The U.S. Capitol building has finally been breached by civilians. This comes after very disappointing showings for minor parties in the 2020 elections, as compared to previous elections.
And after two consecutive presidential elections in which the two nominees of the major political parties could be described as the two most hated people in politics, maybe even in the entire country. And that all came after decades upon decades of abuse of the Constitution and the people, by the two major parties, and the president, and the Congress, while the Supreme Court lets it all fly.
How did things get so bad? And where do we go from here? Perhaps most importantly, why aren't more people calling for the abolition of the presidency, the two major parties, and/or the national government altogether?
Think about Switzerland for a moment. Switzerland is currently headed by a Federal Council of seven members, one of whom has the title of President of Switzerland or President of the Swiss Confederation. However, that position is regarded as "first among equals", and has no powers over the other six members of the Federal Council.
So why can't a country with such a strong anti-monarchy history as ours, and similar values to that of Switzerland (namely, limited government, and, before World War I, neutrality) manage to do something about the unlimited power of the unitary executive?
One way is to elect a Congress that will stop handing over its authorities - and handing over the people's freedoms and property - to the executive branch, without cause. But this article will focus on another way; directly amending the constitutional processes regarding the way the president is elected, and the way the Congress is composed (that is, constituted).
If there's any chance at getting a reasonable president – one who's not a tool of either of the major parties, and one who's neither a child molester nor a racist, nor someone who gasses protesters and immigrants – then that person will have to either be an independent, or else represent minor parties.
Or, if not that, then they must appear to do both. [Note: As an example, Jesse Ventura was nominated by the Green Party of Alaska, while remaining more or less an independent, by refraining from actively campaigning.]
Howie Hawkins controversially gained the Green Party's nomination after receiving the nomination of the Socialist Workers' Party. This was a problem for many Green Party supporters, especially supporters of Dario Hunter, because the Green Party's nomination of Howie Hawkins actually violated the Green Party's bylaws, because a person who has already been nominated by another party cannot run as a Green.
This is why it is important to not only find a viable candidate, not representing either of the two major parties, to become president; but also to find a way for that person to be nominated by two or more minor parties. That can only be achieved through minor parties working together as much as the law will allow them to, and through working together to eliminate and reduce the barriers to ballot access.
I believe that that is one of the few ways a minor party candidate could get enough public attention to win the White House.
There are probably very few ways left, for a reasonable, stable, or even somewhat limited government – with limited powers of the executive branch – to replace the current state of tyranny. That is why I want to encourage minor parties (commonly referred to as “third parties”) to talk to each other, and to have an exchange of ideas.
I believe that the Green Party and the Libertarian Party, for example, have a lot more in common than most of us have been led to believe. They both support non-violence and decentralization, and responsibility, and they both oppose unfunded wars.
[Note: I have commented before, in greater detail, regarding what the Greens and Libertarians have in common. That information can be viewed in the infographic which I published in October 2020, which is available at the following link: http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/10/what-do-green-party-and-libertarian.html]
That is a huge start right there, in addition to their mutual support of changes to election laws which would be helpful to parties which are struggling to grow.
One electoral strategy in third party politics which may prove helpful, would be to urge members of one small party to visit the meetings of another, or maybe even multiple other parties (if there are that many parties active in your county, that is). Once small parties' members are visiting each other's meetings, they will begin to notice what they have in common.
The most easily noticeable factors will, of course, be their mutual disdain of the Democratic and Republican parties, and of the laws which they have set up- especially the election laws – and the history of their attempts to exclude third parties from the ballot with or without just cause.
Minor parties should work together as much as they legally can. This varies state by state, so each small party's state chapters should do whatever they can to make sure that their members know whether they will encounter legal barriers to collecting signatures for candidates running for the nominations of more than just a single party. Small parties should also continue to work with each other to file lawsuits challenging mutual obstacles to their ballot access.
Another strategy which might be effective, would unfortunately require all but one small parties to be humble. This strategy consists of having each party in a coalition, change its bylaws to not only allow the nomination of a presidential candidate whom has already been nominated by another party in the same election, but to go further, and all nominate the same candidate. For example, the Green Party, the various socialist parties, and the other minor parties, would nominate Jo Jorgensen, the nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2020.
If that were legal, and it happened, then most or all supporters of third parties, would vote for the third party presidential nominee who is either: 1) the most popular by sheer number of supporters; 2) the candidate capable of receiving the nomination from the highest number of minor parties; and/or 3) the third party presidential nominee who seems most determined to improve conditions for minor parties, their members, and independent and disenfranchised voters.
This suggestion may seem unfair to all small parties except the most successful in a given election, but I will stress again that this should only be done after the parties' bylaws are changed via the properly prescribed processes. Additionally, I am only advocating that this coordination be done for the presidential and vice-presidential ticket. I would not expect state chapters of minor parties to nominate slates of candidates for state-level positions, only to urge their members to vote for the nominees of another party.
What I am saying is that the minor parties should combine their efforts on the national level – and behave more like a single party, only on the national level – for the sake of efficiency. But at the same time, they should continue competing, as much as they please, for control over their respective states. I say this, in part, because the Constitution (i.e., the 10th Amendment) is designed to allow states to be somewhat different from one another, while the national government is more likely to settle near the political middle. So it would not take too much fundamental change to the law for this strategy to work.
I think of the Green Party as “radical progressives”; ones whom are less likely to disappoint us than factions of the corrupt Democratic Party, such as the Progressive Caucus, the Justice Democrats, and the Democratic Socialists of America (D.S.A.). That's why what the Greens and Libertarians have in common, should serve as a solid foundation, going forward, to build the “Progressive-Libertarian Alliance”, for which I and others have been calling for going on 14 years now.
[Note: I have written about the Progressive-Libertarian Alliance previously; for example, in the following articles on social libertarianism, health insurance policy and free markets:
I believe that building this alliance, and increasing communication and collaboration between small parties, will do wonders to help achieve the type of alliance against fascism and endless unfunded war, which the people of the United States (whether on the left or on the right) so sorely need.
Coordinated minor party strategy, going forward, should include information-sharing regarding which states will allow protest votes in the Electoral College in the next presidential election. This will help officials and delegates of the state chapters of minor parties be prepared to tell voters in the state that their electors are either bound or unbound. Few people seemed to notice that six electoral college votes were cast in 2016 for candidates other than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The fact that nearly half the states do not punish protest votes, could be a strategy to win the presidency. It would require an enormous level of coordination, however, and it would also face a lot of criticism by Democrats and other people supporting the principle of “one man, one vote”.
Minor party strategy should also include additional proposals to make elections fairer and more inclusive while making it easier for a third party presidential nominee to win the Electoral College. Additionally, strategy should include changes to the national government; especially those which could affect or change the way presidential elections are run, in a way that benefits parties which have historically been excluded from the process.
While Maine and Nebraska remain the only states which use proportional allocation of their electors, more than a dozen states still allow protest votes. Also, many majority-Democratic states have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, joining which obligates a state legislature to pledge all of its electors to whomever won the popular vote for president in that state. So in a way, the states are drifting apart when it comes to whether the popular vote is what matters most in a presidential election.
Fortunately, however, there is a way to resolve this: Add more states. In 2020, Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang published an infographic to his website which stated that his position on states' rights is to add more states. The reason why adding more states could help, is because it could reduce conflict between states who allocate their electors differently. If the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico became states, for example, then there would be four new U.S. Senators, most of them probably from the Democratic Party. But the addition of those states could potentially stand to benefit Republicans and right-wingers in a way, too; because more states would mean more state governors, and (potentially) more state sovereignty over issues not explicitly delegated to the national government.
And, of course, any and all new states would be free to join, or not join, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. So the addition of more states, in principle, would not necessarily benefit one party or another (even though, as the facts of history stand right now, it would benefit the Democratic Party more than the Republicans, at least in the short term).
Considering that the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, all have populations of more than 60,000 inhabitants, these commonwealths and territories should all remain free to hold referenda regarding whether they would like to become the 51st, 52nd states, etc..
As per the Constitution's provisions, until the 2020 Census shows us whether American Samoa and/or the Northern Mariana Islands have surpassed 60,000 inhabitants, those aforementioned four territories are all free to join the Union, while the other territories with smaller populations are not. But even if those four places became states, that would still leave about a million Americans without representation in either the House, the Senate, or the Electoral College (although several territories do have primaries).
