Governments are especially designed to assure justice with elections, laws, courts,
and institutions of correction as well as security with police and fire departments.
Governments can usually provide infrastructure more efficiently such as roads,
trains, airports, bridges, tunnels, and utilities for electrical power and energy.
Governments may also more efficiently secure for all the essential social needs of health care,
education, post offices, and retirement security, though these can also be available
in the private sector, giving people a choice.
However, if the government neglects to provide these services
without discrimination, the private sector is unlikely to do so for everyone.
Government can also regulate commerce in order to make sure that negative
externalities do not occur or that those causing them are held accountable.
When governments give private corporations contracts to provide
correctional and security services, they tend to be less efficient and corrupt,
costing the federal government about $50 billion a year from waste, fraud, and abuse.
Private companies take profits and pay management higher salaries than well paid
government employees, making the services either more expensive or inadequately provided.
Transportation may be provided privately or publicly, but government needs to regulate
these and other industries to prevent monopolies, pollution, and other harmful practices.
When the aim is to serve all without discrimination, the government may be more efficient
in cost by not taking profits for private managers and share-holders of corporations.
In the United States corporations have gained great power because of weak political
parties divided by gerrymandered districts and special interests, because of a gigantic
military-industrial complex, because corporate money finances political campaigns
and lobbyists, and because the globalization of commerce in its race
to the bottom has taken power and wealth from workers.
Recently the Republican Party has become more conservative
and
primarily serves the interests of the upper class while
Democrats cater to the middle class as well as wealthy interests.
Both parties neglect the needs of the poor, though Republicans do so more than Democrats.
Both parties were to the right of center with low taxes for the rich and corporations
with benefits being given to campaign donors, but since the 2016 elections
the Democratic party is moving toward the left.
The four sectors which provide the most lobbyists who influence legislators
are the military-industrial complex, financial services, the fossil-fuels industry,
and private health care with its insurance providers and pharmacological industry.
In 2003 drug companies paid 450 lobbyists to influence the US Congress to pass
a law providing drug benefits which was profitable to their companies.
In 2013 the five top weapons contractors successfully spent $65 million lobbying
Congress to cancel the promised cuts in military spending in the 2014 budget.
American presidential candidates in the 1980 election spent $92 million,
but by 2008 this expenditure had risen to $1.1 billion, and after the
Citizens United decision in 2010 this jumped to about $2 billion in 2012.
This decision that removed limits on what corporations could contribute to electioneering
was supposed to be balanced by the same privilege being granted to labor unions,
but according to the Center of Responsive Politics (CRP) the businesses now
spend about fifteen times as much as the unions.
In 2014 the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision removed the
aggregate limit on individual contributions to national parties and federal candidates.
As a result campaign spending on the 2014 elections
reached $3.7 billion, a record for a midterm election.
CRP found that about $6.6 billion was spent in the 2016 elections.
In addition Mary Harris of MediaQuant estimated that Donald Trump received
$5.2 billion in “free” or “earned” media time compared to $3.2 billion for Hillary Clinton.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) studied the
2012 elections in the United States and reported that 50 million eligible voters
had not registered; 4.1 million residents of US territories were ineligible to vote;
600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia could not vote for a Congressional
representative or a senator; 6 million US citizens had lost the right to vote
because of a felony conviction; because of the Electoral College system presidential
campaigns focused on only a few contested states;
third-party candidates
received little attention; spending on campaigning was the highest so far;
yet most of the money spent was exempt from disclosure requirements;
some voters had to wait in long lines; Ohio and other states prevented the OSCE
from monitoring their elections; and most congressional districts
were not competitive because of gerrymandering.
The OSCE report on the 2016 US elections has not yet been published,
but US intelligence agencies found significant influence by Russia and others
that favored Donald Trump and harmed Hillary Clinton.
Because of lobbying and campaign contributions, many legislators vote
for corporate interests and against the will of the majority of people on many issues.
