Friday, February 20, 2009
Failed Experiments
Our DNA is a very complex molecule. It is said that about 30,000 segments of it are used in directing the development and growth of the human body. Most of it seems to be useless junk. The DNA of very simple organisms is also complex but not as much so as human DNA. We have to suppose that DNA first appeared at the time the first living organisms were present. Perhaps the DNA preceded the first cells. This primitive DNA had the ability to replicate itself and fed on the primordial soup that made up the atmosphere of the young planet.
As time went on, the ever present cosmic radiation caused radiation damange in some DNA molecules. New genes were formed. Most of them were useless. The replicating nature of the DNA molecule didn't provide any way of getting rid of the useless material, so it was kept. Special molecules were formed to activate or turn off the genes or sections of the DNA, as needed in the development of the simple organisms that then existed.
The process of mutation, trying new genes, and selecting organisms with the useful genes has proceeded up to the present day. Our DNA is now filled with genes that provide no useful function. We do not get rid of them. We simply evolve new ones with different functions.
This looks like a simplified explanation of the origin of species and characteristics in terms of genetics. My intent is to show that human experimentation with government and governance, especially as practiced here in California, is similar to the evolution of new species.
Here the public has the privilege of enacting laws by popular vote, otherwise known as the initiative. Using the initiative, the people of California have changed or mutated the character of the State's government. An initiative changed the voting procedure in the State legislature to require a 2/3 majority rather than a simple majority for passing a budget or raising taxes. That change has had the unfortunate consequence of allowing a minority of 1/3 + 1 members of either house of the legislature to hold up a budget or a needed tax increase. Generally speaking, the resulting impasse can be broken by making special deals with a few members of the minority. Both political parties like this feature. It gives a minority party bargaining power to achieve something that it couldn't get otherwise. A member may want a special appropriation to provide a new park for his district. In the recent case, one Senator was able to get grudging agreement to change the primary voting to a system in which a voter can vote for any candidate, regardless of party. The plan is set to be put on the ballot in 2010 and would affect elections in 2012 and subsequent years.
The people of California have also imposed term limits on members of the legislature. Six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate and you are then ineligible ever to serve in either house again. As a result, we have legislators who are inexperienced in the art of negotiating to resolve difficult problems.
The initiative process itself is an experiment that has not had the desired effect. It was instituted so that ordinary citizens could have legislation considered and passed by a vote of the people, especially when the legislature refused to consider such legislation. It has become a means for a wealthy person to put a deceptively worded proposition to the people for a vote. It is no longer a realistic option for a group of citizens with a cause but no money.
What is the cure for the problems of the 2/3 vote requirement and term limits? You'd think that the sensible thing would be to change them. Drop 2/3 to 3/5 or 11/20 or even a simple majority. Lengthen term limits to allow more years in each house, say, eight years in the Assembly and twelve in the Senate. But, no; that's not going to happen. We will keep the 2/3 vote and the term limits. Instead, we will change the method of electing members. The open primary is expected to produce a class of legislators who are less extreme and less beholden to certain of their supporters and are, therefore, more willing to compromise and less likely to threaten to bankrupt the State if they can't have everything their way. Another change is that legislators will no longer choose the sizes and shapes of their districts. More districts will be competitive when an impartial commission sets the boundaries rather than a legislature.
Like living organisms, we are unable to discard characteristics that don't have the desired effect. Instead, we introduce new experiments (commission to redistrict after the census, open primary, etc.) and cling to the old ones. Perhaps some day the Supreme Court will decide that term limits are unconstitutional, or that the 2/3 vote is unconstitutional. That would be the analog of cosmic radiation damaging a gene so that it no longer functions. Until then, our State Constitution will resemble human DNA not only in its length but in the provisions that are no longer effective.
As time went on, the ever present cosmic radiation caused radiation damange in some DNA molecules. New genes were formed. Most of them were useless. The replicating nature of the DNA molecule didn't provide any way of getting rid of the useless material, so it was kept. Special molecules were formed to activate or turn off the genes or sections of the DNA, as needed in the development of the simple organisms that then existed.
