Move away from dysfunction

by Darryl Wilkinson

Perhaps now, more than ever, we need Congress to work. Perhaps now, more than ever, we need to rethink how we conduct our elections.

There are too many examples of dysfunction. While attention is tweeted to NFL player antics (wasn’t the right to protest settled in the ’60s when even more repugnant flag burning was allowed?), we need Congress to focus fully on tax reform. We need real statesmen to pull us out of our health care mess. Instead, we actually see some Congressmen voting AGAINST disaster relief for hurricane victims (because of the politics in combining unrelated legislative bills in a grab for funding)!

It’s no wonder the average Joe has such a disgust for politics.

I realize I’ve already lost a significant number of readers in merely mentioning the word politics. We’d always prefer to focus on other things, topics that make us feel like we matter rather than just feeling helpless, betrayed and victimized. But bear with me if only for this one time, please.

There are so many problems our leaders must address and so few examples of recognizable progress. Solutions come hard when the only political mantra is a polarizing “Us vs. Them” between Republicans and Democrats on every topic in virtually every way. This reality is the very definition of dysfunction.

I’m beginning to suspect our 2-party system is at fault. So, I find a proposal from Don Beyer, a Congressman from Virginia, very interesting. I’d like to know what you think.

He calls it the “Fair Representation Act.” This proposes two fundamental changes in how voters elect their representatives to the U.S. House. First, it would allow voters to rank the candidate in order of preference, rather than simply voting for their top choice. Secondly, congressional districts would change into “multi-member districts” — a hybrid between what we have today and the way we determine Senate seats, where two people jointly represent a larger area.

Now ponder this. The proposal means elections are no longer a “winner takes all” matter which, realistically, helps stack the deck for just Republican or Democrat candidates. Beyer’s proposal gives minority parties more clout, thus you and me more leverage. If your first-choice candidate does not win, then your second or third choice may. This spurs candidates to work to appeal to a broader swath of voters (rather than blindly to one party). Hopefully, one result would be less polarization to set the stage for Congress to more properly function.

The proposed “multi-member district” is a little more complicated. Beyer suggests states with five or fewer House seats would elect all their representatives at large. Any state with six or more members, like Missouri, would elect representatives in multi-member districts. He offers an example.

Massachusetts seats nine Congressmen, currently all Democrat even though 24% of voters there are Republicans (and no Republican has been elected as Congressman there in 20 years). That nearly guarantees frustration from a significant portion of those being governed.

Now divide Massachusetts into equal thirds, apply ranked-choice voting and elect three candidates in each district. Beyers predicts a few things will happen. For one, no district is a gerrymandered, partisan swath of the state. Rather, each district represents a larger and therefore more diverse array of voters.

This is likely both to attract more candidates and to entice those candidates to speak to the middle of the spectrum. It also means more citizens would fee that someone speaks to their issue or viewpoint, which (hopefully) encourages more people to vote.

Now, take Beyer’s proposal to the national level. Changing how we elect our representatives might actually encourage “bridge builders.” This proposal should deliver more moderates to Congressional seats — where members would share constituents with members of the other major party. This would create new incentives for Congressmen to work together on legislation rather than to polarize for personal political gain.

I don’t know about you, but that’s what I expect from those we send to Washington, D.C.

Mr. Beyer’s proposal has precedent. Some version of this system is already used in many municipalities; six states have adopted some kind of ranked choice voting for congressional elections. According to Fairvote.org there is legislation introduced in 18 states including Missouri (SB 140 would establish ranked choice for primaries; HB 856 fo Ranked choice for state and federal offices was heard in committee on March 1 but is no longer being considered).

Perhaps you and I should spend some time reading more, including information and analysis by Fair Vote, a nonpartisan organization that supports the Fair Representation Act.

Simply stated, we need to spend less time venting and describing our problems and more time focusing on possible solutions.

One more thought. If we’re ever going to move away from the stranglehold of the 2-party system, we shouldn’t depend on those benefiting from playing that game to lead the charge for reform. Congress just won’t fix itself. We’ve got to do it, and that means we’ve got to do more than just say “I hate politics” and never think about  elections for more than just a couple of days before we decide to not even cast a vote.

It’s been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I suspect that’s why so few people are motivated to vote. Polls show that less than 20% of the country approves of the way Congress is doing its job.

Surely it’s time to consider reforms, including the way we choose those who represent us.

We shouldn’t expect change from those who benefit from playing their game.