For example, since 2004 most people have wanted to repeal the tax cuts
signed by George W. Bush; but President Barack Obama, who had promised to repea
them, gave in to the Republicans even on the tax cuts for high incomes until they expired.
Obama had promised at least a public option in health care reform but instead
let the special interests dominate the bill proposed by Congressional committees.
Obama had also promised to reform energy use in order to prevent climate change,
but while doing a little to increase renewables he has promoted
an “all-in” approach to the fossil-fuels industries.
When Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in 2009 was asked about Obama’s plans
to reduce carbon emissions 17% by the year 2020, he replied, “We don’t plan in America.”
Facing the financial melt-down crisis during the final weeks of the election campaign in 2008,
Obama gave in to the Republican plan to bail out the bankers and capitalists on
Wall Street with $700 billion known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
American businesses spend about $300 billion a year on advertising in the media
in order to influence people with manipulative messages.
Children between the ages of 2 and 7 see an estimated 14,000 TV commercials
each year while those aged 8 to 14 watch about 30,000.
Since 1934 the government has let private corporations use public airwaves
to dominate radio, television, and other media without having to share
their revenues garnered from this lucrative advertising.
They collect billions for political ads without even being required
to provide free air-time to candidates in debates.
World media is now dominated by the following thirteen corporations:
Viacom, CBS Corporation, Time Warner, News Corporation, Bertelsmann AG,
Sony, Comcast, Vivendi, Televisa, The Walt Disney Company, Hearst Corporation,
Organizações Globo, and Lagardère Group.
The Internet is dominated by Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook,
Yahoo, Amazon, PayPal, eBay, and Twitter.
Among the 21 most advanced nations the United States spends the least on
public social programs and is ranked the worst in inequality, poverty, life expectancy,
infant mortality, maternity leave, and overall environmental performance.
The United States has the most people in prisons and jails with
one-quarter of all the people incarcerated in the world being in the US.
With the “war on drugs” these numbers have increased in the last forty years
from 92 per 100,000 to 500 or 743 if local jails are counted.
This is eight times as many as the average in western Europe.
The United States Government spends a smaller percentage of its total economy,
now called the gross domestic product (GDP),
on public social programs than all the other advanced nations.
GDP is the total amount of money spent regardless of its good or bad consequences.
Thus it does not consider how well income is distributed or the depletion of resources
or the harmful waste that is dumped into the environment
or the human and other resources wasted on the military and wars.
The mad rush of nations to increase their GDP has resulted in wealth being
concentrated in fewer hands with more public and private debt,
more unemployed for longer periods, worse market volatility, increased pollution,
and the extinction of so many species that this Anthropocene epoch
is being called the Sixth Great Extinction.
In the past half century the United States has tripled its economic output;
but the wages of the middle class have stagnated,
and the general happiness of the people has not increased.
Studies have shown that when people with higher incomes increase their wealth,
they do not become happier; but when the poor
get even a small raise, they do feel happier.
Americans do have a higher average income than most countries.
Yet Americans are not happier than many nations because the higher GDP is affected
by much higher health costs with mediocre results, by much more military spending,
by working longer hours with less vacation time,
and by having higher incomes raising the average.
The United States has been blessed with more
land and natural resources than most of Europe.
Norwegians have a higher average income because its government shares
its lucrative oil and gas earnings with its citizens, as does the state of Alaska.
Americans have bigger houses and cars and pay less
for gas and oil because of much lower taxes.
The gasoline excise tax rate has not increased
since it was set at 18.4 cents per gallon in 1994.
One result of such low energy costs to consumers is that the United States is
one of the three largest emitters of carbon pollution per person.
Since 1980 American politicians have voted for lower taxes,
resulting in the largest national debt that passed $20 trillion dollars in February 2017.
Americans also have personal debts of about $18 trillion,
which is an average of $55,620 per family.
Research has estimated that treatment of diabetes will cost Americans
more than $3 trillion in the next ten years.
Yet most of these cases could be prevented by a better diet and more activity.
