It’s the time of year where many of us contemplate New Year’s Resolutions—a set of goals and habits we set for ourselves to start the New Year on the best possible footing. This is the week where most New Year’s Resolutions are broken—within 17-18 days, according to some studies—but all is not yet lost. But what are some appropriate New Year’s Resolutions for America and America’s system of government?
We’ve already covered U.S. history in our “One Country, Two Histories” series, and also given an overview of the slate of presidential candidates. It’s likely that we’ll continue a bit of politics/history coverage this year, given the upcoming elections. Of course, our focus here will seek to provide some distance from the immediacy of most media coverage, and provide context and perspective as objectively as possible.
In this post, we’ll cover a few suggestions Americans might consider, and weigh the pros and cons of each. I do not necessarily endorse them (quite the contrary, in some cases), but I do find them thought-provoking, and many of them strike at frighteningly open-ended questions: what sort of country do we want America to be, and why? It is critical to confront these questions with an open mind.
That said: these ideas are generally “system” ideas, not “policy” ideas—they focus on the working of America’s political processes rather than the policy outcomes of those processes. Let’s take a brief look at a few.
School’s Out: Abolishing the Electoral College
The Electoral College effectively turns the national presidential election into a series of state-wide elections, the outcomes of which are usually winner-take-all. Each state election win is weighted proportionate to its representation in both houses of Congress to contribute toward a candidate’s national total. It’s a convoluted system that gives small states a disproportionate share in presidential voting, since only one house of Congress is proportionate to population. For instance, Wyoming has three electoral votes, or one for every ~190,000 people (as of 2020 census). California has 55 electoral votes, but nearly ~720,000 people for each—thus a single Wyoming ballot is 3.5x more impactful than a single California one.
By contrast, a popular vote does away with such complications, and gives equal weight to every vote in calculating a national total. This effectively renders state boundaries irrelevant, which may make sense for a national election. Further, it’s happened in the past (2016, for instance) that a popular vote winner is the electoral vote loser—meaning that the majority of voters are dissatisfied with the winning candidate. How can this be consistent with the principle of majority rule?
The short answer is: it’s not. The long answer? In idealistic terms, America’s founding was a series of balancing acts meant to allow for majority rule while safeguarding the minority against majoritarian tyranny. Put differently: majority rule with limits to protect the rights of all citizens. The majority, for instance, cannot demand for the extrajudicial execution of any unpopular person—although to accommodate such a demand would be perfectly consistent with the principle of majority rule. Therefore, America was never founded as a majoritarian democracy, and any rhetorical references to it as such are, at best, merely more mud in the political water—and at worst, a deliberate attempt to misrepresent America’s past and manipulate its future.
In practical terms, the authors of America’s Constitution had a number of immediate concerns. They were essentially staging discussions designed to replace the existing American Confederation, and needed support from nine of the thirteen original states. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts may have dominated in population, but these needed to coax states like Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut into the new federal system. Recall, at the time each state was seen virtually as a sovereign nation in its own right, and the Constitution’s architects were asking them to give up a great deal of this sovereignty. Large state-small state compromises included the two-house Congress and the corresponding weighting of votes in the Electoral College—which would always give small states an advantage in national elections.
An analysis of population data between the 1790 and 2020 censuses is revealing. Using the % of population from each state, we can calculate the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which measures concentration. The HHI suggests an “effective” number of hypothetical equally-populated states as 22 in 2020 (vs. 50 actual states), and 10 in 1790 (vs. 15 states). What does this mean? It means that despite more than tripling the number of states since 1790, the “effective” number of states has just more than doubled. This suggests a higher discrepancy in state populations now than in the past, and that the original intent of the Electoral College remains relevant.
America has moved far along the path toward federal power and away from state power, so perhaps the argument that states’ rights need to be deferred to on this question carries little remaining weight. The counter-question is whether a majority of voters can be trusted to make electoral and policy decisions for all voters in different spheres—large states like California and Texas already have greater representation in Congress and dominate our national discourse far more than small states. Perhaps the Electoral College therefore remains fair and just.
De Facto Runoffs
In our presidential candidates overview, we touched on the idea (a poor idea, in my view) that voting for a third-party candidate simply because you like them is dangerous, as it deprives the “most acceptable” mainstream candidate of a vote they may need. My counter to this would be that voting for a candidate that isn’t your first choice deprives you of your own vote—which is far more serious.
