[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.]
The last
posting pointed out that currently and effectively since World War II an
imbalance has evolved concerning the nation’s elections. Surely, the origins of this imbalance can be
found in the arrangement the Constitution establishes by setting up
winner-take-all, single representative districts for the US House of
Representative and, at the state level, the respective state constitutions do
likewise for their legislatures.
This feature can be found in British derived systems
such as in the US and in Canada.[1] That posting explains how such designations
hurt left of center advocates – urban, Democratic voters – and enhances right
of center advocates – rural, Republican voters.
Therefore, along with right of center voters feeling threatened by demographic
factors one can add how the left feels underrepresented.
Ezra Klein points out[2]
that by the year 2040, just twenty years from now, 70% of the nation will live
in the 15 largest states – and this projection captures the basic problem in
that, consequently in the US Senate, those people will be represented by 30
senators and the rest, 30% of the population, will be represented by 70
senators. Add to that the effects of
gerrymandering and ignoring the wishes of voters whose candidates lose in
winner-take-all elections one can ascertain how frustrating politics can be for
urbanites and even suburbanites.
These factors, in effect, disenfranchise significant
portions of the electorate, if not, as has often been the case, the majority of
voters. In the case of the Senate, its
ability to stifle legislation, with its filibuster provision, is particularly
egregious. Rural sentiments can unduly
block what the majority of Americans wish to be enacted at the national level.
To illustrate, the reader could consider polling results
that indicate strong majorities wishing for various policies. This includes such policies as paid maternity
leave, government funding for childcare, boosting minimum wage, tuition free state
college education, and Medicare for all.
It is telling that one can readily categorize these proposed legislation
items as liberal or progressive policies.
Federation theory, which this blog supports,
promotes a qualified majority rule. It concedes
that purely democratic systems – where majority rule has unrestrained power –
can lead to policies that trample individual and/or minority rights. The nation’s history can attest to that
possibility; occurrences of such policies led to the ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment. But the opposite can also
be true.
That is, the minority – read
conservative advocates – can block legitimate majority wishes. And under current conditions, the victims of
such a feature are the urban, liberal states or, as within state arrangements,
cities and their suburban areas. These
more congested areas can be shortchanged by what the respective legislative
bodies decide policy will be.
This reality or potential was exposed recently when
rural states objected to providing urban areas, particularly in the Northeast,
of assistance during the initial months of the COVID pandemic. Red states didn’t see it useful to assist
blue states (a strategy that subsequently seems to have been shortsighted).
As for fixes, there have been various
proposals. One considered by experts of
such matters, has been to abandon the winner-take-all model. Instead, representation can adopt the
European model in which representative districts are larger than those in the
US and provide multi-seat allocations in which more than one representative is
chosen in an election. This enfranchises
voters who did not vote for the top vote getter in that district. It also results in legislative bodies that
more accurately reflect how districts are politically constituted.
So as things stand, the right feels
threatened by the demographic changes that the country is experiencing – the
shift in the population toward urban areas not to mention the increased numbers
of nonwhite and non-European descendants – and the left by being
disenfranchised, one can understand the polarization of the national political
arena.
These are situations that civics teachers need to
address if they are to explain contemporary political realities. Given the events that transpired in
Washington this past Wednesday, a citizen needs to appreciate this background
to make sense of what happened. And
unfortunately, without hyping the situation, the very existence of the republic
– if we “can keep it” – seems to be at stake and demands ordinary citizens to know
and substantively understand what’s happening and why it is happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment