A Most Equal Government

Pt. 3- Branches of Government

A Truly Representative Legislature

This new party system would more than likely seek to establish itself in all chambers of Congress. To make the system more equal, there must be term limits established for both houses, eighteen years for both chambers, three six-year terms for the Senate, and nine two-year terms for the House of Representatives.

The best way to ensure that the parties maintain their individuality would be to shift away from districts within states to a nationwide boundary. The difference in population density makes it so that the average American representative now represents nearly seven hundred and fifty thousand individuals. If the US were to double the number of members of the House, we would still be at more than three times the number of persons per representative in many developed democracies. To increase the number to be equitable amongst many democracies would mean that our House of Representatives would have more than one thousand members, this is greatly inefficient and would not bode well for the establishment of any form of law. Now, if the US took the numbers found in the EU parliament, seven hundred and five, then each representative would account for less than half a million, still massive, but more reasonable than the over one million that some representatives need to represent. If the House of Representatives is meant to represent the American population, then states should have no bearing on their elections, individuals directly across the border of a state can have more similar values than those bound in their current district. Each district should be designed around the shortest-splitline algorithm, one that evenly distributes district boundaries without any concern for gerrymandering. On a final note, there should be no control of elections from a party perspective. Political parties have specific goals that may not benefit all the electorate. To better represent the American people, we should also shift away from single-member districts but focus on a proportional representation. Five-member districts would allow for individuals to represent, with relative equity, the ideological differences within regions rather than the overall view.

Regarding the US Senate, few things maintain a Senate as we know it in the US that would be able to become equal. The purpose of the Senate is to represent the interests of the state and the elite leadership of each state. To maintain the Senate would be to maintain a form of elitism in the US, as originally decided. If the Senate is maintained then there are of course many changes that need to be made to the Senate rules and traditions, the first and foremost of them being the elimination of the filibuster. This tradition, in a multi-party system, as suggested, would make it impossible to form coalitions, let alone passing any form of legislation. Coalitions are key in this legislative body so that a group can have the necessary votes to maintain a majority, if not a supermajority. The abolishment of the supermajority requirements for anything not expressly required in the Constitution is also one of the changes that need to be made for the establishment of equity. In the scheme of things, a supermajority is mostly detrimental due to our two-party system. The establishment of an actual multiparty system may make the supermajority obsolete by the very nature of partisan divides, yet it still has the chance of creating a terrible legislative issue and should be limited. Finally, the office of the Parliamentarian should be eliminated or voted on. Individuals who are in a position of public power should only do so if they are chosen by the public directly or voted on by representatives of the public. The Parliamentarian can determine the legitimacy of sections of bills and dismiss them before they even reach the Senate floor. This seems to be a bit too powerful for it to not be an elected office. If the Parliamentarian must stay then it should fall to the Senate to elect one of their members to the position.

A final note on the Senate regarding its membership. As of now there are two members of each state present in the Senate, this number should be changed to allow for overhang seats, and all Senators should be voted on at the same time. If the House of Representatives can be rotated every two years then the Senate can be rotated every six. These Senators should also be proportional to the parties that are most popular in their states. There are two different methods to allow for a more equal Senate. The first of these methods would be the establishment of three seats rather than two. These three would be the top three averages in a ranged voting system. The other method would be of up to five seats and this would allow two of the Senators to be voted on directly a first and second-ranked candidate, and then the rest be allotted based on proportional votes of the favored parties in each state. These overhang seats would be based on the party makeup of the state. This would not create the most proportional system based on parties, yet this would be more proportional than what we have now. The vote would be held in two ballots, one with the individual candidates to be voted on and another with party preference. The candidate ballot would be ranged voting while the other would be one vote for the favored party. Of these two systems, the overhang seats would establish more equity, yet may possess a level of complexity beyond our current system.

A More Equal Executive

Through an executive office such as the presidency, the most equal way to represent the people of the United States would be to transition away from electing a President and Vice President as one, as well as the absolute abolishment of the electoral college. While some arguments have been made for the electoral college allowing smaller states and equal say, this is by its very nature undemocratic and unequal. The electoral college makes it so that the votes of a minority party within a state do not count, and that voters from the smaller states have up to four times the voting power of the more populous state. Regardless of whether the United States is a democracy or a republic, no one’s vote should matter more than any other. The Vice President should be the candidate that has received the second-highest average score.

With a new system in place to allow for a more equal representation in both chambers of the legislature and the highest office of the executive, we must address the entirety of the presidential line of succession. To assume that the American public will have an informed vote on at least fifteen different heads of departments is asking more than even a robust education system can handle. Yet, appointments from a president also seem to take away the ability of the individual to have a say in the totality of their government, and to maintain a sense of normalcy and legitimacy of the department heads the establishment of prerequisites is important. As such, the senior officials within departments should choose amongst themselves a candidate for the president to appoint to then be confirmed by the Senate. This is in keeping with the American tradition and ensures a smooth transition within departments. What is being suggested is something more of a tradition rather than a rule. This should be a precedent set by the first new president to establish this proper transition of power throughout departments but would not necessarily be put in place by law, in case of extraordinary circumstances.

A Relevant Judiciary

While many say and believe that a judicial system is inherently behind the times when compared to other, more often changing, bodies this is, I believe, because of the lifelong appointment system in the United States. In 2020, following multiple partisan battles surrounding the Supreme Court, a bill was introduced, the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act of 2020. This bill establishes eighteen-year terms, with a limit of one term, for each supreme court justice as well as sets up when a president may even appoint justices to the supreme court. Through this bill, a president can only appoint a justice in their first or third year of a term, and if a vacancy appears on the court, then the most recently termed out justice (referred to as a Senior Justice) will take the open position until the next allotted appointment year. The bill would also limit the president’s appointments to one per allotted year, filling the oldest vacancies first and force the senate to hear nominations or waive their right to consent if they do not hold these hearings within 120 days of the appointment. This bill allows for a consistent changing of the guard within the Supreme Court and breaks any sort of divided government from stopping the functionality of government. This bill would become an integral principle in a multiparty, equitable government.

Finally, within the judicial system, the people deserve the right to choose their justices. I would recommend adding two Supreme Court justices that are elected by the people every nine years, allowing for two terms. This helps grow the court allowing for more voices on difficult issues, as well as allowing newer voices every so often. After the two nine-year terms the justice would also become a Senior Justice and be able to replace vacancies on the court. With this ever so slightly larger and much more equitable judicial system we would finally have and see a fully equal and proper system. The American people would finally have a direct say in every aspect of their government, as well as removing the illusion of choice within government, granting greater numbers of parties, and changing the electoral system to fit the many needs of the many communities within the United States. This would also establish a system closer to the original ideals of the American governmental system.