Guest Commentary
True representation in a democracy
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 rbell@southwestern.cc.or.us.)