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
