Lawrence Lessig, leader of Change Congress, even said after the decision, "It's very difficult to see how any piece of legislation could undo the damage the Court did yesterday, and I think the American people need to consider all the tools at our disposal as we think about the kind of democracy we want to have and how we want to make it a reality."
And, we all know how likely the Senate or the House is to do anything substantial in the wake of debacles, scandals, or situations that draw attention to the excesses of capitalism in America. Just look at how they've managed to hold Wall Street accountable for the economic collapse in this country in 2008 and even managed to properly regulate the bailout money that was given to banks to help so-called "too big too fail" banks survive...
Since most of the backlash to the Supreme Court decision seems to be fueled by those who fear they have lost the ability to influence elections and, therefore, corporations will now forever control the political process, it seems like--rather than take a chance on cobbled together and ultimately ineffective legislation--those upset should go a step further and support fundamental reforms that might might make it more possible for minorities and those voices often marginalized to have an impact in elections.
This fundamental reform could involve addressing the disaster that is the Electoral College.
The Center for Voting and Democracy offers several suggestions that could be considered like direct elections with instant runoff voting (IRV), proportional allocation of electoral votes, direct vote with plurality rule, the congressional district method, the national bonus plan, or the binding proposal.
Of those, the Center primarily supports the abolition of the Electoral College and the replacement of it with a system that involved direct elections and IRV.The Center explains:
"Instant runoff voting (IRV) could be used for Presidential elections with or without the Electoral College. With a direct vote, voters would rank their preferences rather than marking only one candidate. Then, when the votes are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. The ballots are then counted again, this time tallying the second choice votes from those ballots indicating the eliminated candidate as the first choice. The process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority, reducing time and money wasted in a normal runoff election.à ‚¬ ¨Ã ‚¬ ¨Instant runoff voting on a national scale has the potential to solve many of the current dilemmas introduced by the Electoral College as well as the problems introduced by some of the other alternatives. It would end the spoiler dynamic of third party and independent candidates and consistently produce a majority, nationwide winner. It also allows voters to select their favorite candidate without ensuring a vote for their least favorite (as often happens when the spoiler dynamic is a factor and a voter prefers a third candidate the most)."
Most progressives would probably be thrilled to get rid of the spoiler dynamic since it would mean they would never have to get into another pointless and ultimately unproductive but divisive argument on third parties ever again.
Even better, those upset with the recent decision that opens the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending could support a movement to do away with our nation's winner-take-all system and support a system of proportional representation instead.
In an article posted on FairVote recently, Rob Richie explains:
"Proportional representation (PR) is based on the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100 percent of the representation to a 50.1 percent majority, PR allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation.How does this work? A typical winner-take-all system of divides voters into "one-seat districts," represented by one person. With PR, voters in a constituency instead have several representatives: ten one-seat districts might, for example, be combined into a single ten-seat district. A party or group of voters that wins 10 percent of the popular vote in this district, then, would win one of the ten seats; a party or slate of candidates with 30 percent of votes would win three seats, etc. Various mechanisms work to provide proportional representation, and the details of different systems matter. But the principle of full representation is fundamental. Acceptance of it changes the way one sees electoral politics."
I encourage you to read more of Richie's explanation of PR and how it works. I believe you will find it to be a hugely appealing solution to the marginalization of people in elections right now.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
