POSITIVE POLITICS

A massive failure in American elections is the fact that it’s actually far more difficult to register dissatisfaction of a candidate than we realize. The way we vote is akin to ‘liking’ in the pre-emoji days of Facebook, when users were clamoring for a way to show varying levels of approval on posts. A video of Lebron heaving egg-nog on Justin Bieber at the world’s most debauched Christmas party may have garnered a massive amount of likes. But that same video may have in fact been simultaneously the most disliked video of all time. In fact, there may have been more people that hated it, than loved it. But we would never know without a mechanism to measure displeasure. The most accurate means of gauging support for anything is to count not just the number of yes’, but also the amount of sures, maybes, no’s and HELL NO’s.
 
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), also known as Instant Runoff Voting is a straightforward method of selecting governmental leadership currently used in several American cities and states, from Maine to Alaska. Many forms exist, but the one most likely to meet success in our current general elections would be a modified version of what is referred to as Supplemental Voting, a type of RCV that allows voters to designate a first choice as well as a second one to be taken into consideration if the first is eliminated from contention. Here is a quick video intro into the mechanics of how it works.

Aside from the issue of fairness, what would be the benefits of embracing Ranked Choice Voting? First, and perhaps most importantly, its implementation would result in our country’s leadership having a much stronger claim to national consensus than they currently do. None of us need to go back very far in our memories to remember a time when exasperated voters held their noses and voted for the ‘least worst’ candidate. They did this because they reasoned that a vote for anyone other than one of the two front runners would effectively help their least favorite candidate win the election. They did it because they are only allowed to render one opinion at the ballot box, depriving a complex human being, and an equally complex electoral system, of even the slightest hint of nuance.

This is how the two major parties use the binary choice described above to forever maintain our nation’s destructively divisive duopoly. Because it is virtually impossible for third parties to get any breathing room when the elephant and donkey are taking up all the oxygen. Nobody wants to throw away their vote, but that’s exactly what a vote for a third party with no chance of winning often is. So, violating our values and consciences, we make the practical decision to vote for one of the two privileged, mainstream candidates. Allowing voters to pick their favorite candidate first and their practical candidate as a backup will finally let Americans vote freely, without compromising their conscience in the name of expediency.

Finally, the effect that RCV will have on our elections goes well beyond the voting booth. The campaigns themselves will become far less divisive, far more substantive, and provide a much-needed tourniquet to the bloodletting that is 21^st century American politics. When politicians can’t rely on demonizing their opposition and actively seek to become both the first and second choice of voters, they stop alienating those outside of their base and reach out to the wider public for support. The idea of more positive elections may seem like a fanciful pipe dream, but it’s real, it’s empirical and it’s not just a theory. Regions that implement RCV report fewer negative advertisements and less partisanship.

It’s time to implement Ranked Choice Voting on a nationwide scale. Because unfortunately right now we are akin to hungry diners given a menu with three options; apple pie, raw fish guts and arsenic. Except in this case, we’re told that we can’t have a backup choice; meaning if we choose the pie and the restaraunt happens to be out of stock, we may get stuck with the arsenic. So every few years we hold our noses and gobble down raw fish guts to avoid eating arsenic; corrupting ourselves and our entire system in the process.

There is a better way. It’s called Ranked Choice Voting, and it’s the single most important reform we can implement, state-by-state, to make our country more productive, more pleasant, and more democratic.

The idea is to create a one-stop shop online portal for every American when it comes to dealing with the most essential functions of government. This includes everything from taxes to student loans and voter registration. For now let’s focus on voter registration, and see how we can utilize the same technology that gave us farmersonly.com to achieve the most noble of democratic goals; greater electoral participation.

Pretty much every American born or naturalized today has a unique national ID. It’s called a Social Security number, and it allows the government to identify us for the purposes of collecting taxes, dispersing benefits and making sure we are who we say we are. So why not use this special identifier to help us register to vote? Right now the principal means of registration is carried out by the parties themselves, which is basically giving the wolves a key to the henhouse. It’s no wonder every year we’re dealing with ACORN and Rock the Vote or some nursing home scam. And not only do parties and their contractors have an incentivize to not register those of opposing viewpoints, but by making people’s very first political act to literally sign their name over to an organization they hardly know, we are from the very outset dowsing each new voter in the acid bath of partisan politics that is dissolving the civility of this nation in front of our eyes.

So how do we fix it? By taking a concept used in virtually every advanced democracy and making it modern, and making it American. Some of our fellow citizens have gotten the ball rolling for us, as twenty different states have already approved some version of automatic registration. And while it is laudable for states to do what they can to register as many of their residents as possible, the federal government could do so far more effectually and far, far more cheaply through the creation of an electronic voter database that already exists in the form of Social Security accounts. All it would take is for an expanded FEC to register each citizen based on their legal permanent residence, gleaned through any number of state and federal registries. This would effectively cleanse state voter rolls of the millions of duplicate or deceased entries currently in them, eliminating the phantom menace of voter fraud in one fell swoop. Then, through the creation of USAccounts, each citizen can log-in and update their residency whenever they move (the main reason why twelve million people are registered at incorrect addresses) or request an absentee ballot, no party affiliation required. The technology is there. It’s used every day by billions who log-in to Facebook, their bank or the multitude of secure government run-websites, from FAFSA to the IRS. And while managed by a federal system that automatically registers every citizen upon turning 18, state and county election divisions will still be responsible for keeping paper records and of course, for the actual implementation of elections. Elections mind you, where a third of the tax-payer funded budget deals solely with registration, and where staff spend the vital weeks before the vote swamped by a flood of new applications.

