Some Thoughts on America's Multi-Party System

From time to time political commentators and political novices (all mostly of the left variety) lament that if only America had a multi-party system like Europe does then we would all be ok. I think that's hogwash. America does have a multi-party system (I would argue at least 8), what is missing is the election day free for all and post election horse trading of European Politics. Which from political theater stand point is awesome and as a political junkie I would love to experience it. From a practical standpoint, not so much.

Instead of the chaos America gets that out of the way in the primary stage, narrowing the many factions down to two major choices with the malcontents of the two parties (usually the far ends and the center) occasionally posting third party candidates. Both styles result in the same thing the majority of the time, a right of center or left of center government (there are of course notable exceptions but you will be hard pressed to find many of them).

The key difference between the two forms is that one is good at hiding differences as well as co-opting them in the name of coalition stability (America), whereas the other (Europe) is good at highlighting these differences in order to promote individual factions and their respective hot button issues. Regardless each system has more or less the following 8 divisions:

Far-Left
Left
Center-Left
Center
Center-Right
Right
Far-Right
Politically Agnostic

In Europe they are given party names, in America they run in the Republican or the Democratic primaries. In America in a way it's like Communist party politics; all the factions fighting it out behind closed doors but in the end they all belong to the same party which has the power. The American system preserves stability for a set period of time while many European systems, because of their fractious parties, reflect more of the mood of the people and can be more volatile  (snap elections, government's falling after a crisis, etc).

Of course I am not advocating one or the other. I myself would prefer an open primary with a top two candidate runoff as my election model of choice. I think that would be fairer to states that tilt one way or the other of center (think Texas or Massachusetts). What I mean to say with this post is that most Americans don't choose to exercise their right to influence the coalitions that are the Democratic and Republican parties for whatever reason. Yet, in my opinion, even if they did the end result would more than likely be a centerish government such as American democracy, and democracy as a whole, has always put forth.

Some Thoughts on the 10th Amendment

With the "introduction" of Rick Perry into the GOP race for the Presidency has come the debate pertaining to his "ideas". One of his so called "ideas" is that the 10th Amendment is supreme and lays most of the federal government unconstitutional. Now besides the fact that the 10th Amendment is at odds with this clause, this clause and this clause, or that the 10th has basically been dead since the Civil War, and forgetting the fact that Perry used to be a Democrat, rule by the 10th is a really really really bad way to govern.

Imagine if each state had their form of Social Security as Perry insinuates they should. Think of the redundant costs and overlapping pensions. Or think about how much this would restrict movement between states for employment. There are certain things that are better done on a large and national scale, such as currency, defense, entitlements, pensions, etc. Unfortunately the founding fathers did not have the foresight to write them all into the Constitution, hence why they wrote in escape clauses such as Necessary and Proper and the Commerce Clause. But it appears that Rick Perry sees something that he likes and just runs with it and he will be damned with the facts and contradicting arguments.

Some Thoughts on Proportional Representation, by State Delegation, in the US House of Representatives

After listening to Ken Rudin & Ron Elving talk about redistricting for a brief couple of minutes on last weeks It's All Politics (I really wish they dedicated more time to it) I was struck with a brilliant idea (of which I have many): Why not determine House delegations via proportional representation? Now my initial reaction was that this must not be constitutional. Yet upon a reading of Article I of the US Constitution it became evidently clear that the election of a defined number of representatives is up to each individual state unless superseded by federal law. Which means states can do whatever they want as long as they come to the correct total of legislators unless Congress says no.

That is of course where I hit a snag. Federal law since 1967 does in fact say all Reps must come from districts of equal size.

I do however think the benefits of proportional representation are great enough to warrant the repeal of that law. I think it would promote the use of third parties in the US, in more populous states it would allow for greater representation among minorities, and would result in less "big wave elections". With that said I am a huge proponent of a system that has more than 2 parties and can't be trusted.

Now if the US were to repeal that law I am worried that Wesberry v. Sanders might get in the way of constitutionality. I would argue that because the ratio of population to the number of reps is more or less equal in each state then therefore you are achieving 1 person 1 vote. But I can entertain the argument that because, under a proportional system, I have access to 9 Reps in MA that I have more of a say on issues that come before the US House than one in ND does.

The Bottom Line: Is proportional representation in the US House by state delegations legal? No because of a 1967 law requiring districts. Upon repeal of that law would it be Constitutional? More likely than not.

Some Thoughts on Happiness & Politics

My initial reaction to this Businessweek story was "Really?" Mostly because I would never blame the current state of the economy on the President, good or bad. Then I realized what the article really was saying; more than anything people vote with their happiness. If times are good, people are more obliged to keep it that way, and are less likely to vote in an unknown. But when times are bad, people are more likely to take a look at what the other guy is selling. I think the best example of this was Ronald Reagan's famous line, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" That line directly linked the state of one's life to Jimmy Carter's election in 1976 (to be fair unemployment was practically the same when he came in as when he went out but it was the lower numbers in between that he was judged on) and back to the present, and guess what? A whole lot of people said no.

