A Re-Look-See at the Constitution - by Bill Maher

[kpete]

Published on Friday, November 17, 2006 by the Boston Globe
A Re-Look-See at the Constitution
by Bill Maher

NEW RULE: When the Iraq Study Group gets done studying Iraq, it should study America.

Now, I know liberals have been on a high these last 10 days, and it can't be the meth because that's a gay evangelical drug. But let's remember that all that really happened was, Republicans went so batty for so long that common sense seemed like a new idea.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this election brought new thinking to Washington. It didn't. It brought Democrats, who are often just Republicans slowed down a step by a sense of shame. But they're not revolutionaries, and they're not really diverse.

Oh, Congress looks like America -- we've got blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and whatever else is in Barack Obama. But diversity of thought? There's exactly one socialist, and when it comes to "faith" -- I bet there's not even one who wouldn't profess the greatest of piety. Except Nancy Pelosi, she's a freak. You know -- "San Francisco values." Right, like 66-year-old grandmother of five Nancy Pelosi is some raving, twig-eating Marxist ideologue. If only she were. If we actually had the occasional far left hippie in Congress to balance out all the legion of loonytoons on the far right -- but outside of Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, there isn't a far left in America. Nancy Pelosi isn't going to try to legalize drugs or socialize hospitals or really tax gasoline or tell the Pentagon to cut its bloated, corrupt budget.

more at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1117-32.htm

[Selatius]

1. There's maybe 10 or 20 percent of America, I would guess, that could be called "far left"

But, lo and behold, we don't live under proportional representation. We live under single-seat constituent representation instead.

To understand the implications of that, just google or wiki Duverger's Law.

Maher could smash his head against the wall hoping for a multi-party representative government, but the fact is he would be smashing his head until hell froze over for the fact that he doesn't understand the system does not allow more than two viable mass parties to emerge in most cases. If he realized how limited the game is by the structure of the House and Senate, he'd have quit going down this road lamenting a lack of "left" in America a long time ago. The fact is he is wrong on that score. They exist, but they generally have no voice in government.

Now, if he moved to Spain or France or Germany or Italy, he might find variety because their systems do allow for multiple parties, but fat chance of that happening here barring a constitutional convention reforming the House and Senate on proportional representation or a mixed system.

[Warpy]

5. The real killer is the Electoral College

and the "winner take all" system that ensures only the largest two parties can possibly have a chance.

This isn't true at the state level and it isn't true moving from House to Senate, Sanders has just proven that.

You're correct that the Senate is an undemocratic institution, providing the same representation for empty states as for full ones. However, it does ensure that each state does have an equal voice in that house, even though the people don't. The alternative would be government by the big cities on either coast with the center of the country ignored completely. While looking at their voting history in the last few years may cause us to believe this a good thing, it's not.

I think changing the EC to proportional representation first and then abolishing it entirely would be a good thing. I don't think abolishing the Senate would be a good thing.

Don't forget, also, that countries with multiple parties often have coalition governments with the smaller parties pushing the larger ones around by threatening to break the coalition, much like Lieberman is doing with the newly Democratic Senate.

[Selatius]

7. I would say for most states it is still true only 2 viable parties can exist

States, in large part, operate on single-seat constituent representation as well. Most states pattern their government structure almost identically after the structure of the federal government with respect to the US Congress. As a result, you have state level districts, which are often gerrymandered like at the federal level to favor the party in power. (See California and Texas)

It is easier for independents to gain office at the state level than at the federal level because it doesn't require as much money to run a state campaign than a federal one, and at the federal level, you often come up against some of the biggest lobbyist-backed candidates around. However, without large resources at your disposal, it is still relatively difficult but not impossible. At the local level, it is even far easier for independents, and this is why Greens are most active at this level.

It is not impossible for independents like Sanders to win office in the US Congress; however, it is plain to me the game is stacked to favor only those supported by one of the two major parties.

I generally don't find issue with smaller parties and bigger parties negotiating with each other or jostling with each other. If anything, it generally fosters consensus building, as seen with countries like Switzerland. I think claims of instability by people afraid of more than one opposition voice are overblown. They love to cite Israel as prima facie evidence but ignore the geopolitical realities of being Israel.

The general way smaller parties could threaten larger parties is if larger parties contemplate violating the coalition agreement on the legislative agenda. No coalition can be formed if there is no agreed framework from which to operate upon. If, for example, the Social Democrats decided to join Bush's invasion against Iraq despite what was agreed in the framework, then the Socialists and the Greens and Labor and the Christian Democrats would be more than justified to leave and end the coalition, thereby triggering a new election and punishing the SDP for, in essence, violating the contract. It works the other way around, too, if a small party violates the contract. If a majority is lost as a result of the small party bolting from the contract, then the opposition on the other side could easily call for new elections to attempt to replace the former coalition. If the opposition succeeds, the small party is punished along with everybody else on the left, but if the left is popular as it is in many European countries, the coalition could actually still maintain power without that party as voters would switch their votes to other members of the coalition. The small party would not only face irrelevance but could actually drive itself into extinction.

[Bucky]

8. Oddly enough, when the founder wrote the Constitution, they did have "proportional representation"

That's the term they used for the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives. They assumed that each state had a single interest--the economic growth and viability of their own community. The assumption was that the wealthy of the community would only prosper if the whole community prospered. I mean, what kind of idiot would want to make a lot of money while all his neighbors lost their jobs?

Anyway, that was their assumption.

[Sammy Pepys]

2. OK, I'm pointing this out just for fun....

But Bill Maher is arguing that the Constitution is outdated, yet wants to get rid of one of it's more modern amendments (22nd Amendment was ratified in 1950 or '51 I think).

Just made me chuckle a bit. :)

[stellanoir]

3. "they are not revolutionaries. . ."

Nope they're truly not. At worst they're beholdened to corporate interests. Not exactly "for the people, by the people, and of the people." At best they're fledgeling and seemingly powerless progressives.

We have to get really creative, employing our collective hearts and minds to ameliorate this oppressive wave of distortion and restore justice, the rule of law, and our now seemingly decimated Constitutional rights. IMHO

The more non linear our approach, the better in my smallish book.

Disclaimer: that is not meant in any wayto besmurch anyone's more traditional approaches in any way shape or form.

K & R'd as ever.

[madmusic]

4. Oh, hell no.

The modern loonies drafting a new Constitution. Good, gawd, no! For one, the moderns have NO concept of what our Founders reaction was to England and the Church of England. The moderns support tyranny!

What a terrible, terrible mess that would be.

[williesgirl]

6. Happy to be 5th vote - hope he's wrong, afraid he's right.