There’s an old saying that you should never watch either of two things being made: sausage or laws. A report in the Indianapolis Star’s “Behind Closed Doors” section this morning is a good example of the sort of game-playing and disregard of the public interest that is the counterpart to sweeping up the floor to plump up the sausage.
As I’ve posted previously, Mike Young has authored a bill that would divest the Indianapolis City-County Council of its fiscal authority. His bill–and a couple of other iterations also pending–would create an “imperial” Mayor no longer answerable to Councilors for spending, hiring and other important decisions that are now part of the democratic checks and balances. It’s terrible policy.
In response, Democratic County Chair Ed Treacy has an equally bad idea. He wants the Democrats in the Legislature to hold the mass transit referendum hostage. Since it will take actual bipartisanship–i.e., votes from both Republicans and Democrats–to pass the bill allowing Marion County voters to decide for ourselves whether we want decent mass transit enough to pay for it, Treacy proposes that Democrats withhold those votes until and unless the Mayor-as-King bill is defeated.
The only people who get forgotten in this unsavory game of political chicken are the citizens of central Indiana. But hey–watch those politicians play that inside baseball game! Watch them give as good as they get! Tit for tat….and screw the public interest.
Democrats and liberal pundits are all up in arms about proposals emerging in some states that would allocate the electoral vote by Congressional District. The reason they oppose such a measure is strictly partisan: given the current effects of gerrymandering (largely by Republicans at the state level), it would disadvantage Democrats. Why do I think that if Democrats had been doing the gerrymandering, the whole concept would be less offensive?
Let’s review the current situation and our options.
The Electoral College–whatever its original purposes or merits–is outmoded. It is certainly inconsistent with our current goal of “one person, one vote.” But eliminating it will require a constitutional amendment, and that would take years and be very difficult. Currently, most states award all of their electoral votes (a number equal to the number of Senators and Representatives from that state) to the candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote in that state–no matter how thin the victory.
In red Indiana, that means that voters who opted for Barack Obama in November might just as well have flushed those votes down the toilet. Ditto New York voters who preferred Mitt Romney. Winner take all effectively erases the votes cast for the loser, even if that loss was by a mere fraction.
The Constitution permits each state to decide how its electoral votes will be allocated, and two states–Maine, and (I think) Nebraska–have long allocated them by congressional district, awarding the district vote to the winner of that district and giving the two additional votes to the candidate who wins statewide. Since congressional districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, the result is an allocation that more closely approximates the breakdown of the vote statewide.
The kicker here, of course, is gerrymandering. Not surprisingly, the sudden interest in electoral fairness is being seen in states where the Republicans have been most successful in rigging the boundaries in their favor. But only the most naive among us would expect a different result if the situation were reversed; Democrats have been just as eager to draw squiggly lines that benefit them when they’ve had the power to do so.
If we really want a system in which everyone’s vote actually counts, a system that doesn’t give politicians of either party the opportunity to game the system, there is an easy fix: allocate the electoral vote to reflect the popular vote.
If candidate A gets 55% of the popular vote and candidate B gets 45%, allocate the electoral votes 55/45.
We talk a lot about the importance of voting, and each election we hear that “every vote counts.” That may be true of votes for local offices (unless gerrymandering has been at work at the local level), but with respect to our votes for President, it’s bull-hockey. Under our present system, red votes in blue states don’t count. Blue votes in red states don’t count.
If we really cared about electoral fairness, and not just about comparative advantage–not just about whose ox is gored–we’d allocate the electoral vote to represent the actual voice of the people.
Indiana has all kinds of real problems. Our education system is pretty much a wasteland. Our per-capita income levels are among the nation’s lowest. College graduates continue to leave the state in droves. Job creation is robust only in the imagination of the Indiana Economic Development agency’s PR flacks.
So what weighty issues occupy our genius legislators? How do they propose to solve these problems?
Well, the measure that would mandate the teaching of cursive has been moving through the process. The House Resolution that would place a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state constitution is once again a hot topic. Yesterday, the Indiana Senate unanimously passed a bill to make switchblades legal in Indiana. (And no, I am not making that up. The vote was 47-0.)
And also yesterday, a colleague helpfully sent me a link to this example of our legislature’s priorities:
A bill to prohibit implementation of Agenda 21. Provides that an Indiana governmental entity may not adopt or implement: (1) any policy recommendations relating to the United Nations’ 1992 “Agenda 21” conference on the environment and development that deliberately or inadvertently infringe on or restrict private property rights without due process; or (2) any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that an Indiana governmental entity may not enter into any agreement with, expend any sum of money received from, or pay any money to, an “Agenda 21 organization”. Provides that any such actions are void.
For those who have somehow failed to encounter the threat that is “Agenda 21,” the reference is to a toothless measure passed back in 1992 by the United Nations, encouraging members of that body to care for the environment and urging members to consider various approaches to sustainable development. It included references to energy-saving strategies like mass transit. (The “21” stands for “21st Century.) To the crazy fringe, this modest set of non-binding proposals was and is an obvious communist/socialist/fascist plot–and an attack on American sovereignty. (Don’t ask me to explain the logic of this. There is no logic–just paranoia.)
These proposals join previously discussed efforts to make public school children recite the Lord’s Prayer, and to teach creationism in science classrooms. These are the pressing issues with which our elected officials occupy their time, at least when they aren’t searching the skies for those black UN helicopters…..
It’s embarrassing to be a Hoosier during the legislative session.
The City of Indianapolis and surrounding counties want to vote on whether to tax ourselves in order to support a minimally-decent public transportation system. It is widely acknowledged that we do not have such a system now.
I am strongly in support of this much-needed upgrade to our current, inadequate bus system, but I do understand that some people–for whatever reason–either do not support expanded transit or do not agree with the current approach to constructing such a system. Fine. Those are matters for debate and an eventual vote to determine whose view is more persuasive.
What I do not understand is the disinclination of some Indiana legislators to allow us to make that decision and hold that vote. I am offended–and I think Indianapolis residents should all be offended, whatever our position on mass transit–by the reluctance expressed by members of the General Assembly to allowing us to decide this issue for ourselves.
This is a prime example of the problems Indiana cities and towns face because we lack meaningful home rule. In other states, local units of government have the authority to decide such matters without having to beg legislators for permission.
Think about how ridiculous this situation is. The citizens of Indianapolis are asking the legislature to allow us to make a democratic decision on a matter that will affect only us. Self-important legislators who represent parts of the state that will be entirely unaffected by whatever decision we make are stroking their chins and taking the matter “under advisement.”
I’d love to ask them who the hell they think they are, but I know the answer. They are petty dictators who think that their exalted positions would somehow be diminished if we were allowed some measure of local decision-making authority–and who have the legal power to say “f#*k you” to the residents of Central Indiana.
Against mass transit? Fine. Against the current proposal for expansion? Okay.
Against self-determination and home rule? Despicable and unacceptable.
A couple of days ago, the New York Times reported on a little-noticed provision inserted in the “fiscal cliff” legislation. The report is a prime example of what ails our broken Congress.
According to the Times, a bare two weeks after pleading guilty in a major federal fraud case, Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology firm, scored what the Times called “a largely unnoticed coup” on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers inserted a paragraph into Section 632 the “fiscal cliff” bill that delays the effective date of a set of Medicare price restraints on a class of drugs that includes Sensipar, a lucrative Amgen pill used by kidney dialysis patients.
The provision gives Amgen an additional two years to sell Sensipar without government controls. The company’s chief executive immediately informed investment analysts of this measure and its likely positive effect on the company’s bottom line.
That one simple bit of language may gladden the hearts of corporate investors, but it is projected to cost Medicare up to $500 million over that period.
And there you have it–the deep corruption that lies at the heart of the current legislative process. At the same time sanctimonious Congressional “fiscal hawks” are wringing their hands over “runaway” health spending and demanding reductions in Medicare coverage and benefits for millions of seniors living on fixed incomes, they are voting for costly measures to benefit big Pharma. In this case, adding insult to injury, a big Pharma company that had just admitted to defrauding the government.
Economists warn about the growing inequality in America, and the pernicious effects of the growing gulf between the 1% and the rest of us. This was a vote to take from the middle-class and give to the rich. Political scientists warn of political cynicism and its corrosive effects. This is the sort of blatant quid pro quo that feeds that cynicism.
Pollsters tell us that Americans prefer head lice and cockroaches to Congress.
