Redesign Democracy in the USA (part 2)
The American System is better than autocracy, but we can do better.
1 Introduction
Last time (in part 1) I described the urgency of fixing America’s broken government and political system. I also proposed a specific fix. In fact, my proposal is the only idea that I’ve ever heard which would actually fix the problem.
This time I will cover:
How our current system falls short of what we need.
The numerous advantages of my specific proposal over the current American system.
Before I go on about what is wrong with our current government, I want to start by recognizing its most positive attribute.
2 Better than autocracy
What we have today in America is much better than autocracy. The US Constitution was a groundbreaking experiment for a European culture steeped in autocracy. In every autocratic regime, the ruling party gained power through force and maintained it through strength. This typically involved the threat or usage of violence.
The great achievement of the US Constitution was to supplant political violence with something else. In order to take power within America, a party must win an election by capturing votes. Our elections may be absurd, but they are better than political violence. If a political party were to promote violence, then voters would become disgusted and that party’s power would diminish over time.
The absence of political violence has yielded many benefits. The resulting stability has formed the bedrock of our civilization. This in turn has fostered massive economic progress and rapid societal evolution.
The legacy of the US Constitution is very impressive. As we embrace the experimental spirit of its authors, we absolutely must protect the gains that they have made. We must preserve stability, the peaceful transfer of power, and the rule of law.
3 Imperfect design
The founders of the US Constitution had a great idea, but their implementation of democracy was highly imperfect. Now we know it has many problems:
It guarantees a government held hostage by two political parties.
It guarantees a Congress whose views are out of step with the population.
It guarantees a President who is vetted by loyalists from within a political party.
It creates a government that is paralyzed by gridlock, inefficiency, and generalized incompetence.
We all know this to be true, so what should we do about it?
3.1 We should improve the design.
All of these problems can be solved by my design (§4 of part 1). It has the following properties:
It elects a Congress that reflects the will of the voters, not some tug-of-war between two groups of extremophiles.
It elects a President that has broad based support, not someone vetted by extremists within a political party.
It explicitly opposes the greatest threat to humanity: Incompetent Rule.
3.2 We should fix our civilization.
We are not in the 1800s anymore. Our civilization has changed and it will continue to change inexorably. Whether we like it or not, we have outgrown the simple libertarian philosophy that created us.
Soon we will reach a point when our economy functions without the input of human labor. The labor market that once organized our society will vanish. We will need to organize ourselves differently. Whether we like it or not, our government will be forced to play an ever increasing role in shaping our society. We should seriously ask ourselves: Will our descendants be trapped in some kind of Orwellian nightmare? Or can we do something now to create a better future for humanity?
If we can design a government that actually represents us, that operates with efficiency and competency, then our future might be okay. Make no mistake: Our species is heading into the most challenging part of its development. We will not survive unless we fix what is broken.
4 Presidential leadership
Americans elect polarizing presidents. It is normal for the President to be strongly supported by 1/3 of the population and strongly opposed by another 1/3. This is largely because of the two party trap and its symbiotic relationship with political media. It is virtually impossible to have effective presidential leadership under these conditions.
Presidential leadership is extremely important. The President is supposed to lead by defining a common vision that can unite the country behind him. The President should also take responsibility for the current state of affairs, and then convince the country to move in new directions when the need arises. These things are virtually impossible in modern America today. This is a major reason why our government and country are so incredibly dysfunctional.
America needs effective presidential leadership, and we would have it under the system that I proposed in part 1 (§4.2). By redesigning the presidential election, we can get rid of primaries which bias the pool of candidates towards party loyalists and extremists. We would also use ranked choice voting to select a President who can lead from the center. This election process would completely destroy the hold that two major political parties have over the presidency. A leader elected in this way would find himself in a position to lead from the center with a unifying vision that has broad-based appeal.
We deserve effective leadership, and we can only get it by redesigning our elections.
5 Authentic representation
In a democracy, authentic representation is important because Congress operates by reaching compromises. These compromises should respect the flexibility, discernment, and reasonableness of the population itself. This can only happen if the population is properly represented in Congress.
The basic essence of representative democracy is easy to understand: In a representative democracy, the views held by Congress would approximate the views of the voting population. Unfortunately the current American system is not like this.
When I vote for my congressional representative, my choice is limited to two people. Except in the crudest sense, neither person thinks like me, nor do they hold the same views as me, nor can I identify a single person in Congress who holds views that are a reasonable approximation of my own. This means that I have no representation in Congress. The same is true for everyone I know.
The truth is: The major parties just pick loyal candidates who can win an election within a given district. Their candidate’s views are designed by a committee of tacticians and party loyalists. There is nothing authentic about it.
We may see a small number of representatives who seem authentic, but their authenticity does not matter. Why? Because representatives just get steamrolled by their party. They just get “primaried” if they step out of line.
Also the variation of views held within Congress does not match the variance of the population. Without that match, Congress cannot reach optimal compromises on behalf of the population. Our current Congress is extremely suboptimal.
5.1 How can we find authentic representation?
We should consider the vote exchange system that I introduced in part 1 (§4.1.1).
The vote exchange system is an optimal algorithm for finding a Congress whose views align with voters. Under the vote exchange system, each vote loads precisely onto a candidate whose views align with the voter. Because of this great affinity between specific voters and specific representatives, each representative would answer specifically to their voters instead of a domineering political party.
The vote exchange system would produce a Congress which embodies a variety of political views, and that embodiment would match the variance of the voting population. Such a Congress would be capable of reaching optimal compromises on behalf of the population.
