The Oregonian
Ron
Bell: True representation in a democracy
November 18, 2002 Maybe now the Democratic Party can empathize
with the rest of us. As Republicans celebrate, as Democrats mourn
the elections of 2002, third parties and independents shake our
heads and say, "Same old same old." For more than a century, the
Republican and Democratic parties have dominated the American
political landscape. Now the Republicans have control of the White
House and both houses of Congress. If they stick together for the
next two years, the Republicans can run the tables, pass whatever
legislation they please, hand out tax cuts regardless of how they
effect the economy, invade whichever countries they deem expedient
enemies and roll back environmental legislation to the early 1960s.
How does it feel, democrats, to know that for at least the next two
years, your ideas don't count? No one has to listen to a word you
say. You're completely powerless. All because our constitution
allows for a winner-take-all electoral college which ignored Al
Gore's victory in the popular vote. But even Mr. Gore did not
receive a popular majority. Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan made sure
of that. Oh democrats, how you wish that Ralph had just heeded your
pleas to drop out of the race and hand the Green vote to your
candidate. How different might the world seem now with Al Gore as
our sensationally popular (read: wartime) president? Imagine your
party riding his coattails to victory in both house and senate.
Imagine receiving a mandate from the American people to tax and
spend all you like? Pour money into education and social programs
without oversight or checks and balances? You know, Democrats,
you're not a bad party. But when all you care about is winning, when
you do your coercive best to beat down third party challengers who
arguable better reflect democratic values than your own candidate,
the differences between the donkeys and the elephants begin to fade.
But fear not, I come not to bury the Democratic Party, nor to praise
the republicans. I have an idea I hope you can embrace along with
all the rest of us standing on the sidelines. Imagine if you will,
a government that represents all the people, not just a contrived
majority. After all, do you really feel you had a say in the
nomination of Bush or Gore, Kulongoski? Mannix? Smith? Bradbury? How
often have you felt yourself choosing between "the lesser of two
evils"? Wouldn't it feel good to know that your vote at least put
someone in position to challenge a trigger-happy president? Give
pause to a tax and spend Congress? Debate the best forms of domestic
and foreign policy? OK, quick quiz: When does 10 million equal
zero? In 1968, almost 10 million Americans exercised their right to
vote but received zero representation in their government. They
voted for George Wallace of the American Independent Party. While I
disagree with most of what Mr. Wallace stood for, it distresses me
to think that the 14 percent of Americans who voted for him were
denied any part in a congressional forum to express and debate their
dissenting ideas. In 1992, another 19 million Americans were
similarly disenfranchised when they voted for Ross Perot's Reform
Party. Although Perot garnered 19 percent of the national vote, the
reform party and the beliefs of 19 million Americans went without
representation in any of the three branches of government. Now
imagine a world in which the 13 currently registered political
parties in America all sent representatives to Congress based upon
the percentage of voters who supported their ideas and their
candidates. As a result of the 2000 election, we would have had
between nine and 25 Green Party members joining Congress. While this
is far from a majority, this group would certainly be courted by
both Democrats and Republicans to support their legislation and
could win important concessions related to the philosophic concerns
of Green Americans. If the 19 percent who voted Reform party in 1992
had received their fair share of Congressional representation, that
would have meant 19 senators and/or 82 representatives. With that
kind of voting block, some real reform would have occurred instead
of the always promised, never delivered reform of major party
candidates. And who knows, with the kind of media attention and
lobbying dollars that pour into Congressional coffers, the
Reformists might have built their congressional base to become a
third "national party." This is, of course, the reason why
Democrats will not support the True Representation Plan. But think
of it, democrats, wouldn't you rather compromise with the liberal
Greens than with ultra-conservative Republicans to get your
legislation passed? There are many models for the kind of True
Representational government I'm suggesting, but they all start with
the idea that the make up of Congress should reflect all the
ideologies supported by citizens in the proportion in which
candidates espousing those ideologies received votes. Because so
many people don't vote, the average candidate vying for a seat in
Congress needs to attract a scant 19 percent of eligible voters to
gain election. And why don't people vote? Because the "major"
parties don't represent their views and because they don't believe
their vote will have any impact. Days before the 2000 presidential
election, Ralph Nader was polling at 5 percent. But when the votes
were cast, a full half of his supporters had defected - not because
they believed in the Gore message - but in a desperate attempt to
head off a Bush victory. They lost on both fronts. Bush was elected
despite losing the popular vote, and Nader's numbers were
artificially reduced, making it appear that he hadn't mounted a
serious campaign. Once again, in dramatic fashion, voters were shown
that only by voting for a "major" party candidate could their vote
have meaning. But imagine that we conducted congressional elections
in two stages. First would be the registration process. Everyone
would have a chance to change or renew one's party affiliation. Each
party would then be guaranteed a percentage of representation in
Congress proportional to the number of voters registering for that
party. So if the Green Party could register 20 percent of Oregon
voters, they would automatically receive one seat in Oregon's
five-person delegation to Congress. If their registrations fell
below a certain threshold, they would not receive an automatic seat
and those registrants would be free to vote for another party. On
election day, candidates would run only against members of their own
party. Twenty Green Party candidates could run against each other
for the one guaranteed seat. If Democrats had registered 40 percent
of Oregon voters, they'd be guaranteed two members of Oregon's
delegation. Their top two vote-getters on election day would win
seats. So how about it, Oregonians? Would you like to make turn the
concept of "one person, one vote" into a reality? Would you like the
issues to be debated continuously in a True Representation Congress
or just once every two, four or six years in that media blitz we
call an election? Ron Bell is a faculty member
at Southwestern Oregon Community College in Coos Bay. Persons
interested in supporting an initiative on the 2004 ballot can
contact him at [email protected].
|