An End to Polarization?

How about an omnibus federal election amendment to the constitution?

I have previously suggested that the 22nd Amendment be scrapped or at least modified so a former president can serve new consecutive terms after sitting out a full term. I believe that would strengthen the president’s hand in dealing with Congress as well as foreign governments. The US president would no longer be the one and only lame duck sitting at the table, wherever it may be.

We should also consider open elections for Congress and the presidency. Right now, we have few competitive congressional elections in a typical election cycle. In fact, it has been said that Congress enjoys a higher re-election success rate than did the Politburo. The safe seats end up beholden to each party’s activist base, which tends to lean too far in one direction. It rarely ends up closely reflecting the views of the respective district. While the extremes are well represented, it can be argued that two-thirds of the electorate are not.

We can solve this problem with three changes in federal elections (House, Senate, President):

1> Do not limit the number of candidates to one from party per se – allow up to three candidates per party.
2> Require a 50% plus one majority to win the election. Absent such, a runoff will be held (two weeks – four weeks - pick a time period) after the general election amongst the top two candidates.
3> Scrap the Electoral College – this change obviates the need for that anachronistic institution. One region of the country will not be electing a president.

What will this do?

It will greatly expand the choices of the electorate and create a system that will elect those whose views are more in synch with the voters. Districts that are currently “safe” and elect party firebrands may end up with runoffs between two members of the same party. All of the very effective gerrymandering across the country will be largely mitigated. Congressman will no longer feel insulated from their district, safe in the knowledge that their base makes them bulletproof.

This system at the federal level will encourage similar laws in our state houses and legislatures. The problems of gerrymandering are often more pronounced at the state and local level than they are federally. This one change can do more than many other efforts – term limits, redistricting commissions and criteria – to reconnect our elected officials with their constituents.

Many presidents have won office with a plurality rather than a majority. This pattern has continued in the post-war era, with mere pluralities in 6 of the last 16 presidential races (one of those even elected a candidate that received the second most votes). Wouldn’t it have been nice to have a runoff between Bush and Gore without Nader or Buchanan on the ballot? How about Clinton against a Republican with no Ross Perot to siphon votes? Wallace probably changed the 1968 election and we’ve had several other close calls. Voters would be able to vote their conscience in the first round – perhaps Libertarian or Green – since they would still have another vote coming if it mattered. Third and fourth parties would gain purchase in our system – one more way to enfranchise and increase the voice of the voters writ large.

The parties could still have conventions to form a “final three”. What would have happened in 2008 if Hillary, Obama and Edwards appeared on the ballot along with McCain, Romney and Huckabee? Who could complain about having a lousy choice? Perhaps we would have had the same two to ultimately choose from, perhaps not. We will never know. However – over time – we are not going to be electing polarizing figures and they will be working with a Congress that is more connected to the people. The likes of Gingrich and Pelosi will not get to run the show nor will the system encourage the worst impulses of the majority. Perhaps, we will even see a marked reduction in the level of perceived conspiracies.

Alas, an American utopia? Uh, no. It will merely be a major improvement over the status quo. We need better tools in our toolbox to meet the challenges ahead.