Institutions: Insta-Solutions! YAY!

When I think about voting, I am sad and a little mad. So here goes.

Our current political system stifles the incentives for innovative and asymmetrical problem solving that are critical for good government. The whole world communicates and collaborates as never before. Individuals inspire, create and innovate as a part of their daily routine on the web. Yet our politics are more polarized than ever before. Each party is so mired by special interests that true vision, cooperation and leadership (the reason people presumably get into politics) eludes politicians from both parties.

Campaign finance reform looks to treat the symptoms of disproportional special interest influence but the proposals miss the institutional nature of the problem. Minnesota’s state political system rewards large political parties that represent a wide diversity of voters. The upside to this system is relative stability and a historical tendency for the two main parties to compromise. There is a significant downside, however. In order to be “electable” a candidate must adopt the policy posture of one of the two main parties. In order to raise the money necessary to compete in today’s heated electoral competition a candidate must appeal to sets of special interests. No one gets into politics to take orders from PETA or the NRA, but once in office politicians are beholden to their sponsors.

Politicians do it because they can take their voters for granted. They are correct in doing so. The current electoral system very much encourages it.

Our system rewards only the absolute winner. If 49.9% percent of the population voted for the Green Party in every district and 50.1% voted Libertarian Party, the entire House of Representatives would be completely Libertarian. So voters must vote for someone capable of winning. If a voter’s heart is not with the Libertarians, she is likely to vote for them simply because she does not like the Green Party. It’s no wonder that turnouts are low on Election Day; it’s no fun to have to choose the lesser of two evils.

People ought to be able to vote for the party they wholeheartedly support. A proportional representation (PR) system rather than the current “winner takes all” would better encourage people to vote their conscience. In PR system voters select a party to support. Each party is then allotted a number of seats in proportion to the number of vote received. Instituting a limited PR system in the lower house would help alleviate many of the deficiencies of our current system.

First, it would encourage more people to vote as their vote would go to a party that more accurately reflects their beliefs. Second, it would spur debate, giving attention to a great many issues considered to be “political suicide.” Third, it would free Republicans and Democrats from the restraints of special interests. Lastly, and most importantly, it will produce dynamic and responsive leadership capable of direction and inspiration.

It is inherently against the interests of both the Republicans and the Democrats to offer up power to smaller parties. The tools exist, however, to break up the political cartel in the form of email, blogs and other decentralized communication technologies.

Giving citizens a bigger stake in governance by devolving power from the two parties will result in a more robust civil society, a stronger state and reinvigorated democracy