George W. Bush was selected by the US Supreme Court to become the
next President in 2001 even though all votes in Florida were not properly counted,
and Al Gore received 543,895 more votes than Bush nationwide.
To do this the conservative justices even went against their own states-rights principles
and therefore added that this decision should not be considered a precedent.
The Clinton administration had created budget surpluses, and
the projection was for a $5.6 trillion surplus in the next ten years.
However, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that federal deficits
would be better than letting the federal government develop capital
which could compete with private corporations.
The Republican tax cuts, which mostly helped the wealthy,
transformed this surplus into a ten-year deficit of $6.2 trillion.
This money has to be borrowed from the wealthy who then collect interest
on their loans, taking money from the general public without working.
In September 2001 the mindset that allowed President George W. Bush to ignore the
threats made by Ossama bin Laden were transformed by the destruction of the
World Trade Towers into an avenging war mentality even though
the nineteen hijackers killed themselves while perpetrating those crimes.
Although fifteen of the nineteen were from Saudi Arabia (a key US ally because of its oil),
the United States attacked the nation of Afghanistan.
The future Al-Qaida criminals there known as Mujahideen had been financed by the US
during their war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
During his State of the Union speech in early 2002
George W. Bush declared the nations of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an “axis of evil”
even though they had nothing to do with the attacks on 9-11-2001.
Using the term “axis,” previously used to describe the World War II alliance of
fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan, implied they too were an alliance.
Yet Iraq and Iran were such enemies that they fought a devastating war against
each other in the 1980s during which the US supported Iraq led by Saddam Hussein.
The hermit nation of North Korea is the most isolated country in the world
and cannot even adequately feed its people.
The Bush-Cheney mindset also persuaded Congress to create a new federal department
called Homeland Security, using the patriotic term “homeland”
previously employed by German Nazis.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act signed on October 26, 2001
allowed the government to spy on Americans and
everyone else in the name of “national security.”
In proposing an invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration argued that the war would
be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues, and they estimated
the US cost would be less than $95 billion.
So far the entire cost of this Iraq War has been estimated
to cost American taxpayers at least $3 trillion.
The justification for the war was based on the propaganda
that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction;” but this was false.
The US invasion caused the United Nations inspection teams in Iraq,
who were searching for such weapons, to stop their investigation and leave.
Between 2004 and 2008 US soldiers discovered some obsolete
chemical weapons in Iraq; but because most of these mustard-gas weapons had been made
in the United States and Europe and had been given or sold to Saddam Hussein’s government
for its war against Iran in the 1980s, the George W. Bush Administration kept this secret.
A New York Times report by C. J. Chivers on October 14, 2014 exposed this
and the reluctance of US military authorities to treat the American soldiers
for their injuries from handling these dangerous weapons.
During the Iraq-Iran War the Iraqis had used chemical weapons like these
to kill about 20,000 Iranians and seriously injured 100,000 more.
At that time Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa stating that
the Islamic Republic of Iran prohibited such weapons and would refuse to use them.
Khomeini ruled that using chemical or biological weapons is inconsistent with Islam.
Then in 1984 Khomeini declared that Iran did not want to produce nuclear weapons either.
The Iraq War started by the American invasion in March 2003
has resulted in more than 250,000 deaths.
The medical costs of maimed American veterans will continue for decades, and the combined
costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq reached about $5 trillion by the end of 2016.
The invasions of these two countries were crimes against peace,
which is the most serious kind of war crime and was called
“the supreme international crime” by the American Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg.
President John Adams, who avoided a war, once said
that it is great guilt to start an unnecessary war.
Yet the perpetrators of these massive crimes, which have killed hundreds of thousands
of people, have not been prosecuted, but they have made millions selling their books.
Excessive and unnecessary military spending is bankrupting the United States
in an era when Americans have no major enemies
except a few rogue nations and small numbers of isolated “terrorists.”