The process of mutation, trying new genes, and selecting organisms with the useful genes has proceeded up to the present day. Our DNA is now filled with genes that provide no useful function. We do not get rid of them. We simply evolve new ones with different functions.
This looks like a simplified explanation of the origin of species and characteristics in terms of genetics. My intent is to show that human experimentation with government and governance, especially as practiced here in California, is similar to the evolution of new species.
Here the public has the privilege of enacting laws by popular vote, otherwise known as the initiative. Using the initiative, the people of California have changed or mutated the character of the State's government. An initiative changed the voting procedure in the State legislature to require a 2/3 majority rather than a simple majority for passing a budget or raising taxes. That change has had the unfortunate consequence of allowing a minority of 1/3 + 1 members of either house of the legislature to hold up a budget or a needed tax increase. Generally speaking, the resulting impasse can be broken by making special deals with a few members of the minority. Both political parties like this feature. It gives a minority party bargaining power to achieve something that it couldn't get otherwise. A member may want a special appropriation to provide a new park for his district. In the recent case, one Senator was able to get grudging agreement to change the primary voting to a system in which a voter can vote for any candidate, regardless of party. The plan is set to be put on the ballot in 2010 and would affect elections in 2012 and subsequent years.
The people of California have also imposed term limits on members of the legislature. Six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate and you are then ineligible ever to serve in either house again. As a result, we have legislators who are inexperienced in the art of negotiating to resolve difficult problems.
The initiative process itself is an experiment that has not had the desired effect. It was instituted so that ordinary citizens could have legislation considered and passed by a vote of the people, especially when the legislature refused to consider such legislation. It has become a means for a wealthy person to put a deceptively worded proposition to the people for a vote. It is no longer a realistic option for a group of citizens with a cause but no money.
What is the cure for the problems of the 2/3 vote requirement and term limits? You'd think that the sensible thing would be to change them. Drop 2/3 to 3/5 or 11/20 or even a simple majority. Lengthen term limits to allow more years in each house, say, eight years in the Assembly and twelve in the Senate. But, no; that's not going to happen. We will keep the 2/3 vote and the term limits. Instead, we will change the method of electing members. The open primary is expected to produce a class of legislators who are less extreme and less beholden to certain of their supporters and are, therefore, more willing to compromise and less likely to threaten to bankrupt the State if they can't have everything their way. Another change is that legislators will no longer choose the sizes and shapes of their districts. More districts will be competitive when an impartial commission sets the boundaries rather than a legislature.
Like living organisms, we are unable to discard characteristics that don't have the desired effect. Instead, we introduce new experiments (commission to redistrict after the census, open primary, etc.) and cling to the old ones. Perhaps some day the Supreme Court will decide that term limits are unconstitutional, or that the 2/3 vote is unconstitutional. That would be the analog of cosmic radiation damaging a gene so that it no longer functions. Until then, our State Constitution will resemble human DNA not only in its length but in the provisions that are no longer effective.
Labels: California constitution, election reform, open primaries, term limits
Friday, November 14, 2008
Why Term Limits?
I don't like term limits. That is, I don't like the absolute term limits that California and many other States have adopted. I would be willing to settle for a kind of limit that specifies that a person may not be reelected to a position that he has held for X consecutive terms. Then, after serving X terms, an official would relinquish the position for one election cycle (or more, as he chooses).
Term limits came to California in the late '80's or early 90's. I don't remember the year that the voters enacted them. I know that much of the enthusiam at the time for term limits was that it seemed to be the only way to get rid of Willie Brown, the very powerful Speaker of the Assembly. It was clear that his constituents were never going to vote him out of office. It was also clear that as long as he was a member of the Assembly, he would retain the position of Speaker - that is, as long as the Democrats were the majority party.