This is why I believe that a constitutional amendment should be passed, which would allow special accommodations to be made in the Constitution, which will allow all Americans not represented by a state, to band together as a single state, for the purposes of representation in the Senate and House. Perhaps the “state” could be called “Outlying Territories” and abbreviated “O.L.”, and have its own star on the flag. Perhaps not.
In all likelihood, creating five new states and achieving representation for the outlying territories, would most likely result in the two senators and one or two representatives from that jurisdiction, being ethnically Samoan or from the Northern Mariana Islands. It's also likely that, from time to time, one would be white, while the other are Micronesian.
If you're asking “Who cares about American Samoa?”, then instead, you should be asking “Why do people in American Samoa pay taxes, but don't get represented in Congress? Isn't that taxation without representation? Didn't the Founders fight the American Revolution to get rid of taxation without representation?”
This is not just about Samoa. This is about all Americans living outside the protection of states, of whom there are nearly five million. Americans living in all jurisdictions deserve congressional representation if they want it.
And we should keep in mind that most proposed changes to the number of senators and representatives, would affect the size of the Electoral College. That is why reforms to the Congress and the presidential election process should be considered in tandem with one another.
As I explained above, minor parties should talk to each other, and see what they have in common. Then, they should draft platforms together, based on what they agree upon.
As many third parties as are willing, should draft a joint declaration – delivered to the media and to the various state and national Secretary of State's offices - saying that they intend to support reforms to the Congress, and to the presidential election process. Additionally, that they will support more ranked-choice voting; in local, state, and national races alike, and in primaries as well as general elections.
Additionally, if enough parties can be convinced to support parliamentarism, they should declare that they intend to support changes to the government which will make it resemble a parliamentary system, featuring coalition-building and party-list systems. This would not necessarily require the abolition of the Senate, however; but the abolition of the Senate should remain on the table for consideration.
If most minor parties agree that curtailing the representation of states to the national government, by abolishing the Senate, is what is necessary to increase the power of the people (as represented by their legislators in the House of Representatives), then they should pursue making the whole Congress into a single people's house, and announce their intention to do so, through legislation or lawsuits or whatever means.
This is not to say, however, that one and two are the only acceptable numbers of chambers of the national legislature. Americans should consider adding a body of legislators, just as they consider removing the Senate.
Adding a third house of legislators to the Congress, becomes an especially interesting prospect, when we consider that dual power and bioregionalism could be useful tools in dismantling the violence of the authoritarian and imperialist state.
Dual power is the use of trustworthy alternative institutions of political representation, to challenge existing political structures while existing alongside them, and to inject competition for legitimacy into politics and law.
The most famous example is the use of dual power by the Soviets, the workers' councils in the U.S.S.R.. Between February and October 1917, the soviets competed for legitimacy against the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament. The Duma, itself, was put together as a sort of dual power organization to try to challenge the absolute sovereignty of the Tsar. Of course, the Duma had little power, and was created with the Tsar's permission (under some pressure from advisors) and while recognizing his absolute power. But the fact that the Duma had little power was why it became necessary to create yet another organ of political representation, in the Soviets. These were councils primarily composed of workers, peasants, and veterans. After Lenin arrived in Russia from Switzerland, he yelled “All power to the Soviets”, and the workers' soviets' competition for legitimacy against the Duma grew ever fiercer. Eventually, the provisional government of Aleksandr Kerensky was overthrown, the Tsar and his family were executed, and and the soviet system took hold.
Knowing this, it does not take much imagination to think about how a new body of legislators could be added to the national government. One would simply have to be added, without any other body losing its power or being replaced (as the Duma lost its power).
So imagine, if you will, that both the House and Senate were to continue to exist, while a new chamber of lawmakers – a Chamber of Environmental Legislators - became the third body. I developed this idea after speaking to a farmer named Johnny whom I met in Oregon. Johnny told me that he believed that populations of people are overrepresented in Congress, in comparison to how much the land is being represented (which is not at all). The U.S. senators kind of represent the land, but really they represent the interests of the state's people, since they're popularly elected. Before the 17th Amendment, senators more or less represented state legislatures more than they represented the states' people. But the point is, the land is unrepresented in Congress, either by the House or by the Senate.
