Time for Additional Constitutional Amendments

Faith in our institutions are at an all time low. This is a bipartisan problem that is felt most acutely in the federal government. Whether it’s the Presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court, over the last 75 years Americans have slowly felt as if they can't trust their government. However, this is not a unique problem in American history. Think of the chaos of the 1960’s and the upheaval of the industrial “Gilded Age” followed by the Great Depression. The Civil War and Reconstruction easily mark the most divided time in American history (after all we were literally divided into two governments). Even the original ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution itself was incredibly contentious (and sometimes violent).

The solution then, is the same as the solution we need now. The United States already has a system to improve the federal government. I suggest we make small modifications to our federal Constitution to better handle the problems of this millennium. This has been the pattern of response to national crises roughly every 50 years. Here’s a quick breakdown of the previous 27 Constitutional Amendments:

• 1791-1804: Bill of Rights and 11th and 12 amendments laid out essential rights and corrected blind spots in our judicial and legislative system. 
• 1865-1870: Three Post-Civil War amendments finally ended slavery, made all born in America citizens, and gave all male citizens the right to vote*
• 1913-1920 and 1933: Four Progressive amendments that created a more equitable tax system, direct election of Senators, women’s suffrage, and then two more after the Depression adjusted inauguration dates and repealed the 18th Amendment.
• 1951-1971: Five Civil Rights amendments adjusting presidential terms, DC representation, poll taxes, presidential succession, and voting age.
• 1992: This largely ceremonial amendment to limit congressional pay was one of two originally proposed in the Bill of Rights, but were not ratified then (go here for the delightful story of how it passed).

*It’s important to recognize that these 27 amendments did not solve all of America’s problems or even completely solve the problem they were trying to fix. However, they were instrumental in eventual success. For example, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s/60’s was successful because the federal government finally agreed to uphold the intent of the post-Civil War amendments. And ignoring the one off impactless amendment from 1992, we haven't had a meaningful Constitutional amendment in 51 years.

It’s also important to note that these successful amendments were structural changes to how our government works and who it works for, NOT largely hot button issues of the day (like abortion, guns, or in the case of the 18th Amendment, the prohibition of alcohol). Instead, amending the Constitution is best suited for fixing outdated structures so the now improved government can deal with those hot button issues. 

So in what ways is the structure of the U.S. Constitution failing to handle the problems of the 21st century? I believe America’s primary issue is that the political fringes of each party have become the dominant voice. Both in elections and the media and especially on the internet). This has pushed a moderate majority into the corners of their own political institutions. Here are a few examples of how most Americans actually stand on a few of our most tense political issues:

• “85 percent of American voters think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances“ and a majority of Americans fall in the middle
• “a large majority, 83%, supports supplying the Ukrainian army with military equipment”
• “More than two in three Americans (68%) support legalizing marijuana”
• “U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70%”
• “91% welcome immigration, including 68% who favor a “low level”’

To put those numbers in context, only “60% of U.S. adults drink alcoholic beverages”. If you’ve ever tried to pick a restaurant with a large group of people then you know it’s hard to get a majority of people to agree on anything. So that means our political institutions and the conversations surrounding them are being overrun by the loudest and the most extreme. And I don’t even mean extreme in a negative way. Just in a way that doesn’t represent the majority of Americans' perspectives. This does not work in an “infinite game” where our primary goal is to ensure the political game keeps going as we make this a “more perfect union”.

So here I submit 5 proposed amendments to the United States Constitution (each with a few Sections). 1st is on improving federal elections, mostly for Congress. 2nd on trying to balance the power of large corporations in private and public life. 3rd proposed amendment to improve the federal court system. 4th to improve the executive branch. And finally the fifth is a wildcard idea that would probably have the biggest impact on balancing how government power. I even organized them by priority in which I think would be most easily passed and have the most positive long term impact. However, all 5 do not need to pass for there to be significant improvement.

1st Amendment Proposal: Gerrymandering, Ranked Choice Voting, and Campaigns in Federal Elections

Section 1: Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.’

Section 2: All federal elections will move from a “first past the post” to an “instant runoff” structure. If a candidate receives more than half of the votes in an election, that candidate wins. However, if no majority winner is found, the race is decided by an "instant runoff." The candidate with the fewest votes is removed, and voters who picked that candidate will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until there’s a majority winner.

Section 3: All Federal campaigns or electioneering are limited to take place 3 months before Election Day, which will now be a Federal holiday. This includes organizations or individuals. 