The campaign to {oust Willie} establish term limits in California was formed by an alliance of two groups. One group was made up of some idealistic citizens who thought that professional politicians were a bad lot and something had to be done to prevent individuals from making a career of holding elective office. One of their slogans was "let the office holder come back home and live under the laws that he or she has enacted." Another group was made up of realistic citizens who chafed at Speaker Brown and wanted to get rid of him.
At least, that's my opinion.
The success of term limits all over the country is a tribute to the ability of the two groups, the idealists and the realists, to work together even though they differed on many of their goals. The people who wanted to get rid of Speaker Brown were perfectly happy with the concept of professional politician. They just wanted a different Speaker.
The idealists must by now recognize that their reform has not gotten rid of professional politicians. Here in California the pros simply play musical chairs. You get ahead in politics by serving your six years in the Assembly, followed by eight years in the Senate. After that you can run for any of the state-wide offices, such as Attorney General, Treasurer, Controller, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Superintendant of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, and so on.
I think it is time to take a look at the current term limits restrictions and make some realistic modifications. One suggestion is to extend X, the number of terms. My approach is to stipulate X consecutive terms, followed by either sitting out for one election cycle, or running for a different office and later returning to the original office for another X terms.
What do you think?
Term limits came to California in the late '80's or early 90's. I don't remember the year that the voters enacted them. I know that much of the enthusiam at the time for term limits was that it seemed to be the only way to get rid of Willie Brown, the very powerful Speaker of the Assembly. It was clear that his constituents were never going to vote him out of office. It was also clear that as long as he was a member of the Assembly, he would retain the position of Speaker - that is, as long as the Democrats were the majority party.
The campaign to {oust Willie} establish term limits in California was formed by an alliance of two groups. One group was made up of some idealistic citizens who thought that professional politicians were a bad lot and something had to be done to prevent individuals from making a career of holding elective office. One of their slogans was "let the office holder come back home and live under the laws that he or she has enacted." Another group was made up of realistic citizens who chafed at Speaker Brown and wanted to get rid of him.
At least, that's my opinion.
The success of term limits all over the country is a tribute to the ability of the two groups, the idealists and the realists, to work together even though they differed on many of their goals. The people who wanted to get rid of Speaker Brown were perfectly happy with the concept of professional politician. They just wanted a different Speaker.
The idealists must by now recognize that their reform has not gotten rid of professional politicians. Here in California the pros simply play musical chairs. You get ahead in politics by serving your six years in the Assembly, followed by eight years in the Senate. After that you can run for any of the state-wide offices, such as Attorney General, Treasurer, Controller, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Superintendant of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, and so on.
I think it is time to take a look at the current term limits restrictions and make some realistic modifications. One suggestion is to extend X, the number of terms. My approach is to stipulate X consecutive terms, followed by either sitting out for one election cycle, or running for a different office and later returning to the original office for another X terms.
What do you think?
Labels: professional politicians, term limits, Willie Brown
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Term Limits - correction to the previous blog
In my previous blog I stated that independent voters like term limits and implied that voters who identify with one or the other of the two large political parties don't. That's not accurate. The people who don't like term limits are just the people who are subject to them - elected officials. Partisan voters are just as apt to like term limits as non-partisan voters.
Term limits were adopted in California about 1992 (readers, please correct me if I am wrong). At the time, the Speaker of the California Assembly was Willie Brown, who subsequently became mayor of San Francisco. Willie Brown is a man of African descent. He is a skillful orator. He wears expensive clothes. He deliberately attracts attention to himself. In 1992 the public in California had not completely abandoned the idea of the African as a person who should stay in the shadows. He should be quiet and modest. He should not try to be the center of attention. It bothered many Californians that the Speaker of the Assembly, one of the most powerful politicians in the State, was African.
Lo and behold, along came Term Limits. Many Californians voted for term limits as a means of getting rid of this embarassing African. It seemed to be the only way. Certainly the residents of the district he represented were going to reelect him to the Assembly for as long as he wanted to be a member of it. As long as he was a member and his party, the Democratic, was in the majority there was no other way to get rid of him.