It doesn't matter how trustworthy Barack Obama is or how cool he seems, if he is tagged with making millions of people unhappy then he stands no chance at reelection and with the current economic numbers and the inability of Washington to do anything good for the economy, one never knows.

Some Thoughts on Mitch Daniels

I never thought he would run, mostly because it would have been very hard for him to talk candidly about the debt and spending problems when the opposition (GOP and Dem alike) tried to paint those problems as his to begin with (he was George W Bush's budget man). With that said, if he had run I do not think he would have garnered as much support as everyone was saying he was bound to get. I think Mitt Romney has all ready staked his claim as the moderate Republican, with Tim Pawlenty to the right and John Huntsman trying to be slightly to Romney's left. I saw no space for Daniels and my guess is Daniels saw that as well.

I had planned to write about how I thought Daniels mirrored the prospect of Wesley Clark in 2004, but I was overtaken by events.

Some Thoughts On Abolishing the Senate

To start off it should be known that I am not delusional enough to think that this is even remotely possible, you aren't going to see 66 votes in the US Senate nor the 38 State legislature approval needed for the Constitutional Amendment but that doesn't stop me from speculating!

Ezra Klein had a short post recently illustrating how ridiculous a notion the makeup of the Senate is, best expressed by how a Senate vote in Wyoming is worth 68 times more than it is in California. Not exactly fair but it was a necessary compromise needed to bring the smaller states (such as Rhode Island & Delaware) into the Union with larger, more populous states (such as Virginia and Massachusetts) who favored the model used in the house (proportional representation). With that said the 3/5 Compromise was stripped out of the Constitution quite some time ago, though it should be noted however it took a costly Civil War to right that injustice.

In a world molded by my hands I would see the Senate abolished and 100 seats added to the US House of Representatives bringing our avg district population down to 484,000 which would move us from 2nd worst representative to only the 3rd worst. I would prefer to see the US add even more seats but an 1:1 consolidation of the two chambers sounds better. The consolidation would obviously have to revolve around the completion of a census year to bring into the fold the proper proportion of House seats per state.

As for the duties of the Senate (treaty approval, judicial & executive nominations, etc.) either the House would assume all of them or the House could nominate per 2-year session a committee, chaired by the Speaker, that's sole duty was to pass or fail these. I think I would prefer to still give the House the full up or down vote for this partially because the more representative of the US population the better. But mostly because I don't think adding these duties would be all that much of a burden to the House, especially if we were to limit the amount of executive positions that need confirmation which are at about 1,400 (and this would be a great excuse to do so).

Some great side effects of this "merger" would be the elimination of the Senate Pro Tempore from the line of succession as well as the annihilation of all Senate rules such as cloture and secret holds. And who knows maybe we would do away with that pesky Electoral College while we are at it?

The main goal here, as I stated above, would be to make elections fairer. But the obvious side effect from this would be the elevation of the Speaker of the House to near the level of the President, if not above the President. I think it would be a good thing, possibly stop, or at least be a great check on the Imperial Presidency and shift the power back in the direction that the founders assumed it would be.

But again, this will never happen.

Some Thoughts On The Economist May 14th - 20th 2011

Really good Afghan coverage this week, paired with this news, I think my thoughts from earlier in the week are looking better.

Did someone say bubble?
I do think some of these companies are overvalued considering in the end all they hold are pageviews which navigate to the coolest new trends but with that said the market and technology are not the same as a decade ago. Then again I know only what I read online and hear from Planet Money.

Microsoft did not buy Skype to make money, because this market will never make money, especially with Google and Apple all ready in the game and I'm sure Facebook will jump in at some point as well. They must have bought it to integrate it into a future OS and enhance current products. Personally I would like to see, and I think we will some day, an integration of video chatting into the phone system as a whole, regardless of what operator you use.

List the World Cup on Ebay?
Would eliminate board corruption, would reward teams who are looking to spend money on the sport and would set the drama to zero? I'm cool with it.

Security State? You must be white.
Caveat: I'm a middle class, white, male.
I find it interesting that the majority of this country found it ok that people could be stopped at random, searched, roughed up and jailed on a bogus charge but to be inconvenienced at the airport is an outrage.

Once Again......
I would like to stress that if China and India do not start importing females soon then they are in for a whole lot of social upheaval in the next few decades. If China doesn't end its one child policy soon it is going to need to really liberalize on immigration to deal with the huge increase in retirees going forward. In other words China's ascendancy is in for a rocky furture

Consolation Prize
It appears that although we have seen our retirement funds wither away, debt pile up and had to deal with job insecurity all of that was a rouse win back our jobs from the Chinese!

To limit or not to limit?
I think its moronic that we kid ourself into thinking that putting limits on our debt but not our spending will keep us from appropriating too many funds. With that said I like that it requires us to think about our debt obligations and reassess if it is the right thing to do, regardless of how stupid the debate becomes.

Some Thoughts On Newt's Announcement

You may or may not have heard, but former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich announced that he will in fact run for President of the United States.  This was an announcement that was widely expected for months now. It is also widely expected that Newt will not win the nomination. Why is that known you might ask? It has something to do with his love life and how it plays with this, his thoughts about the seating arrangements on Air Force One, and the fact that Bill Clinton stole his lunch. But of course the news networks will cover him and his run like he matters. Again, your 4th Estate at work!