This first proposal is the most important. Section 1 is the most needed Constitutional amendment. Gerrymandering allows elected officials to draw the lines for who elects them. This has been done since the beginning of our country, but modern technology allows it to be dangerously precise. More and more districts are drawn to ensure victory of the incumbent party. This means general elections between both parties have an assumed winner and the party primary is the real contest. So politicians move to the middle of their party (organizations not only absent in the Constitution, but actually warned against by our framers), instead of the middle of their constituents. The right moves farther right and the left moves farther to the left. In fact, I actually took the exact language proposed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his book on the topic of amendments.

Section 2 implements ranked choice voting and removes the concerns that you're stuck between 2 candidates you don’t like. It also removes the cost and complication of runoff elections. This is already used in a few states and I think it would be adopted more locally once it’s Constitutional nationally. I don’t expect this will totally shake up the two party system (an overstated concern in my opinion). Instead, what it will do is, in combination with Section 1, give politicians more specific information from their constituents and hold them accountable to them.

Section 3 is more straightforward. The goal is to limit what has now become a continuous election cycle; where the next campaign season begins immediately after election day. This not only exhausts voters and decreases the quality of discourse, it favors candidates with deep pockets and big donors. It also finally makes Election Day a federal holiday.

It’s also important to note that these structural changes could be, but never will be implemented by Congress itself. This Amendment restricts the power of entrenched interests and opens them to more political and ideological competition. Therefore these must be done by Constitutional Amendment.

2nd Amendment Proposal: Antitrust and Campaign Finance

Section 1: No provision of the Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Executive and Legislative Branch from fulfilling their obligation to limit or break-up any national business monopolies or trusts (group of businesses).

Section 2: Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.

Section 1 tries to codify into the Constitution a century old series of laws that created the Federal Trade Commission and our antitrust system. However, those laws sometimes rub up against interpretations of other parts of the Constitution. Those old laws also require the branches of government to choose to be active and I’m hoping the phrasing of “obligation” will require action. I’m also hoping these changes will then make it easier for Congress to help deal with America’s growing inequality problem.

Section 2 is another one I borrowed from Justice Stevens. It essentially prevents courts from overturning reasonable campaign finance controls. These two sections together would make it easier to restrict the growing power of big business over politics.

3rd Amendment Proposal: Clarifying and Updating the Federal and Supreme Courts

Section 1: No Person shall be a federal judge who shall not have attained to the age of forty years, and been ten years a Citizen of the United States.

Section 2: A term maximum of 15 will be set for each justice appointed after the ratification of this amendment.

Section 3: The number of Supreme Court justices shall be set at 15. A new justice seat will be added every 4 years until that number is reached.

Section 4: New seats must be filled by the president in office when the seat is vacated.

The Constitution is surprisingly silent on the federal courts. Unlike the other branches there is not an age or even citizenship requirement. Article 3 which lays out the Court’s powers has less than 400 words. It wasn’t until Marbury v. Madison (1803) when it was even exactly clear what the role of court would be. As the other 2 branches have increased in dysfunction, more and more pressing issues have had to be solved in the courts. That has resulted in the same kind of political dysfunction there.

Section 1 is borrowing language from the other age and citizenship requirements in the other branches. To my knowledge this would only have excluded a dozen or so judges in American history (and just by a few years).

Section 2 gives a specific limit on the number of years a justice can serve. Right now it is life, but the average is about 16. Recently there has been a race to nominate younger and younger justices so they can stay longer. This would have required Roberts and Alito to retire soon. It would have required Clarence Thomas to retire 15 years ago. However, I do think it’s important this only be applied to future justices so as to decrease its controversy (this was also done with the 22nd Amendment limiting the president to 2 terms).

Section 3 almost doubles the current number of justices, but over a 24 year period. The number of justices fluctuated between 5-10 until it was stabilized at 9 after the Civil War. However, I believe 15 justices decreases the pressure of each new nomination without making group deliberation too onerous. It would also allow them to break into sub-committees if that process was found helpful to take on more cases.

Section 4 prevents any more partisan delays like we saw in 2016.

4th Amendment Proposal: Altering the Only Elected Position in the Executive Branch

Section 1: The position of the presidency will be divided into 3 separately elected positions to replace the position of Vice President. All three positions will retain the same requirements and accountability currently held for the position of President.

The President will retain the domestic responsibilities and appointments laid out in the Constitution other than those prescribed to the other two elected positions. 