Additionally, the actual voting process would become much smoother. Local polling places could be streamlined with the same type of kiosks that print our boarding passes at the airport to allow voters the flexibility to vote at any local or state precinct, not just the one they are assigned. And if you’ve ever witnessed how quickly a line can grow when just one voter has an issue confirming their registration, you know that alone would make it all worthwhile. An added winner of an automatic registration system that eliminates the scourge of mandatory party membership, is privacy. That insufferable question so are you a Republican or a Democrat? can finally go the way of the dodo as we learn to no longer define ourselves by D’s and R’s, and instead feel the freeing faculty to take unencumbered policy positions or, gasp, no position at all! Your nosy family, your nosier stalker (it’s public record) and the nosiest politicians scrambling to gerrymander your congressional district may not like it, but at least they too can discover the freedom of thinking outside the confines of party fealty.

So let’s make automatic voter registration a reality, even if we have to do it using the current confines of state-based voter rolls. Because a quarter of eligible Americans are unregistered; an eighth of those who are, list incorrect information; nearly three million people are recorded in multiple states and two million are registered even though they are dead. C’mon. That’s just embarrassing.  

Limited direct democracy works. From its American beginnings in North Dakota, to ending Apartheid in South Africa and to running Switzerland like clockwork today, the best way to find out what people want is to just ask them! Therefore let us consider one direct initiative and one popular referendum every four years, requiring 60% approval of at least half of the American electorate, with safeguards in both the legislative and judicial branches. This is not an unreasonable request. Similarly, the ability for Americans to amend their Constitution when surpassing an overwhelming 66% threshold, is not irrational either. And crucially, the inability of the electorate to remove a president from office is not only highly unusual, it is an affront to the sovereignty of the very people who put them there in the first place. The proposals herein are rational, practical and right. And while it may be a challenge to achieve them, once attained, the real authority derived from the people, will, for the first time ever, be exercised by the people.

America, you are Susan Boyle. There are those who doubt you. They don’t want you on the stage. They snicker because you dare to dream the dream of true self-determination. Now is the chance to prove once and for all, that you will be heard.

The Two Step Process to Amending the Constitution 
1) A 60% vote in the House of Representatives places the proposed amendment on the national ballot in the following midterm election. 
2) A 66% vote by at least ½ of the American electorate passes the amendment.

The Five Step Process of Passing an Initiative or Referendum 
1) Any citizen may log on to their USAccount in the year before the midterm elections and propose an initiative or a referendum not to exceed 50 words.
2) Advanced software will analyze each submission and categorize them into the 10 most popular initiatives and referendums. 
3) During the primary elections, voters in each state will vote on which initiative and which referendum they want to see put on the ballot in the upcoming general election. The initiative and the referendum that get the most votes throughout the primary will be included in the general election. 
4) If an initiative garners 60% of the vote in the general election, and there is at least a 50% turnout of eligible voters, the initiative will become law. Similarly, if a referendum garners 60% of the vote in the general election, and at least 50% of eligible voters turnout, the law in question is repealed. 
5) The House of Representatives may, by a 2/3 vote, overturn the results of either an initiative or referendum passed by voters. They do so at their own electoral peril. As with all legislation, any law is subject to judicial review.

The Five Step Process of Recalling a President 
1) 66% of the total number of eligible voters in the last presidential election sign a petition on their USAccount to remove the president from office. 
2) Once this threshold is reached, there is a 30-day window for eligible voters to print and sign the petition form available on their USAccount and submit it to their state legislature via their local election office. Petitions must be submitted in person with valid ID. If 60% of the number of eligible voters in the last presidential election submit petitions to their state legislatures anytime within the 30-day window, the Vice President immediately assumes the presidency, and a presidential election is scheduled for the next even-year election. If the next election is a midterm, Congress shall select five candidates to be placed on the ballot approximately three months before the election. These candidates compete to fulfill the remaining two years of the presidential term and are barred from running in the subsequent election. 
3) If the state legislatures’ fail to receive petitions equaling 60% of the previous presidential election’s eligible voters within 30 days, the President remains in office, and no further attempts at a recall may be initiated. 
4) Anyone can change their petition status on USAccounts at anytime. A petition sent to the state legislature however, cannot be revoked. 
5) Local election offices will act as 30-day polling stations, simply accepting, verifying, then scanning all petitions submitted, sending a running total to the state legislature, which shall be updated and published for the public. 

