the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, Ben Stevens was selected as the chairman of the newly formed body. When Stevens secured $10 Million to bring the Special Olympics World Winter Games to Anchorage in 2001, Ben was paid over $700,000 to run the games.

With no experience or credentials other than his father’s name, Ben Stevens has collected millions of dollars in bogus consulting fees. He has also been the subject of a federal investigation into corruption in the Alaska State Senate, a body to which he was appointed with no prior political experience. Many of his colleagues have already been indicted or convicted, but so far no charges have been brought against Ben.

Prosecutors are usually reluctant to press charges unless they are confident that they can win a conviction. Stevens is only the fifth sitting Senator in history to be convicted of a crime while in office. Now that they have proven that they can bring down one of the most powerful members of the Senate, I predict that we will see many more serious charges brought against Senator Stevens and his son. He may be too old to serve any actual jail time, but he will certainly live out the remainder of his life defending himself in court.