RIGGED DEMOCRACY

[Hot Potato Mash]

Run time: 04:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rb-1hnhGXo   Posted on YouTube: July 01, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 10, 2008 By DU Member: Hot Potato Mash Views on DU: 314

 
Professor and cyber lawyer extraordinaire, Lawrence Lessig, discusses his big idea - that the American public has lost faith in and respect for the central institution of our democracy, Congress - at the 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival.

Yesterday Rasmussen Reports released a poll that showed Congressional approval ratings had fallen to single digits (9%) for the first time in tracking history. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

Yet, if history is any indication, more than 90% of all Congressional incumbents running for reelection will win despite the single digit approval rating:

1964 87%
1966 88%
1968 97%
1970 95%
1972 94%
1974 88%
1976 96%
1978 94%
1980 91%
1982 90%
1984 95%
1986 98%
1988 98%
1990 96%
1992 88%
1994 90%
1996 94%
1998 98%
2000 98%
2002 96%
2004 99%
2006 94%

How does this happen? Well, throwing election fraud aside, the system is rigged to ensure incumbents win by, among other reasons, gerrymandered districts, unfair money advantages and "perks" of the Office.

Gerrymandering is when Congressional districts are redrawn, often in ways that look and are insane, to give unfair advantages to one party. In 2000, the two dominant parties in California (aka Republicans and Democrats) co-operatively redrew the legislative map to ensure electoral safety for politicians on both sides of the aisle. This included the 38th district (see http://www.hotpotatomash.com/2008/07/rigged-democrac.html) which, despite being held by a Republican from 1984 to 2000, is now overwhelmingly Democratic to the point that the Democratic incumbent was not even challenged in 2004 and garnered 100% of the vote.

Then there is the ridiculous money advantage incumbents enjoy over challengers. For example, in the 2000 election cycle incumbents spent 93% of the total money and won 67% of the total vote. And in 2004, challengers in the House were outspent by incumbents by an average of $700,000 while Senate challengers were outspent by $4 million.

The result of this rigged system is that the American people have little say in determining who represents us in Washington. More to the point, Congress has little incentive to represent the American people. Instead, Representatives and Senators write laws that benefit the corporations that keep them in office through large donations to their campaigns. And more often than not, those same laws hurt average middle-class Americans (see http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/report.php?ID=30)

Thus, a Congressional approval rating of 9%.

[Muttocracy]

1. There are some bizarre puzzle piece shapes for districts out there

I know New York has some bizarre ones - the shapes are not like that because of natural features or reasonable shared consitutencies.

[Selatius]

2. The two-party system we have is frankly not too democratic. There need to be reforms.

The first being that elections should be publicly funded.

If a candidate can demonstrate viability through a symbolic money-raising campaign--such as one dollar individual donations whose amount is equal to, say, five percent of a particular district's voting population--and pledge to forego private donations or his own money, and agrees to abide by spending guidelines, then he should be given a lump sum to run his campaign with the right to advertise his campaign as clean.

Further, he should be given additional matching funds within reason if outspent by his opponent.