The Secretary of State will oversee foreign affairs and Ambassadors of the United States. All military appointments will be done by the Secretary of State with the approval of the President and then confirmed by the Senate.

The Attorney General will oversee the Department of Justice as the chief law enforcement officer as well as advise the heads of federal executive departments on legal matters. All appointments to leadership and division head positions will be done by the Attorney General with the approval of the President and then confirmed by the Senate.

All 3 elected members of the Executive Branch must agree to use any weapons of mass destruction and only in response to those weapons used against the United States.

Section 2: The elected positions of the Executive Branch will continue to be chosen by the Electoral College, though all states must transition to a proportional model in which the number of electors each state awards is equal to the percentage of the popular vote the candidate received. 

Section 1 solves a problem that the modern presidency has created. If there is one part of our federal government the founding fathers wouldn't recognize it’s the power of the Executive. The President now appoints or oversees 4 million government employees. This is how most states (including my home state) elect their Executive Branches. It also removes one of the biggest structural flaws in the Constitution, the useless Vice President. As the power of the presidency has grown, it has become more and more alarming that the person set to take over if the president is unable, is an otherwise powerless position. And it assures the Justice Department remains independent. The last part of Section 1 alters what is now a unilateral nuclear decision maker. 

Section 2 keeps the intention of the Electoral College without the exaggerated effects we see now thanks to a larger divide between urban and rural America. This would prevent Presidential elections from being decided in essential 5 swing states. It also prevents voters in states like Wyoming and Vermont from having their vote count almost 4 times more than Florida or North Carolina. It’s important to note that the current “winner take all” strategy was not always the case.

5th Amendment Proposal: Making it Easier to Increase the Number of States

Section 1: U.S. territories and regions within states may apply for statehood without Congressional or Presidential Approval once they have reached a population of 1 million residents.

Section 2: Contiguous regions within states may apply for separate statehood without Congressional or Presidential Approval once they have reached a population of 1 million residents.

Section 3: The number of states shall be capped at 250.

Section 1 allows for something that should have been done a century ago. If there is one thing that most Americans throughout history would recognize is the addition of new states. In 200 years we grew from 13 original colonies to a continent full of 50 states (about one state every five years). However, due to race (most non-state territories are suspiciously brown) and a love of round numbers we have not increased the number of states even as we kept them as U.S. territories. The Amendment would also prevent the U.S. from oppressively adding new territory because the local population could quickly become a voting state. Simply, the Constitution should follow the flag.

Section 2 essentially removes Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution which requires Congressional approval before a state can split. If we truly trust American Federalism then having large states (either by land side or population) just doesn’t fit with the original blueprint for our American republic. Imagine how much less controversial the recent Supreme Court decisions would be if moving to a new state was as easy as moving to a new county.

Section 3 prevents states from gaming the system and creating an unmanageable number of states. 250 may seem like a lot, but Virginia, by far the largest state in 1790, had a smaller population than even the smallest state Wyoming today

---

The goal of all 5 of these amendments is to increase “state capacity”. To increase the quality of our government while also binding the country closer together. I have heard concerns that our Constitution is just too old and too flawed to be fixed. But do you think the political leadership that you are so unsatisfied with could remake something better from scratch? If we can’t pass and execute good laws, how could we trust anyone to create a whole new system?

The founding fathers assumed we would make structural changes to the Constitution as we saw structural changes to our country. They themselves passed 12 amendments. James Madison, the primary writer of the Constitution, helped oversee the passage of all 12 even before he became President. He understood the document would need to be updated. It has been done 27 times. We’ve since seen every other generation pass 3-5 amendments to deal with mounting crises. I believe we can and must do it again.

In many ways you wouldn’t even recognize the way our country first functioned under the original Constitution. No protections for citizenship or voting rights (for even landless white men). Non-functioning presidential election system. Not even an assumption that the Constitution even applied to the state governments. No direct election of senators and taxes to cast a ballot.

The final question is, how do we actually pass an amendment? Although there are two ways to amend the Constitution, all 27 amendments have followed the same path. 2/3 of Congress must approve the amendments and then 3/4ths of the states must approve them. It’s a difficult road, but it doesn’t have to be done in one sweeping reform. Americans are not uniquely broken, but an unaltered Constitution has been. It has improved before, it can be again.