You might be thinking, “The land isn't represented in Congress because it isn't human.” That's true. But the land is alive. There are entire sections of land area covered by giant mushrooms. Every square inch of soil is covered in living organisms, which could not survive without the soil. Living things and their environments are not separable.
So why shouldn't the Congress make sure that a body of environmental lawyers have some say in what laws are passed? In my opinion, a body of environmental lawyers - primarily concerned with our ability to live in harmony with nature and survive in good health, and giving less regard to the needs of consumers and industrial producers - should have the ability to vote against, and maybe even veto, any legislation proposed by Congress which could negatively affect our health or the health of the ecology (or both).
That is why I support the use of dual power and bioregionalism in tandem with one another.
Bioregionalism would involve the erasure of old borders, and the establishment of new political boundaries where mountain ranges already exist. This turns watersheds and river valleys – the largest natural geographical unit of human civilization – into the new “states”. This arrangement would give each river valley or watershed the ability to fine-tune its legal needs, and its environmental legislation needs, to the scientific facts of the ecology in the area which is unique to that area alone.
To reject bioregionalism is to say that a central government should be free to trample upon locality's environmental laws without any special or expert knowledge about the physical needs of the people and land which are trying to thrive in that locality. Bioregionalism would give localities – but not the existing states, which are often tyrannical and support pollution – the power to protect the people and the environment, when the central government and the E.P.A. refuse to do so.
Moreover, bioregionalism and dual power could be pursued at the same time, by saying that the states should be replaced by bioregional governments. Also, by saying that, as a consequence of bioregionalism, U.S. Senators should either be replaced by a body of environmental legislators, representing those bioregionalist “states”; or else that body should be created as a third chamber, while the Senate continues to represent the people who elected them.
Either way, instituting bioregionalism would almost certainly have to entail fundamental change of the Senate. If each senator represented a new bioregion, for example, we would have to figure out whether it is fair that each watershed – which are different sizes, and have different populations – would have two U.S. Senators. Essentially, without major reform of the Senate, we would have the same electoral problems in the Congress and Electoral College as we do now, but with an extra body. That would make things more complicated, but it would also present an opportunity to sort things out and streamline government to make it simpler.
[Note: Please click on the following links to learn more about my opinions on, and proposals for, bioregionalism:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/cascadia-proposal.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/09/ten-reasons-to-consider-bioregionalism.html]
Almost needless to say, eliminating unnecessary houses should never be taken off the table.
But additionally, to compensate for problems that this might cause, a new body of legislators would probably require the reduction of the number of people currently serving as national legislators (535). Unless, of course, you're in the camp that believes that the constitutional provision that each representative have no more than 30,000 constituents, should never have been repealed.
But that would only be affordable if legislators would agree to be paid a pittance; not just compared to how much congressmen are paid today, but also compared to the average worker. Since it is not likely that lawmakers would accept such a small amount of compensation, perhaps it is best that we (through the Congress) reduce congressional pay to zero, so that the only people left making the law, are the people who genuinely want to engage in public service and do not want to receive anything in return.
Some argue that paying congressmen nothing could result in more demand for bribes, but that way of thinking just rationalizes and excuses corruption. Congressmen should be compensated based on how well they did; they should be paid according to performance. If they are paid at the beginning of their term, then there is no incentive for them to be on their best behavior, and no punishment for being derelict in their duties.
The role of “representative” must also be reformed into the role of a delegate; one who votes the way the constituents order him to, as opposed to the way he personally thinks he should vote. In The State and Revolution, Vladimir Lenin promoted the delegate system, saying that all delegates should be subject to recall elections whenever the people demand it. I agree with Lenin on that point.
Maybe there's a place for both! The House could be composed of delegates, while the Senate would be composed of people voting on their principles; or the other way around. But the crucial thing is that the House and Senate operate differently from one another, and operate independently (as they are now; they are allowed to make their own rules regarding how they will run and conduct their business).
