|
Ivan W.
Parkins |
|
To order Dr. Parkins book, Perspectives For
American Society Contact |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2009, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
About Ivan W. Parkins: Dr. Parkins is a retired professor of
Political Science from Central Michigan University. He received his PhD from the University of
Chicago and is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. Dr. Parkins served as a naval officer
during WWII aboard the battleship Alabama.
He is a recent widower with three daughters, 3 grand children and 2
great grand children. Dr. Parkins has
written extensively, having authored 3 books and a newspaper opinion column
for many years. |
|
Front Page |
|
Editors Note: Dr.
Parkins’s Grandson, Breton W. Hinkle, passed away unexpectedly on Feb. 14,
2009. He leaves his wife Jen, parents
Ray and Susan Hinkle, sister, Gretchen Hinkle, Richard and Kathy Bourque,
Father and Mother in law, brother in laws Kevin and Brian and sister in law,
Kelly. He was a graduate of Michigan
State University. Bret was a United
States Marine and had faithfully served his country with honor and
distinction. He will be terribly
missed by family and friends. He was loved by all who knew him. He was
buried with military honors in Holland, MI. See Bret’s life story at
http://www.lifestorynet.com/memories/45526/ |
|
SOME NOMINATING CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED By Ivan W. Parkins I
doubt that elimination of popular elections for Presidents or Senators would
be acceptable to Americans. I also
doubt that such a change would serve the country well. But some of the similarities in how those
two offices and that of the Representatives are filled can be changed, and
can be made more similar to the Constitution’s original plan. The nominations of likely candidates for
those offices need not all be by similar, very expensive, and largely
impersonal primaries engineered by election specialists.
First, Representatives should be chosen from congressional districts
small enough to facilitate one-on-one communication between Representatives
and a substantial percentage of those whom they represent. That, given the present, and growing,
population of the United States, implies several thousand Representatives,
too many to consult effectively as an assembly. Therefore, Representatives should live in
their districts and cast fewer, but more significant votes on major public
policies. In
a district of less than 100,000 an able individual, supported by a few dozen
friends and neighbors, can establish him/her self as a serious candidate for
office. Cutting the present size of
congressional districts by a factor of
ten or more should cut the costs of running an effective campaign in
one of them by an even larger factor.
Primary elections there might even be dispensed with in favor of
qualification by petitions and moderate filing fees.
When it comes to Senators and Presidents, nominations are now by
primary elections, and those are often the steepest hurdle that a candidate
faces. In them, more of the expense is
likely to be born by the candidate and his closest supporters. Furthermore, voter attendance is usually
lower than in the general election, leaving more influence in the choice of
candidates to special interests and extremists. Why
not allow state legislators to nominate Senate candidates? That would restore, in some part, the once
great role of the states in our system.
If each member of the legislature were allowed to sign one petition of
candidacy and a minimum of fifteen or twenty percent of the signatures were
required competition, but not too many candidates, could be made likely. Election would then be by the general
public. (This is a modification of my
original proposal. See
Disassemble the House ) For
the highest office, that of President, nomination by petitions, signed by the
newly elected Representatives, should provide a better method than the
present primaries. Again, each
Representative should have one vote and a minimal percentage or the total
should be required for nomination, and that should provide competition while
limiting the number of candidates.
The above system of nominations would still require some extensive
organization, campaigning, and considerable expense, but those should be
greatly reduced from the present. The
role of the less intensely interested and less extreme members of the public
should be enhanced. I.W.Parkins 051609 |
|
THE UNITED STATES AS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and OUR NATIONAL ELECTIONS Our
democracy needs a better understanding of the relationship between the
people, popular sovereignty and their government. By Ivan W. Parkins
If The United States is to
remain true to its self-image as the world’s leading democratic republic it
must reinvigorate popular sovereignty.
But, it must also recognize that a huge and expanding populace is more
inclined to cacophony than to timely decision making. What is it that the general public can best
contribute to sound government? I
suggest that participation of the general public is primarily valuable as the
best indication of the effects that public policies are having
domestically. For that there should be
an input from as much of the public as practicable. And that input should be as direct as
practicable. The
secondary role of the general public is as a vast reservoir of experiences
and talents from among whom, hopefully, a few of those varied individuals
most suited to the roles can be elevated to lead and to administer public
affairs. That leaves plenty of
problems about how to identify and promote those individuals.
The present system is breaking down, with self-selected action groups,
most of them identified with special economic and social interests, having
excessive influence. Such groups press
officialdom at the top of government to enact policies that have neither a
sound empirical basis nor majority support.