Last Minute Voting Guide

"Remember, remember, the 5th of November, the blog post of treason and links." I've put a lot less energy into blogging lately, but I did give some thought about tomorrow's election and if I had anything new to say. It's turns out I don't. So here's a quick summary what I have said over the last 4 years:

1) It's okay NOT to vote. In fact, with the general lack of useful knowledge on the issues, it may be best not to.
2) It's okay TO vote, but be honest with yourself, statistically your vote doesn't matter. It's because it makes you feel good to get out and do something to support your team.
3) The BEST reason to vote is to push the political discussion in your preferred direction. It's not about the winning vote, it's about the marginal vote towards a bigger idea.
4) Your political perspectives are always SHIFTING. Who knows, in 4 years I may be voting for someone who actually wins.

I won $20 from dad in the last election betting on Obama. It looks like I'll win another $20 on him in this election from my brother. God bless America.

Money Can't Buy You Votes

With the Republican primaries dominating the news these days, it's worth taking a look at. But unlike most reporting which feels more like sports commentary based on either hunches or the obvious, the boys at Freakonomics ask an important and interesting question: Does Money Really Buy Elections?:

When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote. It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.

So even though I'm a big supporter of publishing who gets what money from where, what I thought in 2008 and  2010 still stands. Campaign donations are like voting, they are a way to show your support, but they don't matter much.

Public Choice Theory 101

Here's the introduction to any good public choice theory class. It explains why the recent budget "cuts" turned out to not be real cuts and why it is perfectly rational for politicians to take from the many and give to the few:

Moral Requirement of Voters

I talk a lot about voting, but rarely in the positive. If you do vote, here's some sound advice:

As a citizen, you do not owe it to others to provide them with the best possible governance. But if you take on the office of voter, you acquire additional moral responsibilities, just as you would were you to become the Federal Reserve chairperson, a physician, or a congressperson. The electorate decides who governs. Sometimes they decide policy directly. They owe it to the governed to provide what they justifiably believe or ought to believe is the best governance, just as others with political power owe it to the governed to do the same.

Or, as economist Bryan Caplan summarizes:

There's no duty to vote, but if you do vote, you have a duty to vote "only for things [you] justifiably believe would promote the common good."

How to Increase Voting

I'm very interested in the culture of voting. I talked plenty about how your vote doesn't count, which helps explain why it's so hard to get people to vote. I've posted about how Swiss mail-in ballots decreased turnout. And here's Megan McArdle on how early voting may do the same. I even wrote my graduate thesis on the effects of compulsory voting laws. So when I read about a way to actually get people to vote, I couldn't resist. So what's this magical method? Peer pressure. Here's the story:

Before the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial primary, three political scientists isolated a group of voters and mailed them copies of their voting histories, listing the elections in which they participated and those they missed. Included were their neighbors’ voting histories, too, along with a warning: after the polls closed, everyone would get an updated set.

After the primary, the academics examined the voter rolls and were startled by the potency of peer pressure as a motivational tool. The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured.

My next question is, do we even want those pressure driven votes?

Emptying the Bottle: Mid-October '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• The merits of non-voting [video] (earlier).
• We are loyal to our dentist because he causes us pain.
• Why Britian is always a forerunner. Ease of legislation.
• Germany finally pays off World War I debt.
• Government pays citizens to watch CCTV footage to prevent crime.
• Having too many channels can make you less happy (earlier).
• US health care spending as a percentage of GDP [graphic].
• ICP are insane, clowns, a posse, and... Christians?
• In future Russia, cars drive you.
• Democrats and Republicans selfishly disagree on Citizens United v. FEC.
• Story about the 1965 NYC blackout and resulting baby boom is apparently false.
• Improv thoughts from Jill Bernard [video] (related).

Always feel free to send me any interesting sites or articles you come across.

Economics of Afghani Votes

No this isn't one of my usual tirades against voting. Though I guess this isn't a celebration of democracy either. Last month Afghanistan their parliamentary elections. Unsurprisingly there was rampant fraud. One example, was vote buying:

In northern Kunduz Province, Afghan votes cost $15 each; in eastern Ghazni Province, a vote can be bought for $18. In Kandahar, they sell their rights for as little as $1 a ballot. More commonly, the price seems to hover in the $5 to $6 range, as quoted to New York Times reporters in places like Helmand and Khost Provinces.

And the exchange process was surprisingly formal:

In many places, so-called vote maleks organize the trade. These are brokers who collect all the voter registration cards in a community, and then peddle them to the highest bidder. Typically, the vote malek keeps half of the money and the voters get half.

