New Ideas For Political Reform

Maybe this should go to the ReformSociety... but nobody reads that. At any rate, here is a place to suggest new (meaning novel or not-well-publicized, not necessarily radical) ideas for political reform. Please list both the problem to be solved, and the proposed solution.

Problem: Running for office (in the UnitedStates) is very expensive; large campaign contributions (from businesses, political pressure groups, and wealthy individuals) tend to distort the political process and grant these powerful entites a disproportionate share of political influence. (As long as no explicit deal is made, and the money only goes to a "campaign fund" and not to the politician's own pocket; this is not considered to be corruption/bribery). In some jurisdictions, these contributions are considered FreeSpeech and thus immune to regulation.

Proposed solution: The proposed solution already exists for judges--recusal to avoid conflict of interest. If a judge has even the appearance of a conflict of interest concerning a pending case that he/she is scheduled to hear, he/she has a duty to announce the conflict and remove him/herself from the case.

In the case of legislators, it works like this. A maximum contribution level (say $500) is set. Organizations may donate greater than $500 (any such donation must be revealed); but any such donation is presumed to create a conflict of interest. When that occurs, the legislator is then required to recuse him/herself (i.e. not vote or participate in debate) in any legislative matter that might benefit/harm the donor.

The corporations could simply then contribute to people whom they want recused from the vote. Don't think it could work. As long as rich people and corporations are allowed to donate money, they will wield enormous influence on the process, and continually corrupt it. The real solution is to take big money out of politics, without big money, there's no incentive to be crooked. Campaigns are only so expensive because of TV airtime. The airwaves are public property, they could simply give the candidates who meet some minimum requirement in supports the necessary airtime to run ads. Currently, we have a government of the corporations, for the corporations, and the people lost a long time ago.

<It is assumed that any candidate could refuse any contribution, and by that refusal remain untainted. At any rate, while TV airtime is one part of the equation (presidential candidates, at least, get it at low rates compared to commercial advertisers) it's far from the only part. A couple other useful suggestions include limiting or revoking the franking privelege (free access to the mail system, including bulk campaign literature) enjoyed by members of Congress, prohibiting the solicitation of campaign contributions except during a defined election season, prohibiting the maintenance of "war chests", etc. >

Problem: In parliamentary legislative bodies, certain officers (committee chairs, speakers of the house) need to be appointed to ensure the orderly conduct of business. These officers, in order to do their job, need to have powers greater than ordinary legislators (in particular, the power to determine what gets voted on and what doesn't). Most such chairpersons wield this power like a sword; demanding favors from other legislators in order to allow their pet bills to be voted on, or refusing to allow votes on matters they personally (or their party) disapprove of.

Proposed solution: Revolving chairmanships. Rather than giving each committee a single chairperson; have the gavel rotate among the members (or a subset of the members, proportionally selected). Each chairperson, when it's his/her turn, gets to select the matters to be discussed and voted on during his watch. Chairpersons no longer have godlike powers in the legislature.

There's a major flaw in the implementation of this solution. Firstly, legislators like this power, and since any change in committee rules would require the vote and approval of those same legislators, it won't ever happen.

<At the national level, and in states without the initiative, true. In states with the initiative, this could rather easily be jammed down a recalcitrant legislature's throat. What was your second point?>

Problem: The granularity of my favorite issues and federal candidate are a mismatch. I want to be able to vote on individual issues, not just a representative.

Proposed Solution: Issue votes, similar to California "Propositions" where a bill goes on ballot if enough citizen signatures are obtained.

However, a panel would prevent more than one issue from being mixed into the bill unless the additional issues(s) are in the main title. This prevents one of the common problems with Propositions. Also, there would be a limit of say 7 issues per voting cycle, based on signature counts. Those that don't make it to a voting cycle get to keep part of their signature count for the next cycle. For example, #8 may be able to keep 60% of it's signatures, #9 keep 50%, #10 keep 40%, etc.