election reformations

For those of you who drink, you're at least vaguely aware of the repeal of an amendment. There are two more which I feel need to go, but one in particular is an interesting case. The 17th. The 16th is the one we all hate and fear during April, and the 18th made alcohol quasi-illegal, as most casual students of history are aware. But 17 is a mystery to most. It has its roots in a very old problem, dating back to the Constitution's inception, perhaps even to the Articles before that. And it felt its opponents from the 'states rights' advocates, known also in many circles as the racist Southern contingent. So it can hardly be considered popular to bring it up as a topic of needed reform. But when it is considered why the reform was made in the first place, and where we are now, it seems to me that the reform was totally ineffective and has spurred problems of an unintended nature into the situation.

To begin with, consider why is it that the Senate and House have different structures? This is not directly tied to the issue of the 17th, but it plays havoc with the music in the background. What possible necessity is there for the several states to apportion a fixed number of representatives to a seperate house. The net effect of such a move has been studied and it can be shown that at many times, the federal spending of such states as would be over-represented, be it through population or wealth, is disproportionately high. States like Alaska have money enough to build bridges to nowhere thanks to their fairy-god Senators. Was this a necessary inclusion? Are the rights of the people of a less populated or less wealthy state somehow more exclusive than the rights of a crowded or enriching state? Apparently to some this is true. And indeed, there is something to be said for protecting the rights of a vigorous minority from the trampling herds. But the ill-conceived compromises on this matter resulted in a state whereby the states themselves appointed Senators to serve, not the populace. I surmise first that this portion of the compromise was not at all the problem, but that it is the breakdown of equal votes for each state that creates disingenuous feeling between the states. There was at the time a perfectly viable and reasonable alternative. Break the states down into groups, large, middle and small. Give larger states (like present-day California or New York) extra representation not merely in the House, but also in the Senate. It could be used with some formula of GNP and population to discern that a state that produces a high volume of some strategic material or high-end production is disproportionately important to the status of the overall union and likewise may deserve some additional say in these particular matters. I would rather it be this way than have states like Rhode Island, Alaska, and Delaware have powerful and influential Senators bringing home pork for their minions at home. The problems with this are mollified by the fact that actual representation in the House requires some caucusing of votes to achieve anything. But in the end, it can be accepted that the present number of Senators is at least moderately successful at apportioning such wealth and resource as is needed to attempt to raise the standard of the several states that are considered less fortunate; be it by lack of people or lack of innate wealth. This much at least is a useful check on the authority of power and wealth.

At least, it would be if there was a good deal less corruption involved in the process. Senatorial candidates generate vast sums of money for electoral purposes. Many among the citizenry have fallen disinterested in politics under the plain assumption that politicians are dirty and corrupt. It was precisely this assumption that ramrodded public support for the initiatives leading to the 17th amendment in the first place. All the way back at the turn of the 20th century, the great industrialists were seen as power brokers, buying and selling the shares of power, pocketing local and national authorities at will, flagrantly abusing their wealth to increase their standing and power even more so in the style of medieval barons.

Such images were striking and in an era of socialist feeling, a progressive movement formed demanding such popular reforms as were enacted. The first income taxes were levied, principally targeted then as now upon the wealthy. Then as now, the wealthy paid a considerable amount more than they felt entitled to do, and created loopholes. I do not begrudge them that, it is my deeply felt consideration that it is consumption and actual property that ought be taxed, not income. The earning of wealth should not be punished, excepting where it abuses and punishes the populace. Not every billion has such a story behind it. The women's movements carried forth a universal vote. Here I find it disturbing that we would have presented no open restrictions on race, but left intact those of gender for another 50 years, but then I wasn't entirely raised in the 19th century. Perhaps there was some hysterical "reason" for this. Finally, it was considered for whatever reason that the populace should select all its representatives to the national level. This was seen or at least touted as a cure for the corruption of public officials at the state level where such appointments were made. Making such elections as necessary to select Senators would make them accountable to the people rather than toward whatever corrupt officials that had bribed along the way.