Yet because of the vested interests in defense businesses and the legislators they influence,
the military-industrial-congressional complex continues to spend exorbitant
amounts on weapons, even some the military does not need or want.
For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter already cost about $50 billion by 2013
and is projected to cost $400 billion.
In March 2014 delivery of the planes was postponed one year
because of continuing software problems.
This is only one of the many weapon systems the Obama administration
planned to modernize for the biggest military empire in the history of the world.
Pentagon spending in the last few years has risen
to its highest levels in real terms since World War II.
Yet the US would be more secure than ever if its military adventurism
was not creating more enemies.
As of January 2014 China owned about $1.27 trillion in US Treasury bonds.
In October 2016 Japan’s holdings of $1.132 trillion surpassed China’s $1.116 trillion.
In
April 2024 the five countries owning the most US debt are
Japan $1.1 trillion, China $749 billion, the United Kingdom $690.2 billion,
Luxembourg $373.5 billion, and Canada $328.7 billion.
Neither China nor any other nation wants a war against the United States;
nor is any nation preparing for such a war unless it is to defend itself
against aggression by Americans or others.
In 2015 China with four times the US population spent $146 billion on its military
while the annual United States military spending was over $600 billion.
A detailed analysis by the War Resisters League (WRL) shows that military spending
in the 2017 budget includes $586 billion for the Department of Defense as well as
$34 billion in military from Homeland Security, $9 billion from the FBI,
$21 billion for nuclear weapons from the Energy Department,
$10 billion which is half of NASA’s budget, $10 billion from the State Department,
$13 billion in International Security Assistance, and $82 billion for retiree pay and health
plus $589 billion for veterans’ benefits and the portion of interest on the national debt
from all past military spending.
The grand total of all this military-related spending for 2017 is more than $1.35 trillion
or 44% of total federal outlays of $3.04 trillion
if the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare are excluded.
In March 2024 WRL reported that the Biden Administration OMB was
projecting a budget for FY 2026 of $2.609 trillion on total military spending.
The aim of this massive spending for “defense” is actually
to maintain and extend America’s world domination.
This is called “full-spectrum dominance” and is officially known as
“full-spectrum superiority” which is defined by the Department of Defense as the
“cumulative effect of dominance in the air, land, maritime, and space domains
and information environment that permits the conduct of joint operations
without effective opposition or prohibitive interference.”
Yet by wasting American resources on these non-constructive purposes
the middle class
has been held back as manufacturing and consumer spending have declined.
Foolish military policies, which are often illegal by international law,
have made Americans less secure, less prosperous, and less free.
President Obama increased military spending and would have left US troops in Iraq
if the Iraqis had not refused to approve giving them immunity from their laws.
The US also demanded this immunity for the “residual troops” to be left in Afghanistan
after the American withdrawal at the end of 2014.
On September 29, 2014 Afghanistan’s newly elected President Ashraf Ghani Ahmadza
was inaugurated, and the next day the US made an agreement with him to allow
9,800 American troops with immunity from Afghani laws to remain in Afghanistan
for ten years or more in order to train and aid Afghani security forces.
Another agreement allowed NATO to keep 4,000 to 5,000 more troops in Afghanistan.
This military occupation of Afghanistan lasted 20 years
and was the longest war in American history.
By voting intelligently and getting more enlightened people involved in influencing elections
we can change the governmental policies of our nation and the states and localities.
More progressives, peace activists, and environmentalists need to run for public offices.
I believe that the Green Party has had the best policies for many years,
but the powerful Democrat and Republican parties have dominated the rigged system
so much that the Green Party as well as the Peace and Freedom Party
have been at an unfair disadvantage for many years by being excluded
from debates and because ballot access has been made difficult.
At some point a growing reform movement could help the Greens become a major party;
but at this stage progressives may find that a more pragmatic strategy
is to challenge corporate and warfare Democrats in primary elections.
Progressive policies are becoming more popular and widespread,
much more than many people realize.
Polls show that most people opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
as well as the use of drones to kill people.
