- Reform and Professionalize Election
Administration
- More or Universal Voter Registration
- Instant Runoff Voting
- Proportional Representation
- Direct Election of the President
- Eliminate or Reform the Senate
- Public Broadcasting and Equal Time
- Campaign Finance Reform and Public
Financing
- Supreme Court Term Limits
- Restore Faith in Government
Taken together, Mr. Hill believes these
changes would create "... a climate of multipartisan collegiality, where
the collective mind-set can come together and share perspectives in
order to craft compromises and solutions for the good of the nation
..." (p. 194). Mr. Hill beleives that there is an American political
center where all parties meet and come to agreement. This is the
assumption of a common complaint about politicians, 'why don't you guys
just get together and solve the problems?'
The premise of the book is clearly stated at the outset:
How can we account for this seeming
contradiction between a preponderance of moderate and independent
voters ... and deep partisan divisions ... Our antiquated political
system forces us into these two hostile factions. (p. 3)
Yet, later on the same page, Mr. Hill recognizes the
United States is deeply and about equally politically divided, which is
the source of "rancor and division" (p. 3), not accomodation. Therein is
a darker possibility, which Mr. Hill almost considers, but passes by.
What he sticks to is the notion that Americans are really cut from one
cloth, so the political wars are artificial. It's a case of
Dr. Seuss or
Star Trek
creatures that happen to be painted somewhat differently. The book has
to be undersood in those terms to make sense.
I endorse most of what Mr. Hill proposes in this book, although with a
few changes and cavils. I have my own version of proportional
representation, stated in
GSQ as
Affinity Representation. I doubt universal voter registration will
change much. I give more credence to limiting Capitalist money in
politics than does Mr. Hill. I doubt very much anything can be done
about the Electoral College, the Senate or the Supreme Court (in my
lifetime). I think it unlikely faith will be restored in government any
time soon, perhaps because my own has been severly diminished during the
last quarter century. In my view, these reforms would only slow down
likely collapse. Nonetheless, most of what Mr. Hill proposes seem to be
Good Ideas. (You may as well enjoy the music a determined orchestra
played as the Titanic sank.)
I think it unlikely Conservatives will see much merit in this book, as
by and large they are committed to sustaining a system that has given
them power for more than two centuries. Mr. Hill correctly points out
that the Founding Fathers established a Republic which limits the power
of the Mob. That is why they established the Electoral College, the
Senate and the Supreme Court as they are in the Constitution. The
Founding Fathers were citizens of their jealous States, not of a United
States, so they insisted on methods that gave power to rural, slave
holding States. American History can be interpreted as the ongoing
conflict embedded in the original Constitution and related writings,
particularly the Federalist papers.
Mr. Hill is that part of the argument which believes the anti-democratic
provisions of American government should be removed. His many examples
and criticisms of recent events show how the election process has been
used and abused, especially in the last decade. He does show how his
reforms would take care of the problems in evidence.
Where Mr. Hill's reforms do promote democracy and civic well-being,
there is a broad middle such as the one Mr. Hill imagines exists in the
America. Places like Sweden do well because almost everyone shares a
common ground. In other words, cultural homogeniety is a prerequisite
for improved democracy. When cultures are sufficiently different, when
there is no compromise, then it is either separation or battle to the
death. That is the message of Samuel Huntington's
Clash of
Civilizations, and is certainly what is going on in the Middle
East. I believe, the clash is (and has been) the fundamental condition
of the United States.
I must say the book is a day late and a dollar short, which is why I
rated it as I did. I wanted to urge it more strongly, but I cannot. My
difficulty is this: I think the root causes of division in the United
States are much deeper than the electoral system. The present Bandit
government puts in full view the giant crevass that separates Red and
Blue, the same unbridged depths marked by Secession which swallowed
Civil Warriors. I don't think there is any compromise possible between
these two different and hostile cultures. If there were, Mr. Hill's
formulas might work as he suggests.