Though the votes may seem cheap, you must consider Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world with a per capita GDP of less than $1000 (compared to the US at $46,000). So, accounting for relative wealth (and ignoring the international importance of US elections), it's like an American vote going for around $250. Here's the silver lining of the fraud. It's less fraudulent than it could have been:

Vote buying is much more common in this election than the last national balloting here last year. The feeling, experts say, was that last year’s election was stolen wholesale by supporters of President Hamid Karzai, so there was little need for vote buying.

And it's also good news that fake voter cards, which apparently aren't as effective, went for about 23 cents each. But don't let the price of a vote imply anything about the patriotic value of the vote. If anything, illegal vote getting implies there are other illegal gains to be had once elected.

Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.

Takeaways from SuperFreakonomics, Part I

I just finished reading the popular economics book SuperFreakonomics, the sequel to the book I recently posted about Freakonomics (Part II). The subtitle is "global warming, patriotic prostitutes and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance". You can read their current writings at the Freakonomics blog. Here the first part of my takeaways:

Whether it's books or business, you are battling the lethargy that comes with success.

While there are exceptions to every rule, it's important to understand the rule to understand the exception.

Per mile, drunk walking is 8X more dangerous than drunk driving for the intoxicated person.

In India, over half of men (and women) said domestic abuse against women is justified in some cases. However, in houses that had TV's, women were given more respect. They also had a lower birthrate (important for women's autonomy and health).

In an average year, there are about four fatal shark attacks in the world. Here are some statistics. Is the human fear of sharks our most irrational fear?

Understanding small things is important to understanding big things.

If the government wants to ban something (think prostitution or drugs), perhaps it should focus on buyers, not sellers. If you remove the current suppliers, more will arrive (watch The Wire). If you remove the consumers, the current suppliers will leave.

The price of prostitution has fallen dramatically in the wake of the sexual revolution. To put it plainly, there is more "free" sex to be had.

30% of unpaid sex from prostitutes went to police officers. It's true, in most cases prostitutes are more likely to have sex with a cop then be arrested by them.

The female college conundrum: Get more education to make more money. Yet, now that you have this education, you can marry a man with even more money. Now you are more likely to stay on home with kids. Sounds like a case for missionary dating.

Men and women, Ceteris paribus, perform similarly on most tests. However, if you pay them for right answers, men will outperform women. Does this mean it is efficient to pay men more than women?

Mastery is a result of "deliberate practice", not inherent skill. So do what you love or you'll never enjoy the process of getting good at it (earlier).

Characteristics that predisposes one to be a terrorist are similar to those that predispose one to vote (wealthy, high level of education, desire for political action). And as I shared before, it may be more effective than voting.

Moral norms change from generation to generation more than we like to think. Even life insurance was seen as an uncomfortable profit from the death of a loved one.

Emptying the Bottle: Mid-August '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• What it looks like when economists try to lose weight.
• Practical suggestions for threatening situations.
• Voting in churches makes you more likely to vote conservatively.
• Dutch council helps jobless women find rich men to marry (earlier).
• Good advice for any presentation.
• Immigration and the protection racket.
• Why you should reveal more about yourself.
• Commuting is bad for your health (earlier).
• China is richer than... El Salvador.
• Good summary of the last 10 years.

To follow live and to see comments, subscribe via Google Reader.

Why I'll Probably Never Vote for a Republican

Last year I explained why American liberal's fear of markets will probably keep me from voting for most Democrats. However, as Obama's approval rating is plummeting, I'm actually growing more frustrated with American conservatism. Though the words liberal and conservative have muddled definitions, there is a clear difference in my understanding of them, how they view change. Liberals embrace the hope of the future, expecting that there will be improvement. Conservatives, embrace the successes of the past, worried about the repercussions of that change*.

The situation in America is uniquely convoluted. If conservatives are afraid of change, then the Founding Fathers were liberals. However, they set up a conservative Constitution meant to keep national policy stable. Both ideologies are perfectly logical, but the pessimistic conservative worries me more. Though some change has been harmful, most of American history has been positive change. Conservatives are afraid to roll the dice, worried that the change will be harmful. But by attempting control and not allowing some risk, we miss out on the great things that change can bring. It is that control that worries me most about conservatives. Coercion of others is one of the great threats to our humanity.