The Economist April 30th - May 6th 2011

Cloud Computing's Growing Pains: Break-ins and breakdowns
What I find hilarious about the outrage with the compromising of data online is that people seem to think that this is innately due to the relative newness of the technology and the corresponding market. The thought that overtime this won't happen is ludicrous. People still rob banks, piracy continues to plague the seas and muggings still happen. All this even though we now have security cameras, spend billions on anti piracy measures and personal use of mace and tasers. Online capers will never go away, the stakes will only get higher.

America's transport infrastructure: Life in the slow lane
I love infrastructure projects, and I loathe the lack of train infrastructure in the US. So it should not come as a surprise that I agree that the US is woefully underspending on infrastructure. We are not just talking about potholes either, we area talking about losing economic prowess and jobs to other countries because we make the cost of doing business harder due to our lack of a modern transport network.

America's jobless me: Decline of the working man
And while we are at it why don't we employee the millions of men in the construction trade to improve that said transport infrastructure?

Europe's political parties: The shrinking big tents
While reading this I couldn't help relate it to the fragmentation of TV since the introduction of cable channels. The overwhelming majority of viewers of television in the US used to be held by the big three broadcasting companies ABC, NBC and CBS but now because of the spread of satellite and cable technologies as well as the internet their ratings are shrinking. Like TV ratings votes in political systems that allow for choice (parliamentary systems) are spreading out across the spectrum. This must be because of the internet and the downward cost of advertising that allows people to easily identify and engage with smaller parties instead of having to choose between the political behemoths that used to dominate the market.

Nuptial Economics: Unbridled
A $19,000 signing bonus to marry a woman from the UAE?

Economic Focus: Botox and beancounting
Why do country's report official economic numbers in such varying ways? Do they not realize that they only confuse those who vote? Oh wait....

Some Thoughts on The Economist April 23rd - 29th 2011

This weekly post has everything to do with me forcing myself to read the whole Economist by Tuesday and nothing to do with you caring. I will try to keep it to less than 10 articles a week because that is the limit for non-subscribers.

Thrusters v Laggers

I am eagerly looking forward to the year that we more or less have a national primary day and we can dispose of this 6 month primary nonsense. I have no facts to back up my case, but I would be willing to guess that the extended primary season contributes heavily to the billions spent on elections. Personally I would love to see a national primary day in the beginning of July followed by a run off for the top two in each party in September followed by 2 months of campaigning and then the final match-up in November. We would save money and vastly shorten the presidential campaign season, maybe this might even benefit governance in someway.

Brazil's Economy: Wild Horses

I really just wanted to call your attention to this graph more than anything. Bad news for US citizens and their Brazilian vacations but good news for those US citizens looking to sell US products to Brazilians.

The River Nile: A dam nuisance

Insult to injury right here, not only is Egypt losing clout due to an internal power struggle (you call it democracy I call it veiled elites vying for power, pun intended) but their upstream neighbors get together and steal the water rights to to one of their national treasures! I'm linking to this because when most of us think about water rights we  imagine Western states jockeying for the ability to keep their grass green in the middle of the desert. This is all about the ability to harness the Nile for energy purposes, which all of Africa is going to need badly when the boom times kick in to top gear. Wars will be fought over water but possible not for drinking purposes.

Croatia and Serbia: Protest days

One country's war hero is the rest of the world's war criminal. Makes you wonder what would have happened to a certain Civil War General if the war was fought in the present international climate.

Others:
Schumpeter: The case against globaloney
Bagehot: No more royal weddings
Direct Democracy: Vox populi or hoi polloi?
Out-of-home advertising: Billboard boom

The Donald

I honestly was not paying attention much to Donald Trump's latest flirtation with politics mostly because that is all it probably will end up being in the end, simple flirtation. That is until I read The Economist this week (love the art btw) and came away from it with a new sense of what the phenomenon is truly about.

What struck me most in Lexington's column was this line, "We'll be taking in hundreds of billions of dollars from other countries that are screwing us." Now it may be because I am currently reeling from an episode over Easter in which I feel I was unfairly denied my ability to win, or it may be because I am finely tuned into American culture, regardless, America loves to blame the opposing team, not themselves, and Mr. Trump is acutely aware of that.

We as Americans are never far from insinuating cheating when a situation does not go our way. It's never because the losing team was over matched, because admitting as much would be the same as admitting failure, the real reason is usually because of some shenanigans by our opponents or the referees or both. So when Mr.Trump says we will take the billions back that were wrongly taken from us by those cheating Chinese he is striking at the heart of our inability to admit that we are in fact probably not the best at everything.

We as Americans refuse to admit as much, and why not? We kick ass in every sport that matters to us (See: "World Series" or "World Champions"), we sweep the Olympics every year, we have the best military, Hollywood, and we landed on the moon. We are amazing. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with high confidence, that's precisely why America has gotten where it has gotten. Though we may have been winning the race for the better part of the past century we didn't lose our lead because we were tripped, we did so because we became complacent. And nothing Mr. Trump can say will change that.