Despite our national political polarization, there is one thing we can all agree on: Congress is disfunctional. Setting aside the focus of everybody's obsession, namely 'who is primarily at fault', I believe I have found a solution that would meet with everyone's approval. My solution is equitable; it is infallible; and most important of all — it is simple to implement. Lest you think I am perpetrating a rude joke, as I am occasionally wont to do, I assure you I am not.
In arriving at my solution, I invoked a well known mathematical approach, which is sometimes called the adjoint solution. This approach stipulates that one begins at the end of a chronological process, defines a desirable outcome, and works backwards (reverse chronologically) to find the appropriate starting conditions for such a defined outcome.
I submit that the most undesirable outcome of any Congressional election derives from the pork-barrel basis of each candidate's election campaign. How could it not? As everyone knows, the best way to a voter's heart is through his craving for bacon. So, how to eliminate the pork-barrel basis and, consequently, replace it with a more altruistic appeal for votes, one that is based on the understanding that the best qualified candidate is the one who most persuasively presents a coherent vision for wise legislation?
The answer is as simple as it's anti-symmetry to the current election setup: each voter, in every Congressional district, would be prohibited from voting for those candidates he is currently qualified to vote for. I pause for you to recover from the audacity of (the first part of) my proposed solution. The complementary part of my proposal concerns which candidates every voter can vote for. The answer to that is relatively straightforward: (1) for the House of Representatives, every voter can vote for one candidate in any Congressional district in his own state, except for the candidates in his own district; (2) for the U.S. Senate, every voter (in a state that is holding a Senatorial election) can vote for one candidate in any state in the Union that is holding a Senatorial election, except for the candidates in his own state.
Before you dash off an objection based on the presumed quandary for those states having only one Congressional district (At-large: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming), these House seats would be treated the way the Senatorial seats are proposed to be treated (i.e., vote for any one At-large House seat except the one in your own state). Off the top of my head, I can not think of any difficulties in my proposed system for Congressional elections that can not be easily addressed.
Post #721 On Fixing Congress
In arriving at my solution, I invoked a well known mathematical approach, which is sometimes called the adjoint solution. This approach stipulates that one begins at the end of a chronological process, defines a desirable outcome, and works backwards (reverse chronologically) to find the appropriate starting conditions for such a defined outcome.
I submit that the most undesirable outcome of any Congressional election derives from the pork-barrel basis of each candidate's election campaign. How could it not? As everyone knows, the best way to a voter's heart is through his craving for bacon. So, how to eliminate the pork-barrel basis and, consequently, replace it with a more altruistic appeal for votes, one that is based on the understanding that the best qualified candidate is the one who most persuasively presents a coherent vision for wise legislation?
The answer is as simple as it's anti-symmetry to the current election setup: each voter, in every Congressional district, would be prohibited from voting for those candidates he is currently qualified to vote for. I pause for you to recover from the audacity of (the first part of) my proposed solution. The complementary part of my proposal concerns which candidates every voter can vote for. The answer to that is relatively straightforward: (1) for the House of Representatives, every voter can vote for one candidate in any Congressional district in his own state, except for the candidates in his own district; (2) for the U.S. Senate, every voter (in a state that is holding a Senatorial election) can vote for one candidate in any state in the Union that is holding a Senatorial election, except for the candidates in his own state.
Before you dash off an objection based on the presumed quandary for those states having only one Congressional district (At-large: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming), these House seats would be treated the way the Senatorial seats are proposed to be treated (i.e., vote for any one At-large House seat except the one in your own state). Off the top of my head, I can not think of any difficulties in my proposed system for Congressional elections that can not be easily addressed.
Post #721 On Fixing Congress
No comments:
Post a Comment