Outcome:
On October 6th, the Senate Voted 50 to 48 to confirm the nominee to the court.
One Republican was absent and one declined to vote so the total votes cast equaled 98.
The makeup of the body is Republicans 51 and Democrats 49 so given the missing senator, a purely party line vote should have been 50 to 49 and outcome would have been the same.
One Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin from West Virginia, voted contrary to the other 48 Democrats in a move that will probably cost him dearly with the party. At 71, perhaps he’s decided that voting his conscience is more important or there may be other factors at work. We will never know & frankly we shouldn’t know unless his decision was illegally coerced.
If he shows up as a Republican candidate in the next West Virginia senatorial race would that qualify as illegal? Probably not but, it might move the needle from a brave vote of his conscience to a more self-centered vote to feather his own bed, maintain a chair in the Senate that would then be part of the majority and up the power of his role.
One Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, chose to abstain after declaring publicly that she was going to vote against the nominee. She explained this as showing respect for the absent Senator, Steve Daines from Montana, who was attending his daughter’s wedding but had declared publicly his plan to vote for confirmation. This gave her a weak basis for conforming to her party demands and slightly dodging the “Women’s Rights” movement that has supported her in the past.
The Obvious Problem:
What rational person would believe that with all the complexity involved in this decision the 100 elected Senators would all vote in step with their party; all but one as it turns out.
This was not a decision made by the process of Representative Democracy that is a fundamental principle. It was an outcome that clearly illustrates the rules of the senate allow and actually assure the control remains in the hands of a very few powerful individuals and our representatives have no ability to vote their conscience.
We need to eliminate this concentration of power and the solution is easier than one would think.
The Proposed Rule Change:
All decisions in all government organizations that are decided by a vote of elected or appointed parties shall be by Secret Ballot only.
This simple change may not have changed the outcome of the vote but it would have assured the public that the vote actually represented the views of our representatives’ opinion on the issue as opposed to the desires of powerful individuals and special interest elites.
Explanation:
It is broadly understood and proven by many historical events that secret balloting at public elections protects voters from coercion, allowing them to vote their conscience on the issue at hand.
It also prevents numerous forms of corruption that include:
1. Powerful individuals and organizations buying votes to control the outcome of the election.
2. Wealthy individuals and organizations funding campaigns to control the outcome of the election.
3. Unethical voters selling votes for personal gain.
4. Special interest groups coercing or intimidating voters to control the outcome of the election.
The legal requirement that all public elections be held by secret ballot and closely monitored has assured that voters are protected from coercion and limits their ability to sell their vote since no vote by any individual can be verified.
Initiating this same principle at all levels of all government organizations will also protect elected and appointed individuals from coercion, allowing them to vote their conscience on the issue at hand.
It will prevent numerous forms of corruption that include:
1. Powerful individuals and organizations coercing these individuals to vote for legislation that advances their special interests.
a. This is often in the form of campaign contributions, pledging votes or offer bribes.
2. Political parties coercing these individuals to vote for legislation that advances their special interests.
a. This is often in the form of threatening loss of job or offering powerful positions within the government. The party “Whip” is tasked to enforce compliance.
3. Unethical elected or appointed officials selling their vote for personal gain.
a. Political scandals, payoffs, etc. are almost a daily occurrence in today’s political world.
The Opposing Argument:
The main opposition to this proposal is put forth by those that believe Transparency in Government is a solution to corrupt practices. The global adoption of transparency rules, that was initiated around 1970, has clearly not cleaned up corruption in government.
In fact, the transparency rules, that force open and recorded balloting, are the primary reason that corruption continues and the concentration of power by the wealthy, powerful elite is growing.
These powerful special interest groups can now be positive they are getting what they pay for.
Join this movement to Improve Government:
The Association to Improve Government has been championing this concept as a way to bolster the principles of Representative Democracy for many years. To learn more about this visit improvegovernment.org.
The Congressional Research Institute also highlights the historical changes that occurred in the 70’s to allow this concentration of power in the US Congress. Visit congressionalresearch.org for their perspective.
Adam Smith
No comments yet.