Tom Mast, founder of Solve American Gridlock
January 3, 2023
I decided to jot down some thoughts today, January 3, after watching some of the voting in the U.S. House of Representatives for its Speaker position. This is one of the most powerful positions in our country, being second in line to assume the presidency among other matters.
Of course, you know that Rep. Kevin McCarthy lost the first three ballots, and as of this moment, we don’t know what the coming ballots will bring.
The Washington office of the Russian News Agency Tass reports along with other news sources that it has been 100 years since the Speaker was not elected on the first ballot. I, for one, am not pleased that power politics are so powerful in Washington that an election of this importance has been cut and dried for 100 years, so perhaps Tass was delivering good news rather than bad. We need an overhaul of Congress’s legislative machinery!
I researched the reasons the group of Republicans who oppose McCarthy gave for doing so. These reasons given were: no good-faith response for months to change the status quo, “failure to demonstrate any desire to meaningfully change the status quo in Washington”, refusal to consider any names suggested for committees, and refusal to commit to holding votes on policies concerning a balanced budget, the Fair Tax Act, the Texas Border Plan, Congressional Term Limits, individual earmarks requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, and a commitment to have all amendments that would cut spending be considered on the House floor.
Requesting open and democratic consideration of important matters by voting on them is quite reasonable. The trend of the past few years for the Speaker to have almost dictatorial powers seems long overdue for reversal, and McCarthy’s refusal to head in that direction is and should be a problem for him or any party leader.
Given this background, let’s explore how having more parties might produce different results. In the present House, the Republicans have 222 of the seats to the Democrats having 212, or 51% Vs 49%. Our divided government seems always to have one or the other of the two warring parties with a slight majority. This is called a duopoly, per Miriam Webster: preponderant influence or control by two political powers. It isn’t working well for us.
I am an advocate of our country having more than two effective parties, effective meaning a party that has a high enough percentage of the elected members of Congress to influence legislation, policy, and procedures. Sometimes one hears that this means 5% or more. Why have more than two parties? Well, for starters, twenty-one other important countries have more than 2 effective parties with their average being 3.9.
When a political body has 3 or 4 effective parties, it becomes much less likely that any one party has a majority and dominates. The parties must negotiate and be more civil with one another. They form coalitions to consider and pass legislation, and the coalitions may differ from one piece of legislation to the next. Parties and members must be more civil to each other because party A might find itself partnering with party C this week and with party B next week. More parties will reduce the tendency of our present Congress to throw bills on many topics into one omnibus piece of legislation, thereby preventing careful consideration and transparent votes on each bill.
Let’s ponder a couple of scenarios that might result from America making some pivotal changes in its electoral systems, ones that would foster the evolution of additional parties. Right now, the two parties have created electoral systems that virtually ensure that no other parties can evolve and prosper. Let’s look at the U.S. House and the election of its Speaker.
Scenario A - today
Republican 51%
Democrat 49
Scenario B
Republican 45%
Democrat 44
Party X 4
Party Y 7
Scenario C
Republican 35%
Democrat 33
Party X 20
Party Y 12
We are seeing today what happens in scenario A: One side seems sure to win, even with a very slight majority. It will provide the Speaker. The Speaker is so powerful that members of his or her own party have been afraid to contest the election for 100 years.
Let’s look at scenario B. No matter how the coalitions are formed, neither the Republican nor the Democrat party has a lock on receiving a majority vote. All parties must respect the viewpoints of the others. Conceivably, even an outstanding member of party X or Y could win. The four parties almost surely would demand much fairer methods of appointing committee chairs and members. A return to regular order with competent committees and chairs is very likely. Committees would decide which bills move to the floor for discussion and a vote. The making of all rules of both houses of congress would quickly become much less autocratic. The Speaker would be much less powerful.
Scenario C presents an even more dramatic picture. A majority is needed to elect the Speaker, but what is important is that the Speaker will more to the peoples’ liking. The Speaker could come from any of the parties. It should not be an embarrassment that negotiation and several votes might be needed to choose a Speaker. After all, this is just how a government is supposed to work. The four parties surely would have different philosophies and priorities; negotiation among them to set the direction of the government will be a very positive process. Resulting legislation will be less extreme.
What is required to foster the evolving of additional parties?
Eliminate closed party primaries. Substitute open primaries from which a fixed number of candidates, around five, earn the right to be in the general election.
Used ranked choice voting where appropriate to ensure that candidates must have a majority vote to win
Use multi-member districts to get rid of the single-member districts mandated by Congress in 1967, a law that has made over 80% of the House districts “safe”.
Comments