Conservatives, because they fear change, are less likely to tolerate things they don't prefer (think immigration and drugs). They need more categories for things they dislike and things they find morally reprehensible. Sadly, this is also true for many American liberals (think environmental laws and gun restrictions). But it is the conservative distrust of the new and different that can lead to social division like nationalism and racism. Although conservatism is useful in dealing with situations we don't fully understand, it also limits growth by being afraid of new things. The liberal argument fails when things are fine the way they are. The conservative ideology fails when our current path continues to be beneficial. I believe both of those are true, so I'll continue to be weary of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.

*Economist F. A. Hayek's essay Why I Am Not a Conservative was helpful in the formation of several ideas articulated here.

Takeaways from Madison's Montpelier, Part III

This is the third post in a series about my experience at Montpelier, the home of President James Madison. The week included readings, lectures, tours, and groups discussions. Here are the first and second posts transcribed from my notes from the week. Just a friendly reminder, these ideas are mine and are not necessarily those endorsed by the Center for the Constitution. Here is part three of my takeaways:

Both because of structural changes by states and the increased power of political parties, the electoral college does not function like it was originally intended. Though I have no idea if there is a politically feasible was to fix it.

When a court rules, it's labeled an "opinion". That's important when understand the fallibility of the judiciary.

Federalism, that is division of power between the parts and whole, existed in Old Testament Jerusalem with the twelve tribes.

The Constitution was meant to restrict the government's ability to be swayed by the people's "passion".

Nowadays people complain about the partisan griping in Washington, DC, longing for the days when American politicians were more harmonious. Although it may be measurably worse, that is hard to measure, that harmonious time never existed. One of the first meetings of our nation's leaders to discuss the federal government's duties had to take a day off because things got so intense.

It is important to note, most (probably all) of the drafters of the Constitution were frustrated with it. It was built on compromise.

Key to understanding anything: What is the relationship of the parts to the whole?

Do not be fooled by false options. Sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Counterintuitive teaching is not only interesting, it's Biblical. Jesus himself is regularly quoting using this format: "You may heard this, but the truth is this".

In any discussion, ask yourself if the opposite is also true.

Originally the founders were afraid of a overly powerful legislature. Overtime, it has the executive and judicial branches that have increased their power the most. Look at how often the legislature simply looks the president for leadership. This has occurred because the people love the presidency, and the presidents allow it.

When the executive does the job the legislative branch, it fails to do it's own job effectively.

The power to declare war rests with Congress, from Madison's perspective, to prevent the executive from grabbing more power during a time of crisis. This balance fails when we have quasi-wars: Vietnam Conflict, War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc. This is partially discussed by John Yoo on the Daily Show.

James Madison is the only American to make the executive powers and then use them. For this reason alone we should pay more attention to his presidency.

Every "great" president is one that stretched the bounds of his position.

Though James Madison thought building more roads and canals would unite the country to great benefit, his last act as president was to veto that legislation on the grounds that is was unconstitutional. Today the Supreme Court is seen as the only branch required to make such decisions.

In our loud times, we can' appreciate a quite leader. We praise the showman, not the workman.

One of the speakers for the week emphasized the original role of impeachment as a punishment for politicians overstepping their bounds. Sadly, it has mostly been used for petty crimes (not following a contrived law or lying under oath).  Crimes should be punished legally. Constitutional matters should go the Senate. However, impeachment can't be used correctly unless the people understand the Constitution.

James Madison was a politician that learned and changed his mind. Do we want our politicians to be learning on the job? Jon Stewart certainly doesn't when he plays competing sound bites.

If James Madison was born today, which party do you think he would join? The automatic answer for me was the Libertarian Party, which would probably agree with him on issues the most. However, I don't think he would join a party of government opposition that is so in the minority they cannot participate realistically in government. There is some wisdom from him there.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Saying there is a trade off between government and freedom is a false choice. Here's a quote from Stephen Colbert that puts it nicely: "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

As I sat in what I called "nerd camp" I had to ask myself, and the group, if what we were doing really mattered. Sure 40 teachers were convinced of the benefits of Constitutional presidencies and together we may convince 4000 students, but that is just a fraction of the voting public. The group decided it does matter, because America has a lot to gain from learning what we have to teach.

Economic Benefits of Political Apathy

Yesterday I discussed the inherent flaws in democratic votes and how shouting (rioting, protesting, donating) can actually be more efficient. In the past this has convinced me of the benefits of political apathy. Apparently I should have been a little more specific:

there is another critical competitive advantage for America in relation to its other democratic peers. It is the fact that in American presidential and congressional elections, about half of the electorate never turns out to vote. And the unique competitive advantage arises from the fact that unlike in other Western democracies, the people who end up staying away from voting in the U.S. belong overwhelmingly to its poorest, least educated sections.

