(Editor’s note: The second segment of this multi-part series traces in part how we arrived at
the greatest concentration of wealth disparity in American History. In Part Three,
we begin to construct a practical solution.)
How do we restore meaningful equality of opportunity --- identified by Theodore Roosevelt as the
third great crisis in our nation’s history? Consider that the power to do so derives in
the place from which all legitimate power originates in a democracy --- from the ballot box.
The solution is at the ballot box. It involves strengthening the ordinary citizen’s vote to elect lawmakers accountable
to the public interest. Strengthened and
unshackled, the ordinary citizen’s vote is
bound to improve equality of opportunity over
time.
The solution accepts the plain reality that the
omnipresent “influence” which Thomas Jefferson first identified
cannot and should not be eliminated. It
can, however --- and must be --- reasonably checked.
This
can be accomplished by insulating
lawmakers from the pressures and corruptive influences of special interests in today’s
money-craving, material society. If the
incentive for self-interest is effectively contained, chances are much improved
that lawmakers will serve the people’s business, for they will be left with
little choice. The very idea of service
can be made to mean service --- and only service --- once again.
The good
news is that implementing a
sound, practical solution is not
complicated. It also appears to be readily
available. Consider the following
proposal, which contains three components, the first of which is discussed in
this segment.
The first component is tied to the front end of legislative
service. Our democratic system is
designed for voters to choose their legislators at the ballot box. But lawmakers have long chosen their voters in a self-serving custom by drawing arbitrary, movable lines around voting districts to make them “safe” from challenge by the other side. It’s opposite the way it’s supposed to work in a representative democracy and
therefore must be abolished. [i]
By way of
example, in the 2012 midterm elections, Democrats receive over 1.4 million more votes for the US House of Representatives than Republicans. Yet Republicans win control of the House by a
margin of 234 to 201 [ii], using
their distorted majority to frustrate the popular will on a range of important
issues. This is not democracy, certainly
not the way the founding fathers have envisioned it.
To be fair,
Democrats have reaped the benefit of this unfair and imbalanced system for
decades prior. The reality is that both
parties are culpable. Both share blame equally. The system has evolved such that in the 2014
Congressional midterm elections, relatively few incumbents actually face
realistic challenges.
The drawing
of legislative districts so tightly in their favor to suit the pleasure of each
party’s ideological base serves two efficient but self-serving, undemocratic
ends. First, the possibility of ouster
is seen as being remote. Second, the
incentive for compromise in crafting
national legislation is greatly reduced.
Put another
way, primary candidates must pander to their party’s extremist elements. To the frustration of the ordinary citizen,
and the mainstream at the center line, the concept of partisan gridlock
results. And so it goes.
Moreover, Republicans in this instance now seek to extend
and advance this system of cherry picking constituents to the presidential
electoral college. The scheme, initiated so that the loser of the popular vote could more easily win
key states and the presidency, is an undesirable threat to representative
democracy and must be strongly resisted.
(Editor’s note: The fourth segment in this continuing multi-part
series highlights the solution’s second
component.)
-Michael D’Angelo
[i] On the federal
level, the practice is popularly known as “gerrymandering,” or setting electoral
districts that attempt to establish a party’s political advantage by
manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan advantaged
districts. The practice dates back to the early 1800s and was named for
Elbridge Gerry, the Massachusetts
[ii] Wang, Sam,
“The Great Gerrymander of 2012,” The New
York Times, February 2, 2013. ... For an analysis of how voting
districts are being made more “safe, lily-white” as the nation is becoming more
racially diverse, see Friedman, Thomas L., “Our Democracy Is At Stake,” The New York Times, October 1, 2013.