Be that as it may, it was hardly successful. Senators in their intended use are to be a coolant for the cries and fouls of the populace. Our shortsightedness and ability to panic can be easily swayed and induced and it is intended, I believe usefully and deliberately, that a form of governance be enacted that checks this ridiculous nature at times. Dispatching from their purview this natural cause has left a curious position which has come to be occupied yet again by the very people that we were trying to eliminate. Namely, those special interests of the powerful and rich magnate types. Replaced now by faceless corporations, the robber baron mentality has persisted in corporate America's ceaseless manuevuers in the halls of government. Today influence is still peddled about as though it were a particularly sweet fruit on the corner market. It is still possible for us to see plainly the effective purchase with which many of our supposed representatives have been had. The total dependence on popular elections has created a drastically long campaign, rendering it necessary to create vast war chests for the electoral process, hardly an positive use of our representatives time. To spend it campaigning and pandering rather than legislating, which is perhaps a boon when there is little chance of the actual legislating being of particular benefit to the constituents of the entire country.

To my mind this problem is alleviated by one of two fronts. One, return Senators to the states' responsibilities with strong election oversight boards to punish corruption and graft. This returns the power to the people of that state with some indirect checks on the fickle power of the mob and removes the excessive need for campaigning with the public. Or two. Setup more transparent election campaign rules. Allow people or corporate entities to give as much as they want provided there is a clear announcement that they have done so. Make the candidates wear buttons from the major donors for example. The common people seem to understand the mishmash of stickers adorning race cars. Surely they would find the same concept useful with their elected representatives. Barring such outright endorsements, the information should be made available for public consumption and each entity which gives must have a clear title. Recent events in state elections where such transparency is required have shown that some entities will attempt through vague construction to give and have no one the wiser on who they are. This is preposterous. It should be possible with a modicum of investigation to be sure of who and where funding for a candidate is garnered.

This front is considerably more easily achieved and but does little to restore to the people considerable power. The mob must also be made observant for this to work. As I said, they are too busy watching race cars and trying to get Paris Hilton out of prison. I doubt very seriously if they are capable of stretching their intellectual resources to consider their election choices with vigor. As this was a fear of the Convention in the 1790s, it is hard to see how it can be resolved without restoring the original construct of elections. Namely, that the mob's power is reduced (and thus placed in higher esteem with all the greater duty and vigor attached that entails) by the means of limiting who votes also. I would strongly suggest that only such people that generate income independent of governments would vote. Some exception would be made for people who are in the process of education, be it job/trade training or college. But there is no reason for people to vote when they do not support themselves. So long as the primary sources of income for our government are provided through income taxation, then the fee for entry in participation shall be income. The founders established such limitations toward property, as it was then that property was taxed, for the express purpose and understanding that those who are burdened with taxes should have the express say what to do with those taxes. There was considerably better optimism at that time as to what this 'aristocracy' would do, and often did, compared to our present concerns on wealth. And with the broader base that supports our current government, there is plenty of check on the authority of the powerful and wealthy anyway.

This idea would remove two primary groups of voters, those who most easily mobilized with the persuasion of fear (hardly a useful voting motivation). One, elderly or disabled who are dependent on Medicare or social security. Two, people who are dependent on welfare. Of the second I am less concerned because the general rate of dependency on welfare is considerably shorter than is commonly thought. Most people cycle off it in less than a year. Horror stories abound, but they are the minority. Very few people would be afflicted over a lifetime. Of the first I find considerable importance as it places great emphasis on personal responsibility. People would have to make such accommodations during their working lifetimes to have some source of independent wealth and comforts. If they fail to take such actions, they would have a program entitled, as it is to anyone, to help take care of them. But they would also pay a fine in the element of losing the ability to vote. I feel that is a fair compromise. I would largely have some concern for people who have suffered some physical disability (those with severe mental problems are not at issue, nobody trusts a fool, or even a disturbed wise man, with a decision). But there again, there are means for such people to support themselves in part with income independent of government. In a great many cases such disability is not permanent or at least permanently preventing the ability to work or to hold some form of employment. Wheelchairs do not prevent people from working at a desk for example. Blindness or deafness do not prevent profitable activity either, and so forth.

If we are to resolve the problems of our elections and the corrupt vice of money that influences them, we must also establish such checks on the authority of the populace to abrogate for themselves such powers as are not earned or entitled. There is little cause for fear where the government steps in to aid the sufferings or to breakup the abuse of power in the marketplace. But where the government creates programs of entitlement, it creates a monopoly of dependency that none can match and very few can argue with. I do not think that a wise use of government. It's power lies principally in the service of justice, which is not given cause when people do not take some duty or responsibility for themselves.