He goes on to discuss the reasons why the poor don't vote:

Historically, many of the southern states have had a nasty record of officially and unofficially making it more difficult for blacks and poor whites to vote, a position that largely prevailed until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Other reasons include the disenfranchisement of its prison population, which, at two million, is the largest in the world. Moreover, felony disenfranchisement laws in most states make it difficult for ex-felons to vote. As a result, about 5.4 million offenders and ex-offenders (about 2.5 percent of the electorate) were excluded from the voting rolls in the 2004 presidential election. Also, the fact that Election Day in the U.S. is not a national holiday makes it difficult for those holding low paying jobs (where wages are paid by the hour) to go out and vote.

So why is this good for the American economy? It's something I've already mentioned before on this blog, more educated voters leads to more libertarian voters, which leads to more economic growth:

A critical factor which determines the economic success of a country is how well it strikes a balance between its short term needs and long term requirements. The short term interests veer towards more spending and consumption, while the long term interests lie in greater investment for the future and in shaping an environment conducive to creation of wealth. Essentially, the poor and the disadvantaged within a country would tend to have a short term outlook. Their interest would lie in having the government spend more on generous social security benefits and subsidies and in laws that protect labour. They would be far less enthused by the investments and sacrifice required to further the economic well-being of the country over the long term, or in promoting the entrepreneurial class.

This also supports my graduate school thesis about the correlation between compulsory voting laws and government spending. So here's the question: do the economic benefits of voter disenfranchisement outweigh the social costs? My guess is most people would say no.

When Shouting is Better than Voting

A while back I questioned the value of public protesting and suggested handwriting a letter instead. I've also questioned the value of voting, the most traditional way of citizen involvement. I certainly don't think voting is worthless, but I do have a different understanding of why I and others really vote (even for a third party). Not only is the probability of your vote making a difference in national election statistically impossible, voting also has another huge flaw, everybody only gets one. No matter how how passionate/apathetic and educated/uneducated you are, all voices count the same. This is simultaneously democracy's greatest strength and weakness. Luckily, citizens have created other ways to influence government, some better than voting:

"One man one vote" is not always optimal. I reported a few days ago that technocrats can under some conditions take better decisions than a referendum could. The point there was about information and heterogeneity of preferences.

Surajeet Chakravarty and Todd Kaplan use similar arguments to compare simple voting and shouting matches. In the latter, those caring more about the outcome put more effort into shouting. Thus, if there is a lot of variance in opinions, shouting better reflects marginal utility and yields something closer the social optimum.

How is this shouting concretely expressed? It should be a signal that is costly and in some way wasteful. In France, it is demonstrating on the streets. In the United States it is donating to political campaigns. In Thailand it is erecting barricades. Usually seen as major inefficiencies, all these can actually be good.

Greece seems to have their own, less conventional method. This is why I was happy with the Supreme Court case earlier this year that struck down limits to campaign finance. I've done a lot of research on the topic and it seems to be one of the most efficient ways for citizens to show their preferences for government. Criticizing the equality in voting probably makes many very uncomfortable, but that only confirms to me that voting is less about producing an effective government and more about satisfying a citizen's desire for participation.

Real Political Impact

A good friend of mine who lives in D.C. recently posted some first hand accounts of Tea Party protests. It was helpful in getting a better understanding of the movement. It also got me wondering just how helpful protesting is in creating political change. My gut feeling is not that successful. Unless you number in the millions or have a incredibly famous charismatic leader and very specific goals, I'm not convinced protesting has much impact. I've also mentioned that voting has little impact on political outcomes and that political involvement is more about consuming something than producing it. So what's the politically motivated to do? How do you change policy without being lost in the crowd? Politician Omar Ahmad says that the best way, is the old-fashioned way:

Here's the TED Blog to keep you updated of new talks.

Good Day for Democracy

I mentioned recently how little political importance I place on voting in the United States. However, I view the recently election in Iraq very differently. I haven't been that supportive of the war for various reasons, but the over 60% turnout in their recent election is very encouraging. Nation building may not be worth the cost, but there seems to be some benefit. The Iraqi people have come out in higher numbers than most first world countries despite, or possibly because of, the threat of violence. These voters and politicians are their founding fathers of Iraqi democracy. Their individual votes may not determine the outcome, but they signal the success of a citizen supported government. This is a good week for all of us who desire a government accountable to the people.

