A rhetorical question

 Earlier this month, NPR asked "Is American Democracy Sliding Toward Minority Rule?" I'm guessing that was a rhetorical question. As the late John Prine sang, "a question ain't really a question if you know the answer too."

I think the short answer is, we always have been (the same can be said of any class society)...but things are getting worse. For starters, as Princeton researchers reported years ago, with growing inequality and the power of money (not to mention Citizens United), the US is more an oligarchy than a democracy.

However, the NPR story was more about politics as usual than political economy. The Constitution mandates that each state be represented by two senators, no matter how small,  although it was adopted prior to the formation of formal political parties. 

Today, that means that while the Senate is evenly divided by party, Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more Americans than their Republican counterparts. If these trends continue, by 2040, 70 percent of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of senators and vice versa. 

(Then there's the whole thing about places like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico being denied statehood and representation...and I'm not even going to mention the electoral college.)

Add to that the fact that with the filibuster, 40 percent counts for more than 60 percent. Add the numbers above and it's clear we have a problem that's only going to get worse in times to come.

Something has to give.

What could possibly go wrong?

 One of my favorite WV delegates likes to call the legislature a "bad idea factory." I think it's more like a bad idea giant industrial combine with a global supply chain this year. If I summarizing the session so far, it would be something like "burn it down and lock em up."

As if dismantling the state of West Virginia wasn't enough, a house committee wants to pass a resolution calling for an Article 5 constitutional convention. Supposedly, the proposed convention would be limited to enacting term limits to congress, which I think is itself a bad idea, but there's nothing that guarantees any limits on other changes if they open it up. I mean, what could possibly go wrong by rewriting the US Constitution?

Anyhow, there was an online public hearing about the measure last Friday. Several people who spoke in support of the measure were from out of state groups. Here's what I had to say:

I am speaking today in opposition to this measure.

I’m no engineer, but I know engineers frequently try to reduce friction in designing various types of machines. The framers of our constitution deliberately took the opposite approach: they created a system that basically guaranteed friction in terms of the separation of powers and various forms of check and balances to limit that damage that could be done in the heat of the moment without such safeguards.

They created a system that made major changes to the constitution possible but not necessarily easy. Twenty seven amendments have been enacted in 244 years, which amounts to an average of one amendment for every nine years of our existence as a nation.

This system has served us well through those years in good times and bad and has withstood many crises. It is for this reason I oppose efforts to amend it by means of an Article 5 constitutional convention. Proponents of such a measure may claim that the purpose of any such convention could be limited to dealing with a small number of issues. However, Article 5 itself poses no such limits once the process has begun. The risks of such a measure are incalculable.

Some have argued that such a measure would be desirable so that term limits could be enacted on congressional representatives. In fact, voters have it within their power to limit the terms of elected officials at every election cycle. Elected officials can limit their own terms at any time. 

Constitutionally limiting such terms would run counter to good government. The intricacies of congressional procedures and public policies can take a long time to learn. We all know that it takes a while to get good at anything.  Term limits would be a barrier to that knowledge, leaving it to unelected officials. If one is concerned about a deep state, this should be an object of concern. 

Would anyone want to serve in an army, a fire department or a hospital entirely staffed by fresh and inexperienced recruits?

Finally, research in game theory has shown that the incentives to cooperation increase with the possibility of future interaction, which is one reason why historically the US senate with its longer terms has been described as more collegial than the house. In a time of extreme polarization, we need to do all we can to promote rational debate and policy making in the interests of the nation at large.

In the spirit of fair play...and protecting the constitution

I've mentioned before in this blog that I used to referee karate tournaments in another lifetime. I always made an effort to call a legitimate point when I saw one, regardless of what I thought of the competitor, their style, uniform, or sensei.  Although I'm no longer a huge fan of sport karate, I've tried to keep the habit of calling a point when I see one.

It would probably surprise no one to hear that I frequently disagree with WV's Senator Shelley Moore Capito. However, I commend her for coming out with a strong and clear statement on the need to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

In ordinary times, such a thing would be a matter of course and require no special statement...but these aren't ordinary times as President Trump persistently tries to discard the constitution and overturn the results of an election he lost by seven million popular votes and an electoral margin of 306-232. Since November, we've been as close to an authoritarian coup as we ever have been, so there is merit today in stating the obvious.

Here are some excerpts from her statement:

Several of my congressional colleagues have made clear their plans to object to counting certified electoral votes from certain states. I will oppose their effort because the will of voters in each state—not political considerations or the individual preferences of senators and representatives—must determine the winner of the presidential election....

and

Allegations of fraud in the 2020 presidential election have been investigated by federal and state law enforcement agencies. Investigations have been overseen by governors, secretaries of state, and local election officials of both political parties who ultimately certified election results in their respective states. Multiple lawsuits have been filed in the contested states and have been decided in state and federal courts, to include the Supreme Court, by judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. None of these investigations or lawsuits has resulted in evidence of fraud that comes anywhere close to the standard for rejecting a state’s electoral votes.

and

Refusing to count a state’s electoral votes in the absence of such evidence would disenfranchise millions of American voters and call into question the very foundation of representative government enshrined in our Constitution. Therefore, I plan to vote to reject the objections that will be raised and to count the electoral votes that were certified by each state.

and 

Yesterday when I took office for a new six-year term, I did not swear allegiance to any individual or political party. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Recognizing the individual chosen by the American people to be our president is in keeping with this oath...

I'm calling the point. As we say in karate, "Ippon!"

Fair is foul and foul is fair

It's a sad day for WV and possibly the US. The WV legislature's new majority has an unhealthy fixation on messing with the US constitution. Here's what passed the state senate today. And here's why it's a bad idea.

A little bright spot: even while other ill stuff was going down, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted today to advance two common sense bills that would help some people who've made mistakes be able to work and drive. Remember: it's not all bad. Just most of it.

Courting

This week's Front Porch is about the controversy surrounding who will succeed the late justice Scalia on the US Supreme Court.