Empowering the People
If it were up to me, the main goal of my government would be to strengthen its democracy by doing away with the systems that inhibit it. While democracy as a system of government is certainly not without its shortcomings, I believe the prioritization of the people’s voices to be a net good with mitigatable flaws. More meaningful political participation means streamlined representation & efficient resolution of important issues above all else. With a few modifications to our current structure of government, I believe this to be an attainable goal.
On a Federal level, I would ensure that the mistakes of the Articles of Confederation aren’t repeated by keeping a strong central government, and making sure to not delegate too much power to states. A weak central government with too much state sovereignty played a crucial role in the Articles’ downfall, and caused problems when certain measures called for unanimous votes among states (i.e. the amendment process). This was due not just to the technological limitations of the time that prevented fast communication, but also to the inherent human tendency to form isolated ideological groups (or ‘factions’, as it was often put). Though it could be argued this would be less of a problem now, given the advent of such technological advancements like digital communication & high-speed travel, it’s unlikely that this would address the root issue -- the human tendency to disagree.
In regards to the two-party system, I would choose to dismantle it entirely in favor of prioritizing multiple parties. While there are advantages to our current system, such as ease of self-identification, there are simply too many nuances for a two-party system to fully represent the interests of the people.
- While third parties do exist, the dominance of two parties creates a duopoly. This means any third party is almost guaranteed not to prevail in the end — our last third-party president was Millard Filmore in 1850!
This also means voters have less variety of choice; often feeling like they have to pick a side between two extremes. Voters may feel forced to align their ballot with someone who they don’t feel fully represents their interests. This creates a lack of faith in the democratic system, and creates an easy pipeline for gridlocking. - Because the two parties are often in dominance at different times, it creates a see-saw power dynamic that renders the governing processes from term-to-term somewhat inconsistent.
All of these flaws are ones that I believe a multi-party system could solve, or at least improve. Third parties are already becoming more preferred amongst younger voters who may feel disillusioned with our current system. Not only would emphasizing third parties mean more options for voters, it also means that candidates who may better represent the needs of a population could compete — and win.
In regards to checks and balances, I would make sure that the checks themselves are not just applicable to one branch acting upon other branches, but internally within one branch as well.
- Lowering the bar for impeachment. The more accountable a holder of office is held for their actions, the more faith is kept in the judicial system, and the more streamlined the process of removal from office could be. Article II, section IV of the Constitution mentions the criteria for impeachment as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. This is another example of vague wording causing issues down the line, because it seems no one can agree on what a “high crime” is. Impeachment is so rare, in fact, that it’s only happened 3 times throughout history; the most recent being Trump in 2019. This could be partially solved by simply specifying the criteria in detail in the Constitution itself, but also by making sure any president who has done truly heinous things that may not be considered “high” crimes (rape, sexual harassment, endorsement in genocide, etc) is held responsible for their actions. We’ve definitely had more than 3 awful presidents, after all.
- Stricter term & re-election limits. This would generally work on a state level rather than federal level, but is still worth bringing up. Although state representatives have term limits of 6 years, the lack of restriction on re-election means they could, theoretically, be re-elected indefinitely. For example, Mitch Mcconnell has served as Kentucky’s senator since 1985 — almost 40 years. This not only seems unfair, but also effectively renders the six-year term limit useless. It also runs the risk of majority tyranny, since a state that leans red or blue could easily manipulate the system in their favor to keep the already-powerful in power.
- Streamlining the amendment process. The reason so few amendments have been made to the Constitution is because it requires at least two-thirds of both congressional chambers to agree; something which is much easier said than done. This unnecessarily complicates things, and makes it so progression is harder to achieve. To remedy this, I would do a couple things: lower the threshold to one-half (while, in turn, ensuring that hasty or ill-informed amendments have safeguards), or add a time limit for when an amendment must be either ratified or vetoed (a few months at maximum).
- Nixing pocket vetoes. One of the main checks and balances the executive branch has on the legislative branch is that the president has the final say as to whether or not a bill gets ratified. However, if the president chooses, they may do what is called a ‘pocket veto’ — delaying the process of signing a bill so that it gets vetoed automatically. Congress also cannot override this kind of veto, meaning there’s a potential incentive for the president to choose this kind of veto out of malicious intent. There is currently no safeguard to prevent this from happening, but some potential solutions could be to legally require the president to be transparent about the status of bills under their control, and to make sure Congress is still able to override it.
- Get rid of the Electoral College. Some of my biggest criticisms of our government’s structure lie in the ways it impedes the best interests of the people in favor of that of the powerful. A good example of this is the 2016 election, where despite Hillary winning the popular vote, Trump won by way of 77 more Electoral College votes. Nearly two-thirds of American adults would prefer popular vote over electoral vote, and yet the Electoral College has remained a quintessential player in the parts of many recent elections. This makes little logical sense, and feels suspiciously like a remnant of the long-gone founding fathers’ cynicism against commonfolk (something we now know was mostly grounded in racism and classism). To prevent majority tyranny & states from completely losing their say in elections as a result, I would make sure all states’ votes are worth the same, no matter what their population may be. For example, less dense states could benefit from some sort of legislative system that places them on the same level as other states.
In regards to local and state government structure, I have a few proposals for potential policy changes:
- Lower the voting age to 16. Research shows that late teenagers are not only completely capable of understanding current events in politics, but are some of the most eager to participate politically. In addition to increasing voter turnout, instilling a drive to engage civically at a young age means active participators in democracy are guaranteed for years to come. Many 16 year olds hold down jobs, as well — if they’re old enough to be taxed, aren’t they old enough to have a say as to where those tax dollars go?
- Mitigate the aftermath of redlining. Although the 1968 Fair House Act outlawed redlining, the negative after-effects of it can still be seen today. Many neighborhoods once seen as “ghetto” are now abandoned, or simply treated with less care by city officials, leaving families of color often with less opportunity and more risk of adverse effects on health and longevity. Local governments could invest in community development programs, policy reform, funding for affordable housing, and reparation funds in order to remedy these effects and ensure nonwhite families have just as much opportunity at life as anyone else.
- Tackle the homelessness crisis. Major cities across America deal with unprecendented numbers of people living on the streets, as a result of many different factors. These include (but are by no means limited to) increased cost of housing, unaccepting families of queer kids, lack of addiction resources, and more. As someone who lives in an area particularly affected, this is an issue fairly close to my heart, and it's given me some strong feelings about what ought to be done about it. In places this crisis is exemplified at its absolute worst, I believe total rehauls of existing systems are needed to tackle it head-on. Homelessness ought to be decriminalized, but not enabled. More funds should be allocated towards establishing resource & rehabilitation shelters that can actually offer help rather than the two common solutions most cities turn to, which seem to be either throwing them in jail, or leaving them to die on the streets. Drug policy should also be shifted, but that's something I'll get to in the policy plans section.
Any future structure policies I develop will always keep in mind my desire to empower the people and emphasize strength in diversity, particularly those affected by systematic disenfranchisement.
