Beyond Red & Blue

FreeGov responds

Foy Savas from FreeGovernment.com responds to my skeptical post from yesterday on his group's attempt to elect a congressperson who is "no more than proxy for our district by voting on bills only as do online verified voters":

I get the feeling you think we're going for direct democracy. If you read through the FAQs on the site you will learn otherwise.

Ha, you're completely right about people not ever going to spend enough time to research bills, but honestly we've actually designed FreeGov for citizens not to have to do that, as they can opt to select advisers.

The adviser concept we use on the site, mimics representative government with a few major benefits: 1) real-time accountability, 2) personal representation, 3) the opportunity to choose multiple advisers, and 4) the ability to override how they vote whenever you want.

You seem like a guy keen on following politics, so I hope that despite your initial criticism, you now better understand what FreeGov is actually going for. No, it's not town-meetings or direct democracy, but instead the idea of citizens being able to participate at any time in a convenient way.

I am keen to learn what FreeGovernment is all about, but I'm still confused. The FAQs page on the group's national website says the following:

If a candidate gets into office, how will their votes in Congress be decided?

Each candidate we choose to endorse will sign a contract with us vowing only to vote in Congress as do their constituents on the site, that is, as do the majority of votes from constituents when enough votes have been cast.

That still sounds like an attempt to take away a US Representative's perogative to substitute his or her greater knowledge of a particular bill for the knee-jerk reaction of a majority of his or her constituents. Savas points out that a constituent can delegate his or her voting responsibility to "advisers" -- who are not actually elected by anybody but who would still have the power, as a group, to dictate how a US Representative votes in Congress. In that case, maybe the analogy to Town Meeting isn't perfect. Now it sounds as if FreeGovernment wants party-machine politics, in which unelected FreeGovernment bigwigs completely control the people they install in Congress. (My prediction is that most constituents who did not vote for the FreeGovernment candidate would not participate in online polls, but instead work toward defeating the "proxy" in the next election.)

I like the idea of making US Representatives more accountable to constituents and applaud FreeGovenment's attempts to run candidates against incumbents who would otherwise be unopposed, but I still don't get how the proxy contract would work.

Overthrow the tyranny of elected congressmen!

Via Universal Hub: The group FreeGovernment.org is searching for a candidate to run against US Rep. Michael Capuano in the 8th District. But there's a catch:

If elected, you will be bound by contract to act as no more than proxy for our district by voting on bills only as do online verified voters, and by introducing and sponsoring bills only through significant support.

Seems like an attempt to bring the Town Meeting model to Congress, complete with spotty and unpredictable voter participation (but without any face-to-face political discourse). Last year, there were 1,186 roll call votes in the US House. If FreeGovernment prevails, the responsible voters of the 8th District might as well cancel their cable TV because they'll be too busy researching bills.

Or, like members of Congress, voters could hire staffers to do research for them. In fact, a bunch of voters (say, 150,000 of them) could all get together and hire an assistant to help them decide what directions they should give to their proxy member of Congress.

The president isn't the only one to be elected this year?

This year's US Senate elections have been overshadowed by the protracted race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but they're just as important in terms of what can actually get done in Washington next year. Electoral-Vote.com has a startling roundup of polls that suggests the Democrats will end up with a 58-42 advantage in the Senate (arguably, 57-43, depending on what Joe Lieberman decides to do). I'm skeptical about some of these states -- are Alaska and Kentucky really leaning Democratic and is Texas really that close? -- but it's a pretty good picture for the Democrats. Let's see if it lasts once the national campaign really begins.

Dynasty: The Senate members

The role of political dynasties in American politics is once again a hot political topic, thanks to the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination (Hillary Clinton, wife of a former president) and one of the main contenders for the Republican nomination (Mitt Romney, the son of a governor who ran for president in 1968). Are different parts of the country more or less comfortable with the idea of political families holding multiple offices?

The map below shows states where one or both US senators are closely related (spouse, child, sibling) to another major office holder (a state or federal legislator, or a chief executive of a state or city). There are currently 19 such senators; a few, like West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, are not counted here because there are no other pols in their immediate family, even though cousins or uncles may fit the bill. Only two states have both senators from political families (Maine and New Hampshire). Overall, dynasty senators seem most common in the Northeast and the Rocky Mountain region. The Northeast is also Clinton's strongest region among Democratic primary voters, according to recent polls -- which may mean that criticizing "dynasty politics" may not help her rivals much there. (The list of dynasty senators can be found here.)