American politics gives too much power to a few individuals and organizations that can spend unlimited amounts on campaigns, often through super PACs and dark money groups. That’s why every election, politicians clamor over each other to claim that their opponent is “bought and paid for” by their donors, and that they do not represent the interests of their constituents.

For now the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people and therefore they are able to throw money at political campaigns. This is horribly misguided, but since we are stuck with the ruling for the time being, one way to mitigate the ill affects of big cash in American politics is to implement a surcharge on large campaign contributions. This could be the basis of funds for Democracy Dollars, and provide a pool of public money that would be distributed to eligible voters, who could then use it to support the candidates they prefer. This would encourage candidates to seek out broad support from the public, rather than relying on a few big donors. It would also enable more diverse and competitive candidates to run for office, and increase the accountability and responsiveness of elected officials.

If at some point, we move to a system where all candidates’ political spending is capped and provided by taxpayer funding, it would be a worthwhile investment in democracy. Beyond reducing the influence of moneyed-interests in national affairs, it would increase the participation and representation of ordinary citizens, improving the quality and integrity of government. Currently politicians spend way too much of their time lobbying for donors who turn around and lobby the politicians for votes on favorable legislation. If we could remove this misaligned incentive we could finally make a massive dent in the corruption permeating through American politics. There are other issues to tackle in the battle to Cancel Corruption, but this would be perhaps the biggest domino to fall. It will certainly be an uphill battle, as money certainly talks, but the collective hatred on all sides of the political spectrum for money in politics should be enough to finally do something about it.

Of course I’m talking about the dramatic 2016 World Series in which the Chicago Cubs broke a vengeful goat’s curse and won their first championship in over a century thanks to a diverse cast of players with just the right combination of experience and youth to make lovable losers, losers no more.

But with all due respect to Grandpa Ross, the Cubs wouldn’t have been sipping Champaign had it not been for a concerted effort by management to, as they say in the industry ‘get younger’. While club elders impart the wisdom of bygone ballgames, it’s the young stars who usually provide most of the raw skill needed to propel the team forward. That’s why any and every successful organization relies on a healthy amount of youthful talent, creativity, passion, and in some cases, naivete to get the job done. Unfortunately for us, the US Congress is not such an institution, instead bucking this truism and relying more on those born pre-Pearl Harbor than post Woodstock to craft our national debates in the Senate.

The funny thing is, the topic of congressional term limits is actually one of those rare political matters that has very broad support, both among the public (75% at last count) and the actual elected figures themselves. The issue isn’t considered to be a Republican ploy nor a Democratic pet project; it’s based on fundamentally sound logic, and it’s sure to charge up the voters as candidates look to burnish their ‘Washington outsider’ cred. And while many have run on the promise of introducing limitations on congressional terms in office; few have lived up to that promise once they’re actually in office. Which is a great example of why we need them.

The reason that reform-minded candidates quickly turn into jaded incumbents, could, as you might expect, be self serving. Once elected, fearless outsiders now strive for the inside track, so while they still may talk a good game on term limits, they aren’t exactly rushing to the finish line. But perhaps the greater impediment to making progress on the issue comes from the deep-rooted scheme of corruption festering in both chambers of Congress and propagated by both major political parties, that rewards those who submit to the will of their party leaders rather than the voters who elected them. If a young representative fresh off a bold campaign enters Congress ready to act on her pledge of introducing term limits, she’s likely going to be given a cool reception by the party ancients. This doesn’t just mean she’s not going to be invited to Mitch McConnell’s annual keg party; it means she won’t get the committee assignments she wants, legislation she crafts won’t get passed, and those insider connections politicians crave so much, are likely to be frailer than Chuck Schumer’s new hip.

This is why it’s so important to change the power structures in Congress and eliminate the mafia style mentality that pervades our most sacred institutions. It’s also a prime example of why the ability of the people to amend the constitution is so necessary. Politicians can be accused of many things, but not looking out for ‘number one’ is usually not one of them. If the issue was taken out of their hands and put to the people, it would pass with flying colors. And here’s what a potential Constitutional Amendment on term limits might actually look like: Three 6 year terms for a total possible length of 18 years for members of the Senate, and nine – 2 year terms, for a possible length of 18 years in the House of Representatives.

Now, try to suppress that nagging intuition inside of you that says Senators should have a longer potential stay in office than their counterparts in the House because of their inherent gloriousness. That elitist attitude permeates too often in the Senate when they forget that both chambers are co-equal limbs of the same political tree. Of course, there is no magic formula to determine when a politician has reached their expiration date. But if you take as a general rule of thumb that nobody should have to vote against someone who’s been in office longer than they’ve been on earth, then I’d say eighteen years seems like a good upper limit.  
All in all, these terms limits are not draconian by any means. If enacted tomorrow it would mean that the current Senate would lose eighteen Senators and the house would lose eighty-five representatives.

So, let’s watch our nation’s revered seniors hit one last home run before they go, by forcing them to enact term limits on themselves and all potential future Washington lifers. Then they can hang up their spikes, learn a few new dance moves, and pose for endless awkward selfies with their great, (great?) grandchildren.