Term limits is a way of getting rid of someone else's favorite representative whom you detest. You are willing to get rid of your own favorite representative in the process. There's no other justification for term limits that makes any sense to me. I think that wanting so eagerly to get rid of another legislator that you're willing to get rid of your own is a damned poor way to make public policy.
Term limits were adopted in California about 1992 (readers, please correct me if I am wrong). At the time, the Speaker of the California Assembly was Willie Brown, who subsequently became mayor of San Francisco. Willie Brown is a man of African descent. He is a skillful orator. He wears expensive clothes. He deliberately attracts attention to himself. In 1992 the public in California had not completely abandoned the idea of the African as a person who should stay in the shadows. He should be quiet and modest. He should not try to be the center of attention. It bothered many Californians that the Speaker of the Assembly, one of the most powerful politicians in the State, was African.
Lo and behold, along came Term Limits. Many Californians voted for term limits as a means of getting rid of this embarassing African. It seemed to be the only way. Certainly the residents of the district he represented were going to reelect him to the Assembly for as long as he wanted to be a member of it. As long as he was a member and his party, the Democratic, was in the majority there was no other way to get rid of him.
Term limits is a way of getting rid of someone else's favorite representative whom you detest. You are willing to get rid of your own favorite representative in the process. There's no other justification for term limits that makes any sense to me. I think that wanting so eagerly to get rid of another legislator that you're willing to get rid of your own is a damned poor way to make public policy.
Labels: term limits, Willie Brown
Nonpartisan Expectations and Disappointments
I have a lot of ideas for good blog articles. I'd like to have a group of young graduate students competing for who can write the best article and give my ideas to them, tell them to do the research, and write away. Then the public could judge who had written the best article.
Unfortunately, I don't have a group of eager young graduate students working for me. I don't have a position at a university where these graduate students live and thrive. I'm just an opinionated old man with some ideas. I think they are good ideas. I think all of my ideas are good ones, or at least most of them are. Unfortunately, I don't have the inclination or the time to do the necessary research to make an idea grow into a good article. Also, I fear that someone else my already have written an article about my idea. You see, ideas are not unique. Many others may share the same good ideas with me.
That being said, I'm going to try to compose an essay about the behavior of legislatures and the way in which the legislative process disappoints or even disgusts some observers, particularly non-partisan observers who can't understand why legislators can't simply get along with each other and make the compromises that are needed to get good legislation enacted.
Non-partisan observers believe that the public tends to elect capable men and women to serve in legislatures. They believe that these legislators should think first of the interests of their constituents and then of the interests of the State or nation. They should not think of their own personal interests. Legislatures ought to behave somewhat like conventions, in which people of good will and intellgence assemble to tackle some weighty problems in a thoughtful way.
Well, anyone who's spent any time at all observing the way a legislature operates knows that legislators do not behave at all like a group of capable and interested citizens participating in a convention. For one thing, legislators like their job. I've known a few legislators - Congressmen, members of the California Assembly, members of the California Senate, members of the Los Angeles City Council and others - and one of their primary goals is to be reelected. Most of them also want to sponsor and shepherd good legislation through the body of which they are members. They believe that enacting good legislation will please their constituents and enable them to be reelected in the next election.
Another feature of any legislative body that I've ever observed is that the members are divided into two opposing groups, or parties. Each party has some basic ideas that all its members must subscribe to. Each party has its own constituents or supporters among the public. These supporters also cherish the basic ideas of their respective parties. To be sure of reelection, a legislator must give convincing lip service, at least, to these basic ideas or core principles. Members of the public who share these basic ideas like to hear them spoken of and defended in public speeches.
The non-partisan citizen doesn't understand or appreciate the importance of the party. Belonging to the party is like belonging to a church. If you are an active party member, you socialize with other members of the same party. You may belong, as I do, to a political club. You tend to demonize the "other" party. In my case, I believe that many Republicans are so obsessed about taxes that they would rather see important and necessary government services go away rather than vote for additional taxes needed to support them. At least, they cling to the illusion that government wastes a great amount of money and that if only the money were more carefully allocated and managed there would be plenty to go around and pay for every necessary service. (If any Republicans read this blog, they are welcome to add their comments and tell the world what they think of Democrats. I won't presume to speak or write for them.)
