Every once is a while the topic of how to you improve American democracy with structural changes comes up. I'm not talking about things like increasing voter turnout, but changes in the government itself.
I'm a big fan of democracy. Ironically, while I am undoubtedly less of a big-D Democrat than almost everybody else on dKos, I am almost definitely more of a little-D democrat than all of you too. I love people &mdash I really like being around them &mdash and think they are excellent at governing themselves.
My biggest complaint is never too much democracy, only democracy that doesn't really allow the people to make decisions, too little democracy. When I look to other world democratic systems, I don't usually find much I think is better than the US system. However, the Swiss Cantonal System has a few ideas that I'm envious of and would like to see immigrate to the US, and Australia's Instant Run-off Voting looks appealing too. Both of these provide better ways to understand what the people want.
My love of decoracy stems from a belief that people are generally intelligent and good. In order for me to believe that markets work, this is a prerequisite. And an election is essentially a political market. If people didn't make good decisions, democracy and markets wouldn't be nearly as cherished and would quickly collapse. However, the resiliance they both show should be a testament to their strength, and that strength is ultimately derived from the people underneath them.
This is even more true of the electorate as a whole. While individual people can make bad decisions or may be dumb, the singular electorate doesn't and isn't. It is the giant brain of the nation. Every person is a simple neuron, but together they have far greater intelligence and power than any individual. This is why relying on polls is a losing strategy. It would be like trying to understand what is going on in the brain by testing each neuron individually.
The true power comes from the communication between the neurons, and nothing brings about that communication like an election, and as election day draws near, that communication increases and can cause swings in opinion. These swings dodn't just materialize, and they are not (always) a candidate "peaking early," but would have happened if the election was a few weeks earlier too. I may be telling everybody that I will probably vote for Sen. Kerry, but as the election draws near, the pressure I get from my girlfriend to vote for Pres. Bush could overtake that. Conversations will come up between now and election day, with increasing frequency, and we will trade issues. I would like to take at least one branch of government away from Republicans and will try to convince her of that, while a strong Iran policy is important to her, and she will try to sway me with that. In the end, her continual pestering, might break me down, because the perceived benefit to her would be greater than any perceived benefit I see in Kerry. While it is one person one vote, intensity of opinion does matter. Her strong intensity could easily overcome over my lukewarm feelings (well, that and holding out on me). Those with stronger feelings will get out and make their feelings known. This will sway some votes, maybe making one voter at least partially responsible for a dozen votes.
With the electorate being the brains behind any democracy, the best leaders understands its will. He knows what the electorate wishes without even asking or what choices to give it if he doesn't, understanding that the people will make a better decision than his legion of political scientists, economists, and pollsters.
The Swiss Cantonal System relies on democracy, maybe more than any other nation's system. The basics are similar to America. It is a tiered system of about 3000 communities divided into 26 areas called cantons linked together by a federal government. The federal level handles only issues common to the cantons, like foreign policy and military, while the cantons and local governments handle the rest. The legislative parliament, like America, consists of two bodies: a popular house with the number of delegates proportional to the population of a canton and the Council of States that has two representative from each canton. There is also a president, but unlike America, he is elected by the members of the government. And like the US, there is a constitution (influenced by the American Constitution) that restricts the power of the federal government.
However, two of the best parts of the Swiss federal government, the two that if I had one wish would be transplanted into the US Constitution, are the referendum and initiative system. After any legislation is passed, there is a six-month period that a referendum can be called on it by collecting enough signatures. By a simple majority, the populace can overturn the legislature. And unlike a presidential veto, there is nothing the parliament can do to about it. Because the people have the final say in all legislation, they are the ones that must be pleased. Lobbyists lose power since their pork-laden bills can be easily voted away. Citizen-sponsored initiatives are placed on the ballot in a similar manner, by collecting enough signatures, and the result cannot be overriden by the parliament or president. This proviced for the people to get what they want out of governemnt. Pay too high or too low for your representatives? Too much money being wasted in one area of beauracracy or not enough being spent on real needs? All of it can be changed.
Of all the things to put a check on the power of government and create accountability, such as lobbying laws or information acts, the people do that best. Since no politician would ever pass a law for redistricting to be taken over by an independant, non-partisan body, the people could do it themselves. While this might seem like it would shut down government, that fear seems unfounded as Switzerland shows. It is an incredibly propserous nation that enjoys the support of its people.
Going further, would be have ever had a war in Iraq if the people could have rejected the declaration?
In understanding the will of the people, how they interact with the political market voting machine, is also very important. The first past the post system in the US where minority candidates can split the vote enough to give the election to a less supported candidate is also a problem.
Some people propose a move to a proportional system where we move American to the standard much of Europe has adopted in voting for parties and not candidates. But, this is one of the biggest strengths for America. We value individuality, and our voting for people, not parties, shows that clearly. It is one of the reasons that we seem to always have some of the best leaders at the times they are needed most. Voting for people, means that we can chose somebody that the party rulers might not. We may perfer to split our tickets, some Republicans appeal to us while some Democrats do too. While some may vote a straight party line, most don't. Even the one of the bluest of blue Democrats I know doesn't vote a party ticket.
When we chose people we are chosing a policy and leadership basket. While in a referendum or initiative, we are given simple choices &mdash the weight of two worlds, one with the legislation and one without &mdash with elections of people we are looking at all the policy positions they have, what chance these have of passing, adding to it his leadership ability, and discounting any other events that seem important.
Then we chose between the competing alternatives. The electorate may not like any of the candidates too much, so it might chose the one that takes them the least distance away from its desired destination, trying to minimize any damage. If the two are both going in equally wrong directions, might as well chose the one that will not go as far. It is the good leader that understands his mandate from the electorate. Maybe his foreign policy direction is well liked by the electorate, but his economic intuition isn't quite in tune (like Gov. Dean). This weighing action is made more complex when parties are voted for, since extra work needs to be done evaluating at the party level.
However, to allow for third parties to send a signal, even without legislative seats, voting systems like IRV can show how much the public supports them. It provides a clear signal as to what directiona are more preferable. The electoral college, while maybe necessary at once, now seems to only mask the voice of the electorate, making it more difficult understand in what direction the country wishes to go.
However, having this entirely rational view of the electorate does impact other views I may have. I can never in good faith say that the result of an election was wrong, but only argue that the methods of the election did not discern the will the people. The 2000 presidential election victory wasn't a wrong decision by the people, they chose Vice Pres. Gore, but the election method undercut the people. That isn't to say that they agreed with everything Gore was proposing, just that there as some tiny benefit people saw in him over Bush. With single-issue elections it is a little simpler, but not always. The people may have voted for something I disagree with, but they are right in the sense that given the two worlds they had to decide between, they chose the one more likely to be the best alternative with the information given to them.