YouTuber CPG Grey has an excellent video on a potential solution—voters can rank candidates on their ballot, and their vote will be allocated where it has the most impact on the election. For instance, a voter with a soft spot for the Green Party who can tolerate Democrats but can’t stand Republicans could select longtime Green Party candidate Jill Stein as their first choice, and rank the Dem candidate second. If Stein ends up without a snowball’s chance of winning, the vote will be tallied toward the Democrat.
This effectively amounts to a preemptive runoff—where votes will be moved around for maximum effect based on the stated preferences of each voter. Such a system would prevent the usual foul-smelling binary choice so many Americans feel forced into making, and possibly offer more viability for small parties to gain traction. Of course, the two major parties would surely oppose such a system—given that adopting it implies that they have collectively failed to provide America with acceptable political candidates.
Self-Pay Only: Eliminating Campaign Finance
Campaign finance has been frequently talked about, with some decrying the necessity of Political Action Committees (PACs) spending huge sums to back candidates at all levels for election. Political candidates actively solicit donations on their websites, and the need for large sums of money often cause politicians to forge corporate alliances that serve special interests rather than the people.
Politicians and voters of all stripes recognize that the system could use some guardrails or limits. My suggestion is more extreme: criminalize all outside sources of funding for politicians at local, state, and federal elections. If you want to run for office, you pay for everything yourself.
I anticipate four major objections to such an idea, which I address below.
1: By requiring candidates to fully fund their own campaigns, a nation may essentially restrict the privilege of office to those who are independently wealthy.
This is a fair point. It’s undemocratic to make independent wealth or spare time a precondition for public service. But the suggestion ought not to compete with the democratic ideal. It ought to compete with the reality of American government today. Therefore I ask, which is better:
- A system in which wealth is an essential requirement for office (say, only the richest 5% of Americans are practically eligible), and this wealth must be acquired prior to running, or
- Today’s system, in which politicians run for office and often amass considerable wealth through donations, insider investments, and general corruption? Seeing career politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell accumulate multi-millions on a low-six-figure salary is clear evidence that the problem isn’t “money chasing politics”, but “politics chasing money”.
2: Modern communication platforms are expensive to access, and candidates therefore have to spend large amounts of money simply to get their message out, especially in national elections.
This point has long been made, but I question whether it has seen any updates in the last two decades. True, TV and radio ads are expensive, but—seriously? Technology is constantly creating new ways to communicate with mass audiences—at ever lower costs. I could see a future where candidates explain their policy platforms in YouTube videos and podcasts, while livestreaming campaign speeches and debates on Twitch! It may sound silly, but this technology exists already. Such platforms could even offer an algorithmic boost to candidates (would have to be equal for all parties, of course) if they can prove they’ve filed to officially run in a given election.
The “loser” under such a change would be the mainstream media providers, who sell ad slots, host debates, and (in many cases) make a killing by tapping Americans’ biases. Surely such companies would lobby vociferously against any campaign finance prohibitions—but we don’t need these companies to determine how American is run.
3: By eliminating all donations, such a law would prohibit Americans from voting with their wallets.
This is exactly the point. Voting isn’t meant to be tied to wealth (although we’ll discuss a similar suggestion in a minute). It should be generally accepted that elections should depend on votes, not on funding.
4; Politicians can’t be expected to introduce or support such legislation. To do so would strike at the heart of the system that’s given them their status.
You got me there. To pass such a suggestion would likely require some sort of nationwide initiative.
Get What You Pay For: Tax-Weighted Voting
Instead of the “one man, one vote” principle, what about a system in which individual votes are weighted based on how many dollars in taxes (of all types) each individual paid? It wouldn’t have to be a linear relationship—for instance Elon Musk could be “capped” at, say, 100 votes. Such a system would allow government spending to be more influenced by those who pay for it in proportion to their share of the payment. It’s interesting to wonder how this might apply at the state level as well: even how it might affect Electoral College weights.
While interesting and meritocratic in some sense, this is almost too democratic. We don’t vote on federal spending measures directly—our representatives do. A measure such as this is likely to be more applicable to a society like ancient Athens where citizens vote directly on matters themselves.