Non-partisan voters support such "reforms" as "non-partisan city councils," and "term limits." They hope that such reforms will decrease or eliminate the partisan "bickering" that occurs in legislatures and encourage the election of "citizen lawmakers" who are not "career politicians" but will instead behave in the way the non-partisan voter wants them to behave. They value consensus and compromise and hate expressions of strong differences of opinion.
The non-partisan element is important in our elections. It may not be important in the complex process of enacting legislation. As one career politician once noted, enacting legislation is like making sausage. It is not appetizing to watch either process too closely.
Unfortunately, I don't have a group of eager young graduate students working for me. I don't have a position at a university where these graduate students live and thrive. I'm just an opinionated old man with some ideas. I think they are good ideas. I think all of my ideas are good ones, or at least most of them are. Unfortunately, I don't have the inclination or the time to do the necessary research to make an idea grow into a good article. Also, I fear that someone else my already have written an article about my idea. You see, ideas are not unique. Many others may share the same good ideas with me.
That being said, I'm going to try to compose an essay about the behavior of legislatures and the way in which the legislative process disappoints or even disgusts some observers, particularly non-partisan observers who can't understand why legislators can't simply get along with each other and make the compromises that are needed to get good legislation enacted.
Non-partisan observers believe that the public tends to elect capable men and women to serve in legislatures. They believe that these legislators should think first of the interests of their constituents and then of the interests of the State or nation. They should not think of their own personal interests. Legislatures ought to behave somewhat like conventions, in which people of good will and intellgence assemble to tackle some weighty problems in a thoughtful way.
Well, anyone who's spent any time at all observing the way a legislature operates knows that legislators do not behave at all like a group of capable and interested citizens participating in a convention. For one thing, legislators like their job. I've known a few legislators - Congressmen, members of the California Assembly, members of the California Senate, members of the Los Angeles City Council and others - and one of their primary goals is to be reelected. Most of them also want to sponsor and shepherd good legislation through the body of which they are members. They believe that enacting good legislation will please their constituents and enable them to be reelected in the next election.
Another feature of any legislative body that I've ever observed is that the members are divided into two opposing groups, or parties. Each party has some basic ideas that all its members must subscribe to. Each party has its own constituents or supporters among the public. These supporters also cherish the basic ideas of their respective parties. To be sure of reelection, a legislator must give convincing lip service, at least, to these basic ideas or core principles. Members of the public who share these basic ideas like to hear them spoken of and defended in public speeches.
The non-partisan citizen doesn't understand or appreciate the importance of the party. Belonging to the party is like belonging to a church. If you are an active party member, you socialize with other members of the same party. You may belong, as I do, to a political club. You tend to demonize the "other" party. In my case, I believe that many Republicans are so obsessed about taxes that they would rather see important and necessary government services go away rather than vote for additional taxes needed to support them. At least, they cling to the illusion that government wastes a great amount of money and that if only the money were more carefully allocated and managed there would be plenty to go around and pay for every necessary service. (If any Republicans read this blog, they are welcome to add their comments and tell the world what they think of Democrats. I won't presume to speak or write for them.)
Non-partisan voters support such "reforms" as "non-partisan city councils," and "term limits." They hope that such reforms will decrease or eliminate the partisan "bickering" that occurs in legislatures and encourage the election of "citizen lawmakers" who are not "career politicians" but will instead behave in the way the non-partisan voter wants them to behave. They value consensus and compromise and hate expressions of strong differences of opinion.
The non-partisan element is important in our elections. It may not be important in the complex process of enacting legislation. As one career politician once noted, enacting legislation is like making sausage. It is not appetizing to watch either process too closely.
Labels: career politicians, non-partisan voters, term limits