5.2 There is great power in authentic leadership.
Under the current American system, it is difficult to feel anything but cynicism towards our “representatives.” The views that they espouse were created by tacticians and party loyalists. They are so inauthentic that they hold no sway over us. This makes them powerless leaders.
Powerless is the key word, and that is just fine with the powerful interests who actually own and run America.
The vote exchange system would give us something completely different. It would create a strong affinity between voters and representatives, so each voter would feel invested in their small cohort of representatives. Our representatives could speak genuinely to us which means they could hold sway over us. This means that many of them would be effective leaders, and with effective leadership in place, society could become agile enough to do great things.
6 Choice
The current American system is a system of little choice. It is a system in which we vote for the lesser of two evils. Voters are accustomed to disliking both candidates.
The vote exchange system would be completely different. It would be a system of real choice. If voters became displeased with their representatives, then real choices would always exist in the next election.
6.1 Choice is limited because voters don’t want to waste their vote.
In the current American system, voters dislike wasting their vote on third party candidates. This leaves us with only two choices in every election.
The vote exchange system solves this problem. Any candidate who fails to reach the threshold number of votes to win would simply transfer their votes to a like-minded colleague. Therefore votes are never wasted, and instead they are always used to support a candidate whose views align with the voter. Voters would never worry about wasting their vote which means that they could simply vote for the candidate who aligns with their views.
6.2 Real choice is a requirement for resisting powerful interests.
If real choices exist, then representatives understand that they can be easily replaced. It would keep them honest and create a new norm, one in which representatives can only stay in power by remaining true to the voters who supported them.
7 The two party trap
American elections are winner-take-all contests. Within any such contest, a two party system is the only stable configuration.
A three party system is unstable for three reasons.
If one of the parties had slightly weaker popular support compared to the other two, then voters would abandon the weak party in order to avoid wasting their votes.
In terms of the views held by political parties: If any two parties were slightly more similar to each other compared to the third, then the two similar parties would simply merge to ensure a massive victory over the third.
Even if a three party system were temporarily stable, it would not be for long. Political opinions tend to change in systematic ways. Plus the saliency of various issues will change in ways that can be difficult to predict. Parties are constantly shifting and updating their positions. All of that volatility would basically destroy the delicate equilibrium that would be required to maintain a three party system.
The same principles hold for more than three parties. Therefore only a two party system is stable when you have winner-take-all elections.
7.1 Our government is their hostage.
The two party trap is a permanent fixture of American politics. If any powerful interest wants to influence the government, it simply needs to hold sway over a political party. Political parties are expensive to operate, so they are beholden to whomever pays their bills — the powerful interests.
The same powerful interests operate our “news” organizations to reinforce the two party divide. They do this by manufacturing a certain type of outrage. The narrative they create is a distraction that supplants meaningful discourse.
In the American system, Congress cannot operate until both parties cooperate. To make matters worse, each party is controlled by die-hard loyalists who hold immoderate views. So we have two groups of extremophiles who hold the government hostage in perpetuity.
7.2 We need to escape.
The vote exchange system is the best way to break free of political parties. Political parties work by creating a monolithic viewpoint in order to coalesce people around it. The vote exchange system does the exact opposite: It finds a Congress that has a variety of views to match the variance of the voting population.
The vote exchange system would eliminate primary elections because the number of candidates on the ballot has no limit. Therefore we wouldn’t need primary elections. In other words, we could eliminate the step which forces candidates to identify with a political party before they can be listed on a ballot.
The vote exchange system would completely destroy the two party duopoly. If parties did form, they wouldn’t be strong enough to steamroll elected representatives nor could they crowd independents out of elections.
8 Win or die
American elections are winner-take-all contests. The views held by each candidate can only win support if the candidate wins their election. This creates a “win or die” mentality which leads to strong competition in every election. This means that candidates are forced to utilize every possible advantage to win their election. So candidates must spend all of their time and energy fundraising and serving powerful interests.
As a result, our political leaders have no time or energy to dedicate to the enterprise of governing with basic competency. We should all want a competent government, but our current system is designed to preclude that from happening.
My proposal reduces this problem. With a vote exchange system, a candidate’s loss would not accrue to their political views. If a candidate were to lose the election, they would simply transfer their votes to a like-minded colleague, thereby joining and strengthening their colleague’s winning team. This significantly reduces the pressure for any single candidate to win. Candidates could simply be themselves and let the chips fall where they may. The winning team would then have more time to invest in the basic competency of their governance.
9 Our current challenge
It should be obvious to everyone that the American system needs an upgrade. We have no time to waste.
The US Constitution was a blessing to inherit, but it was designed for an earlier time. In order to advance, we must rekindle the forward-looking spirit of its authors and incorporate the benefit of our modern knowledge as we design something better.
Every generation has the capacity to do great things. It starts with accepting a challenge. I put this challenge to you: Think long and hard about the system that I propose. You will come to understand what I do. You will realize that my proposal is the best way to fix our broken system.
Our immediate goal should be to draft a new constitution for one of the the fifty states in our union. We must prove our idea by putting it into practice at the state level. Only then can we consider changing the US Constitution. We have a long road ahead of us. Our journey may take generations to complete, but it is a journey we must travel. Even the longest journey starts with a step in the right direction and now is the time to take it.
Our problem will not fix itself, this is something that we must do, therefore we will do it.
10 More to come
This was part 2 of a series. In part 3 we will learn about the various implementations of democracy in the world today. These systems all have subtle differences with characteristic strengths and weaknesses. A few places are even using a vote exchange system and I am extremely excited to get into that. There is a lot to cover and it will be fun.