Another issue is whether this applies to corporations, who pay a great deal of taxes themselves. Yet this adaptation of “corporations are people, my friend” requires some determination on how these votes are allocated—to shareholders, for instance—and thus puts greatly disproportionate share of the voting power into the hands of the wealthy. Further, many Americans pay no federal tax, and thus would be denied any federal ballot, although accumulated sales taxes may count at the state level.
While a ridiculous idea on the face of it, we must again compare it to the alternative, not the ideal. A tax-weighted voting system might reward and incentivize the production of wealth, but at the cost of placing more power in the hands of the already rich and powerful. It’s interesting to think about how some limits on such a scheme may mitigate the risks, but this proposal contradicts our earlier point: that we need to get money out of politics, not in.
Courting Disaster? No More Checks, Please!
Here’s a radical one: eliminate the Supreme Court. And the rest of the federal appellate court system, while we’re at it. The U.S. Supreme Court has come under fire for controversial rulings in the past—first acknowledge pre-existing abortion rights (1973), then changing its mind fifty years later (2022), acknowledge equal rights for homosexual couples (2015), upholding racial segregation (1896) and banning it (1954). Why not simply eliminate it, and let Congress legislate according to the preferences of the people as expressed through their elected representatives?
While a stunning suggestion, this has actually been seriously considered by other nations who purport to be liberal democracies. This year, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has pushed for a series of judicial reforms that would essentially make the Israeli courts powerless to overturn any action which gained a certain number of votes in the Israeli legislature, the Knesset. These proposals were met were massive protests in Israeli, with some commentators referring to the country as “on the brink of civil war”. Here’s an interesting overview of some of the issues in Israel around this topic. Of course, subsequent events in the Israel-Hamas war have gathered most of the headlines, and galvanized public opinion in Israel.
Eliminating a body that is meant to be a check against the direct representatives of the people would be a step toward majoritarian tyranny. Essentially, an opinion on this proposal requires an answer to the following: is America’s ideal state a majoritarian democracy or a constitutional republic? In the former, the will of the greatest number is the highest law. In the latter, the will of any number, however great, is subject to predetermined limits and laws.
Blast from the Past: Indirect Senators?
In the beginning, American senators were elected by the legislatures of each state, usually from amongst themselves. Since the 17th Amendment passed in 1913, senators have been elected the same way as representatives: by the direct votes of the people. This is certainly a more democratic way to do it, but it calls into question the unique purpose for which the Senate was created.
The compromises which created the two-house legislature enshrined in the Constitution two forms of representation. The House would represent the people, with each state receiving delegates in proportion to population, elected by the direct votes of the electorate. The Senate would represent the states, with two senators from each state, chosen by the legislators of each state. Such a compromise was necessary (as we’ve already said) to provide a framework acceptable to the smaller states.
From the beginning, the two bodies had different functions. The House voted on spending bills and impeachment articles; the Senate ratified foreign treaties, approved presidential appointments, and served as jury in impeachment proceedings. It’s clear that the various duties of each house were a deliberate attempt to place certain processes of government accountable to the people or to the states, depending on which house of Congress was given each responsibility. The House was accountable to the people, with elections every two years. Senators were accountable to their colleagues in each state capitol, with one-third of seats up for election every two years, and each senator serving a six-year term.
The term structures remain different between the House and Senate—and therefore the House remains more responsive to changes in voter preferences. But if the Senate’s peculiar Constitutional duties were assigned to it based on the presumption that the Senate represented the states, direct election of senators by the people seems to obviate the need for any distinction between House and Senate.
This inconsistency could be resolved in two broad ways: either consolidate Congress into a single house, or revert to elected senators via the state legislatures. Consolidation would certainly make a more responsive Congress that more effectively represents the national majoritarian will. Indirect senatorial elections would pass some level of power back to the states, where it was meant to belong in the first place, and possibly exhort Americans pay more attention to elections in their own states. Again, a preference on this issue requires an opinion on the merits and risks of majoritarianism—which we’ve already discussed at length.
Why It Matters
These ideas aren’t necessarily good ones, and none are likely to occur this year. But a look at our government as designed in 1787 and as functioning today would show that a lot has changed, for better and worse. In the long run, America’s government will change to reflect the opinions of the electorate on what sort of system best realizes America’s ideals—but this requires we, the electorate, to have such opinions, and to mull them over thoroughly. It is with this in mind that we present the above.
