The TL;DR Version
Grumpy old man grumps about democracy.
As noted in my previous post, I am getting cantankerous on this subject, so forgive me if I sound too direct or even plain grumpy.
So that I don’t have to keep typing versions of the same thing, allow me to note the following.
- Reform won’t happen by itself, that is clear. Democrats still have to win elections.
- Long-term, reform is needed. Democrats need to be convinced that reform is in their interest. That is one main goal for me here in this specific conversation.
- Once convinced of the need for reform, they need to be prepared to initiate it. They had a chance in 2021, but weren’t prepared.
- Focusing solely on messaging and organizing (please note the word “solely” as I am not saying to eschew messaging and organizing) will not solve long-term problems, especially if the VRA is further eroded.
- Normal politics are not returning, and so there needs to be thought given to how to shape what comes next.
- If Democrats (and I focus on them because Republicans currently are abetting authoritarianism) don’t start thinking outside of normal politics, then democracy in America will continue to erode, if not collapse.
Yes, reform is hard. That doesn’t mean it isn’t needed.
And please allow me to repeat: Organize! Work in every state and district! Refine messages! Recruit better candidates!
BUT,
- Be realistic about what all of that normally creates.
- Understand what US parties actually can do, and what they can’t.
- Understand that “leadership” in the abstract only goes so far and that power is still required.
- Don’t pretend like examples from 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago are as useful as you want them to be.
- Be realistic about the ability of messaging and organizing to win elections in contests that are simply not competitive and aren’t going to be, due to lines on the map, and not actual voter preference.
Let me reiterate, I am not saying fifty-state strategies are bad. I am not saying “do not organize.” I am not rejecting messaging refinements.
I am trying to note what the real problem is, and am trying to note that if the Democratic Party, and people with megaphones like Ezra Klein, don’t start looking at that real problem, we are in even bigger trouble than we are now.
Simply saying that reform isn’t possible is not a response to what I am saying, especially since it was only 4 years ago that reform was at least theoretically possible, but the ground had not been prepared. The seeds need to be sown and the ideas need to be shared.
Even this post isn’t quite conveying what I want to convey, but I probably need to go do something else for a while.
Got it, loud and clear. Consider a future post with ideas, bullet points about specific reforms that you think might be most effective. Perhaps even some things us grassroots participants can do. Thanks.
It’s kind of an application of the Judge Gen Principle: reboot the country and start over.
Any kind of change that does not violate natural laws is, by definition, possible to effect. The likelihood of any change is a different matter, as is the effort and expense required to achieve it.
Political change usually takes a long, long, long time to achieve, and requires a lot of money to sustain the efforts to bring it about. How long did it take for women to get the right to vote in the US (and for that matter in plenty of other democracies)?
One advantage in federalized systems is that changes can happen in one of more states, even if not in the whole country. Half (or a quarter or a tenth) of something is better than all of nothing. Before the 19th amendment, some states did allow women to vote, and in some they could hold office.
So, a beginning requires 1) a group that will publish and advocate for its ideas in the media (all of it), to educate and influence the electorate on what is wrong, how it can be fixed, and how ti implement any changes. 2) a commitment to devote the time, energy, effort, money, and patience to do this; along with the acceptance that one may not see any meaningful change in one’s lifetime, but might have to leave it for the next generation, or even the one after that.
TL;DR: There are no easy answers does not mean there are no answers.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Constitution allows states to adopt PR individually. My recollection is that the census determines the number of Reps per state, and leaves choosing them up to the states.
AND, adopting PR unilaterally in blue states is a very bad idea, it seems to me.
So, is it even possible to mandate PR nationally? With a constitutional amendment, yes. But by statute?
Clearly expanding the House to 650 ish members is definitely possible and overdue. Why did we stop at 435? (Wait, I think I might know the answer.)
@Jay L. Gischer:
My understanding (and I’m sure I’ll be corrected if its wrong) is that the Constitution doesn’t say much about how the House is to be constructed, just gives Time, Place, and Manner instructions. Legislatively, through the Uniform Congressional District Act we’ve decided that all seats shall be fptp singl district seats. My understanding is that this was the situation pre-UCDA, but this act codified it.
Congress could pass the Proportional Multi Seat District Act if they had the political will and motivation.
@Jay L. Gischer:
The Constitution allows Congress to impose rules for House elections by the states. IIRC, there are statutes that require states with more than one Representative to establish districts, and elect members by district.
@Jay L. Gischer: @Neil Hudelson: @Michael Cain:
Congress could impose multi-seat districts and PR to elect the House.