Involvement is Consumption, Not Production

I mentioned before that I don't necessarily encourage political involvement and that voting is more like cheering than playing. Here's the numbers on why your vote doesn't and never will count:

On average, a voter in America had a 1 in 60 million chance of being decisive in the presidential election.

However, I have voted, but for my own reasons. Here's another for the list, it makes me happier:

So find two university psychologists in new research that looks for the first time at the link between political activity and wellbeing. Malte Klar and Tim Kasser started by interviewing two sets of around 350 college students, both about their degree of political engagement and their levels of happiness and optimism. Both times, they found that those most inclined to go on a demo were also the cheeriest.

So there's a link – but can politics actually make a person happier? In the third study, the academics took a bunch of students and divided them up into groups. The first were encouraged to write to the management of the college cafeteria asking for tastier food. The next lot wrote asking the cafe to source local or Fairtrade products. They were then tested on their wellbeing, and the group who had involved themselves in the political debate were far and away the strongest on the "vitality" scale: they felt more alive and enriched than those who merely complained about the menu.

There are many fascinating aspects to this . First, the activist-students didn't necessarily care about food ethics, but just taking action made them feel better. Second, sending a memo is hardly the most engaging political action – and yet it had a big impact on those taking it. Third, the study flies in the face of the popular wisdom that happiness resides in creature comforts and relative affluence. Perhaps activism gives people a sense of purpose, or of agency or just a chance to hang out with other people. Most likely it does all of the above.

Fun fact: John Tyler the tenth president, never voted, even in his own election.

Why Did 122,842,625 Other People Vote?

I mentioned recently why I voted, but why did every else vote? Stephen and Steven, authors of the popular book Freakonomics, have an answer:

The Swiss love to vote - on parliamentary elections, on plebiscites, on whatever may arise. But voter participation had begun to slip over the years (maybe they stopped handing out live pigs there too), so a new option was introduced: the mail-in ballot. Whereas each voter in the U.S. must register, that isn't the case in Switzerland. Every eligible Swiss citizen began to automatically receive a ballot in the mail, which could then be completed and returned by mail.

Never again would any Swiss voter have to tromp to the polls during a rainstorm; the cost of casting a ballot had been lowered significantly. An economic model would therefore predict voter turnout to increase substantially. Is that what happened?

It goes back to the incentives behind voting. If a given citizen doesn't stand a chance of having her vote affect the outcome, why does she bother? In Switzerland, as in the U.S., "there exists a fairly strong social norm that a good citizen should go to the polls," Funk writes. "As long as poll-voting was the only option, there was an incentive (or pressure) to go to the polls only to be seen handing in the vote. The motivation could be hope for social esteem, benefits from being perceived as a cooperator or just the avoidance of informal sanctions. Since in small communities, people know each other better and gossip about who fulfills civic duties and who doesn't, the benefits of norm adherence were particularly high in this type of community."

Go here for some personal explanations from Chicago residents. I'll sum them up for you: "felt good," "my responsibility," "my vote counts."

Why I Voted

To put it bluntly, casting your ballot solely to effect the outcome of the election is irrational. Let me put it in an equation: (benefit per person from your candidate) x (300 million people) - (personal cost of voting) = Expected Utility of Voting

I'm believe that this equation equals a negative number for most, even if you're in a swing state. So you may ask, why did Harrison vote today?

1) To both make myself feel good and to support those who think like me.

2) My Republican votes for the United States Congress were votes for a divided government.

3) My Libertarian votes for President, Governor, as well as other minor positions were to call attention to my team. Every incremental vote gives the two major parties the incentive to move that way.

4) My reasons to not vote would have been at least partially motivated by my self-deceptive thoughts on my political superiority,

5) It gives me political season closure.

Emptying the Bottle: October '08 Links List

1) Go here if you're tired of talking to a machine.

2) In Chess Boxing you need brain and brawn.

3) Why the financial crisis is like the game Monopoly or an Antarctic expedition.

4) A college scholarship for blogging!

5) Commit yourself to voting, or anything for that matter.

6) You know the economy is in trouble when this blog is created.

7) Thanks for the shout out James.

8) Countries in order of freest or states in order of freest.

9) Cheaters Dating Service, is there a worse place to meet people online?

10) Ken Jennings, who more money than anyone in TV history on Jeopardy, has a blog.

*As always, you can see what I find interesting on a daily basis*