Because the constitutional structure of our government has not kept
pace with the changing demands upon it, official leadership is handicapped in
its responses. Because the resulting
policies are often wasteful and disparate, few, if any, citizens can
understand our government’s operations and many become disillusioned.
Meanwhile, the chaos is a bonanza for centralized information media
that have become themselves, perhaps the most potent special interest in the
nation. They, and that trend, have
converted the First Amendment, now sanctified, into something that is often
unhelpful to most of the public that it is supposed to serve.
The primary need of our democracy is for a closer relationship between
the public and their government.
Our Constitution, in its original form, provided that Representatives,
Senators, and Presidents would each be chosen by a different process. The general public would vote only for
Representatives. Now, however,
Constitutional Amendments and revised practices make the manner of choosing
all three branches very much alike, i.e. popular elections. That, along with huge growths in population
and in government’s complexity, makes the citizen’s role a heavy one. Thus, many citizens unless pressed by
active recruiters are likely to avoid the polls.
Furthermore, the most complex part of the process, and that least
attended by voters, is nominations of the candidates for office. The nominating process is particularly subject
to extremes of partisanship and to special interests. I.W. Parkins 051609 |
|
REPRESENTATION: BY THE NUMBERS By Ivan W. Parkins According to Richard
Beeman’s recent and very good account of the Constitutional
Convention, PLAIN, HONEST MEN, page 282, James
“Madison had the foresight to see that the one-to-forty-thousand ratio might
cause problems in the future”. . . and “if the union should be permanent,
render the number of representatives excessive.” The actual starting
ratio was one Representative to 30,000 people. For half a century Congress made serious
efforts to increase the numbers of Representatives with some regard for their
proportion to the population increase.
After the 1840 Census, Congress essentially gave up; one Ohio Senator
lamented the end of “a fireside acquaintance” of Representatives with their
constituents. Following the 1910
Census Congress fixed the number of Representatives at 435 (a ratio of about
1 to 215,000). Not
only does the average Representative today have over twenty times as many
constituents as the earliest Representatives did, in 1790 the median age was
less than 16 (In 1810, when the Census first reported ages, it was 16 and
rising.). For that and many other
reasons, the proportion of constituents who are now eligible to vote is much
higher than originally. Even 435
Representatives are, in my opinion, too many to legislate effectively as one
body. A House of too few to represent
their constituents, and of too many to act in concert with one another is now
the cancer that is degrading our constitutional, and political systems. See
Disassemble the House. I.W.Parkins 051709 |
|
REAL, CONSTITIONAL, CHANGE Or how to make a
dysfunctional House of Representatives more representative of the people By Ivan W. Parkins REAL CHANGE is the title of Newt Gingrich’s new book. I agree with most of the policies that he
proposes; I also agreed with most of what he did as Speaker of the
House. But, I have grave doubts about
the means by which he expects to accomplish so much. Mr.
Gingrich himself cites an old axiom of Albert Einstein’s that doing more by
the same methods that have failed repeatedly and expecting a different result
is a sign of insanity. Except for some
other quotes that he cites, I might think Gingrich insane. He also cites Eisenhower and Peter Drucker
to the effect that often the answer to tough problems is to consider them as
mere symptoms and attack the underlying cause. That, I believe, is the way to real change
in the performance of our government.
Electing some other persons as Senators and Representatives and
discarding a few dilatory rules of congressional procedure will only suppress
a few symptoms. The cancer has grown
slowly and from causes that were largely obvious. Huge growth in the population of the United
States, even greater increase in our worldly economic and military power, and
a transformation in the locus and focus of our information system have made
Congress, especially the House of Representatives, dysfunctional. A
growing separation between Representatives and the people whom they are
expected to represent is obvious.
There is no way that a Representative can be “close” to more people
than there are minutes in a year. The
almost year-around sessions allow congress persons fewer and fewer minutes to
spend with constituents. They have
little practical choice but to cater to those who have the most to contribute
to their reelections.
Meanwhile, there is more public notice to be had by defying
presidential leadership and partisan compromises than by cooperation in
service to the nation. That is
especially damaging to national morale and to long-term policy
formation. Also more often than not
destructive are numerous sensational investigations of the past, and often no
longer significant, actions of the Executive and Judicial Branches. The
necessary solution will be difficult, and its personal or partisan rewards
will be remote. Failing to take the
hard course will assure that events will control us more and that we will
control the events less. See Dr. Parkins proposal: |
|
Our Democratic Republic, The
Constitution, The Election Process and Popular Sovereignty The following series of articles examine the
relationship of the people to their
representatives, senators and president. To preserve our republic some changes need
to be considered. Also, see Dr.
Parkins's proposal on
Disassemble the House |