April 6, 2005
<< Contextual Shine | Best Google Map Ever >>
Where My People At?
![...THERE my people at! [far-flung signs say vote for robin]](http://snarkmarket.com/blog/snarkives/theremypeopleat.jpg)
S.F.-based blogger Brad Plumer (who also works at Mother Jones, nice) just wrote a post that begins with this exclamation:
God, the House of Representatives is a fucked up way of doing things!
And follows with this lament:
For instance, I could almost certainly never be elected to the House. But why not? After all, I’m reasonably well-educated, know a bit about politics, care about people, am decently outgoing, etc. etc. Nonetheless, facts are facts: I was born in upstate New York, moved to Tokyo when I was three, came back to attend college in backwoods New Hampshire for four years, and have since bounced around between Boston and San Francisco, and will probably bounce around some more. Where’s my local constituency? Oh, that’s right, I have none.
Now listen, I don’t want to be too presumptuous here, but I’ve watched C-SPAN, and like Plumer, I think I could totally hack being a representative. But, also like Plumer, no geographically-contiguous group of people in the entire country would ever elect me. Which is a bummer, you know?
That’s why I dig his proposal:
My preferred solution would be to tack on 100 extra “at-large” seats to the House, which would be elected via proportional representation. Then intellectuals and visionaries and policy technocrats or whatever else you could think of could all run for office.
You get a sense of his gripe, there: He thinks geographic representation shuts out the smart, ambitious people who tend to be very mobile, even global, in their careers. Personally, that in particular doesn’t bother me, as I am not convinced that being smart and ambitious (above certain baseline thresholds) necessarily makes you a better policymaker. I put much more stock in conscience, pragmatism, honesty…
…and, oh yeah, legitimate representation.
Thus I find Plumer’s other rationale much more convincing:
[…] minorities who are geographically dispersed have no way of pooling their votes together to elect a representative. Gay Americans, for instance, can’t combine their collective power all across the country, ala Captain Planet, and select someone to carry water for them. By rights, this bloc should be able to elect some 7-10 percent of Congress if they so chose. But obviously, under the current system, they can’t. Nor can Hispanics, or African-Americans, or other dispersed minorities.
(Captain Planet reference +10.)
Maybe strictly geographic representation made sense when American lives were, uh, strictly geographic. But now we’re connected in all sorts of crazy different ways, and I really do think most people have more in common with some (probably more than one) extra-geographic community than with their city or county.
Atheist media-obsessed bloggers who support huge increases in national science investment and foreign development aid? Can I get a vote here? Anybody?
Besides, our current system is such a legacy thing.
I mean, sure, having 100 at-large seats probably seems like a pretty frickin’ terrible idea if it’s 1787 and “national campaign” means “get on ya horse.”
But in 2005, with TV and the internet, we could totally have a cool, interesting national race for a big bucket of at-large seats. It would, in fact, be way more cool and interesting than, say, the race for president, because we wouldn’t have to winnow it down to two white dudes. Remember how good some of those Democratic primary debates were? Okay, bad example. But you get my point.
“But Robin,” you say, “if we did this we would just end up with a bunch of single-issue, special-interest zealots butting heads.” I am not convinced of this; at-large candidates with broad appeal would still beat the crazies, especially if we ran this with some sort of instant runoff voting scheme.
But maybe you can talk me down. Can anybody tell me why we should not expand the House of Representatives by 100 at-large seats immediately and eliminate the Senate and get rolling with some real representation here?
Subscribe
Comments
Good points all but I still think intellectuals and technocrats need to get with the neighborhood program more. There is something to be said for a sense of place---stewarddship of the environment, at the very least, depends on it, as does taking care of children--and I think we too often let that all be enjoyed by parochial types.
Imagine the money and organization necessary to run a national campaign for the House, and to run such campaigns again every two years. It would be virtually impossible for anyone besides oligarchs or our two national parties. And if the national parties like you already and want to find you a job in government, they can already find a place in the House or Senate (or governor's office, etc.) for which you can run, even if you don't have any particular ties to the area or its people (cf. RFK, Hillary Clinton, etc.). The idea that at-large candidacies would fundamentally change the way the Democrats and GOP do their thing just doesn't seem to wash.
Finally, this would require a complete rethinking not just of the way the government functions, but how people vote. One voter=one representative isn't just a scheme for representational equity: it's a way for voters to make sense of the political world. (As are, in part, political parties.) Instead of picking one candidate out of a field of two or more, you now have to pick as many as 100 candidates out of a field of how many? Or even if you're voting only for one candidate, that still calls for the elimination of 500, or maybe 1000, others. It's enough to make you long for fascism.
I'm more convinced by your logistical objections, Tim, than by the voting thing. I think there's all sorts of potential for bizarre voting schemes in our system of government.
Granted, asking people to make 100 discrete votes is a little much. But 10 could be do-able.
Or, I mean, look at that list scheme they used in Iraq. That worked. (Right?)
More thoughts TK...
Post a comment