Cascade Courier - Your trusted local news source since 1910

Every political season people suggest we ought to institute some other political system, usually they say we should have a parliamentary system. Yes, parliamentary systems do have some advantages but also some drawbacks. We only have to look at the United Kingdom, Israel, or India to see where problems lie. No one, unless they’re hopelessly biased, would ever call Boris Johnson, Netanyahu, or Modi as being good national leaders. They were, and are, highly polarizing power seekers who believe in governance by division not unity. Changing our system isn’t the answer to our problems. That does not mean, however, that we cannot improve on how we conduct our political life.

First of all, one absolute truth is that larger and more diverse groups make better decisions than smaller, more homogeneous, groups. Smaller groups tend to become self-righteous and decide their particular beliefs are good for everybody which is inevitably untrue. That means, if we wish to consistently make better national decisions, we need universal suffrage. All citizens should be automatically registered to vote and all voting restrictions should be abolished. Everyone, eighteen or older, gets to vote.

Gerrymandering, the drawing of district lines to ensure the election of people from one party should be outlawed. One person should always equal one vote. No person’s vote should have more power than another person. That leads, inevitably, to a discussion of the two Senators per state rule, in which, states with small populations, sorry Montana, have as many Senators as states like New York, Florida, Texas, or California. That’s undoubtedly a bridge too far as political discussions go.

One change which absolutely, for the good of the country, should be made, is the primary system. The greatest number of people vote in the general elections in Presidential years. The second highest vote totals come in non-presidential years. Invariably, far fewer voters bother to vote in our primary elections. The voters in primaries tend to be True Believers, the most politicized, most radical voters both left and right. That’s why the general rule in politics is to run to the extremes in the primary and get back, if possible, to the middle, in the general election. Obviously, that gives the more extreme voters outsized power in the parties.

One simple example is, approximately 68% of all voters favor turning Medicare into a single, comprehensive health care program. In order to appeal to the base Republican candidates were compelled to denounce such an idea as socialism because only 22% of Republican primary voters supported such an idea. Democrats, likewise, nominate candidates who embrace more radical proposals than would be popular in general elections. It’s a curse that needs correction. There are several possible solutions. One of the more popular is Ranked Choice Voting which means primary voters can indicate preference for one candidate for number one, a different candidate for number two, and so on. It ensures primary candidates can’t just appeal to the most radical candidate and squeak out a narrow primary victory.