It is important that they are different, because without this difference, competition for legitimacy might exist, but the contrast between the competitors is not as stark. Where there is no real difference between the legislative bodies which are competing for legitimacy, real dual power is not being used or pursued.
If the House is composed of delegates, and the Senate is not, then the people should be able to figure out pretty quickly which chamber is doing the right thing more often than the other. And that discernment will allow us to develop the organs of political control until society becomes more organized with minimal inconvenience to the freedom enjoyed by the people.
If bioregionalism proves an ineffective strategy for achieving dual power – and competition against the existing legislature – then communal autonomy, or a confederation of communities, should be attempted as another dual power strategy.
If you look at a county map of Virginia, you will see that most cities in the state are not part of the counties which surround them; the cities' metropolitan areas have their own counties. I would like to see more states allow and encourage urban and rural areas to separate, and allow the creation and splitting of counties. This, and increased county home rule status, will help increase the degree of autonomy over legislative affairs which is currently experienced by counties, cities, and towns. The more autonomous each locality is, the more the country begins to resemble a loosely confederated network of city-states (as it was in ancient Greece).
If communities were to regain their autonomy, and band together, then they could do several interesting things.
The communities could demand that a third house of Congress be created, with cities, towns, and/or counties being what's represented, as opposed to people (or land). This would create a political situation which is called “triple federalism”, in which the national government, the state governments, and the local governments, coordinate their efforts to some degree, but also have duly-delegated exclusive spheres of influence, in which the more and less central levels of government may not meddle.
Another thing the cities and towns could do, would be to combine by territory, and secede from their existing states. Yet another would be to declare that only local governments are legitimately constituted, and that the states and the national government are not. If successful, this would allow the cities and towns to create entirely new states, or bioregions, in place of the old ones, whose legitimacy they would have invalidated.
Bioregionalism could be a path to dual power, but it could also be a path to Land Value Taxation. The promotion of the creation of bioregions, should always be done alongside the study of Henry George's Single Tax on the non-improvement of land, as a way to achieve a greater focus on ecological affairs, and on the needs of the land and the people for each other.
Before a reform as radical as bioregionalism can happen, however, it seems appropriate that we take a few “last shots” at reclaiming our republic.
For one, the people should attempt to convene an Article V constitutional convention, as long as doing so will not risk the disappearance of any one, or all, of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
Additionally, if the people want national legislation on environment, energy, retirement, welfare, or health, then they should pursue constitutional amendments, to achieve these reforms as permanent changes that cannot easily be dismantled by presidents and governors, as opposed to their remaining more temporary programs.
Also, I have proposed a
seventeen-step set of instructions as to how I think it would be most
appropriate, and constitutionally legitimate, to pursue the formal,
legal abolition of the national government. That article can be read
at the following link:
Independents, disaffected people, and minor party supporters, should increase their communication and collaboration, study Georgism and Mutualism and post-scarcity economics, and promote bioregionalism and dual power alongside (or as) reforms to the presidential election process and the Congress. These are the areas of study, in which it will be necessary for minor party supporters and political independents to engage (and develop, and find areas of agreement), if policies palatable to all anti-authoritarian people and groups are to succeed, and the imperialist state is to be defeated.
Once that occurs, and a voluntary society is achieved, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left must be built – to build a path from a libertarian society to an anarchist one – and fraternity and peace should be promoted among all people wishing to live without violence, hierarchy, and arbitrary authority.
In my opinion, the only viable alternative to a free society, in a world running out of time and clean air and bees and fish, is sweeping, radical, transformative change; but one which occurs formally, in the context of the rule of law, and which keeps within the strictures outlined in the Constitution. If the Constitution cannot accommodate such swift changes (which, I believe, have not been tried hard enough), then it is only appropriate that the Constitution itself be repealed, or at least that the ban on ex-post facto laws be amended or repealed.
But I do not believe that we are so far gone already, to the point that those are our only options. Amending the Constitution is still not being tried. Greater coordination and cooperation between minor parties can still be attempted. And it should. Or else our country might not be able to survive retaining its current form and style of government for much longer.
Based on a post published on December 27th, 2020
Edited and expanded on January 8th and 17th, 2021
Originally published on January 8th, 2021