Bully for partisanship!

Matthew Yglesias summarizes the advantages of a highly partisan political atmosphere. Back in the days of Dixiecrats and Rockefeller Republicans, when many candidates completely disagreed with their own parties' platforms, you never knew what you were voting for:

So while pundits may not like it when the parties draw clear distinctions, it seems to me that it's clearly preferable for the voters to be put in a situation where they feel like they understand the stakes and there's a relationship between votes cast and policy outcomes.

This is a good point, and one that resonates in Massachusetts, where conservative Democrats often ran against liberal Republicans as late as the 1980s. But one problem that Ygelsias neglects to mention in his post is that clear party divisions can lead to more uncontested elections, as each party's label becomes toxic in different parts of the country. Here in the Bay State, it's possible that voters are happy with their all-Democratic congressional delegation and 80 percent Democratic legislature because their representatives vote in predictably liberal ways. But it's hard to be certain when the Republican Party concludes that it's futile to even offer an alternative in most elections.

Lott skips out

Republican Trent Lott has announced plans to leave the US Senate by January, only a year into the six-year term he successfully sought from voters in 2006. Lott has no health problems that have been made public, and aides have said only that he is seeking "other opportunities." The New York Times speculates on one reason for the early departure:

By resigning before the end of the year, Mr. Lott would beat the effective date for new ethics rules that double to two years the amount of time a former public official must wait before he can join a firm to lobby his former colleagues. The new rule applies to those who leave office “on or after” Dec. 31.

Lott's successor, who will be appointed early next year by Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, will have several months to enjoy the benefits of incumbency before facing voters in a special election in the fall. The new senator will join 10 11 others who assumed office through appointments or special elections: Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Dianne Feinstein of California, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Another Republican congressional leader, Rep. Dennis Hastert, also recently announced that he's changed his mind about serving out the term he sought from voters. And in Massachusetts, several state legislators have discovered better things to do since winning election last fall.

Congressional privilege: Hastert ignores election calendar

Yesterday we noted the large number of special elections in Massachusetts prompted by departing state legislators. But most of those legislators left for other jobs. US Rep. Dennis Hastert, who lost his speakership position when the Democrats took control of the House after last year's elections, is more brazen. In a "farewell speech" yesterday afternoon, Hastert didn't give any real reason why he couldn't complete the two-year term he sought from voters in 2006. One of his aides helpfully told CNN.com that Hastert has no health problems and no plans to do anything when he leaves Congress.

Maybe Hastert really is retiring for health reasons: He's sick over having lost the perks of being Speaker and doesn't have the stomach to tough it out until the next regularly scheduled election. Or maybe he feels that poll watchers in Illinois don't get enough work. CQPolitics notes that Hastert's dawdling on the exact date of his resignation means the voters won't choose his successor on a date when they may be going to the polls anyway:

...he appears to be averting the tactical political error of allowing Blagojevich to schedule the special general election to coincide with the regular primary election on Feb. 5. A large Democratic turnout is likely that day, spawned by the presidential primary campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama . That could also help the Democrats’ chances in a special general election in Illinois’ 14th.

Hastert brings a special touch to congressional elections

The Associated Press is reporting yesterday that former US House Speaker Dennis Hastert will resign from his congressional seat in Illinois this year, setting up a special election for his successor. There doesn't seem to be any medical reason why Hastert, a Republican, can't hang on until the next regularly scheduled election, but AP reporter Charles Babington speculates:

Republicans hope to hold the seat ahead of the November 2008 election, which some fear will draw large numbers of Democratic voters unhappy with President Bush and the Iraq war.

In addition to a smaller turnout, a special election will probably be limited to those who can raise money and put a campaign together relatively quickly. This seems to be a bipartisan tradition in Illinois, which has a Democratic member who succeeded his father in a "special" manner. As Jack Mellyn at CQ.Politics.com describes it:

William Lipinski’s decision to retire after the 2004 primary election paved the way for local party officials to select Daniel Lipinski as the Democratic nominee, as permitted under Illinois election law, and essentially assure his election that November in the strongly Democratic-leaning district.

So far, the only other early retirement from the current session of Congress was that of the Bay State's own Marty Meehan, who was replaced by Niki Tsongas in a special election earlier this week. Other special elections have been prompted by the deaths of congressmen from Ohio and Virginia.