Large majorities favor increasing the minimum wage, tuition-free public colleges,
stopping deportation and reforming immigration,
controlling assault rifles and other weapons of mass murder, and taxing the very wealthy.
If asked they would likely support taxing stock trading and carbon emissions.
Yet many people also realize that the democratic processes in the United States
have been corrupted by the influence of the wealthy, large corporations, and their lobbyists.
The United States Supreme Court allowed George W. Bush
to steal the close Presidential election in 2000.
Evidence also shows that the 2004 Presidential election was also fixed in Ohio
and other states so that Bush could win re-election.1
Thus he was able to appoint two more conservative justices who gave the Supreme Court
a majority to support the interests of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Yet some recent election results indicate that well organized candidates
can defeat powerful incumbents even though they are outspent by large ratios.
Nonetheless the system needs radical reform to make elections more fair and democratic.
Instant-run-off voting (IRV) or ranked-choice voting (RCV) allows people to vote
their conscience rather than for the “lesser of two evils” by ranking their first three choices.
IRV has been used in national elections in Australia, India, Ireland, and Papua New Guinea.
No run-off election is required.
If no one gets a majority in the first tally, one by one the candidate with the least number
of votes is eliminated, and the second and if necessary the third choices of their voters
are assigned to other candidates until one candidate has a majority,
making run-off elections unnecessary.
In the 2000 election the Green candidate Ralph Nader had to struggle to get on ballots
in many states, and he was excluded from the public debates
controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties.
Yet Nader was very popular and was drawing much larger crowds to his speeches
than were the other candidates, Albert Gore and George W. Bush.
If that election had had ranking voting, then many people could have chosen Nader
as their first choice and Gore as their second choice.
The result would have been an easier victory for Gore
who actually got 543,895 more votes than Bush anyway.
With ranked-choice voting Nader would have gotten many more votes,
helping the Greens to become a viable party.
Imagine how different the world might be today if Gore had been President for eight years
instead of the junior Bush!
In 2004 Dennis Kucinich was ignored by the press and most voters
because everyone assumed he had no chance of winning.
Yet with ranking voting he might have been a contender,
changing the whole nature of the election.
The problem with the United States Congress is even worse as incumbents
have a tremendous advantage in raising money for their campaigns and then outspending
most opponents except those who are independently wealthy or cater to wealthy interests.
This plutocratic system of elections, which gives the wealthy immense advantages
over the large majority of voters, has corrupted our government and given us
a Congress that Will Rogers called “the best that money can buy.”
Yet while the three branches of the federal government—the President, Congress,
and Supreme Court—have become dysfunctional with very low approval ratings,
more people are becoming aware of political and social issues by means
of the worldwide web, diverse media, and interpersonal communications.
This situation and these changes offer a great opportunity during this megacrisis
to bring about radical reforms by making use of direct democracy.
Every national government today, which is called “democratic,” is actually
a representative democracy or a republic rather than a real democracy.
The United Nations is even less democratic because it is governed
by people appointed by governments and by UN officials.
Thus the UN is even farther from the influence of the people.
The UN General Assembly is the one institution that represents almost every nation;
but small nations have the same vote as large nations,
and the General Assembly has little power.
The internet with its worldwide web and email has spread communication so fast
that now almost everyone has access to it by their own personal computers and
other devices while others can use computers in libraries, schools, and other public places.
Thus we now have the technology to develop direct democracy by which
the people could vote on many issues, not just on a few candidates once in a while.
Polls have limited influence over powerful politicians who listen more to lobbyists
and campaign contributors who can help them get re-elected.
Petitions and emailing and telephoning elected representatives can be easily ignored
because they are like begging, asking them to consider issues.
Democracy means “the power of the people,” and now is the time for the majority
of the people to take power from the wealthy, the greedy, and the ambitious.
By participating directly in influencing how decisions are made and what laws are passed,
the people can correct the unfairness and implement policies that are better for everyone.
One way to do this is to change the politicians by electing better ones
in spite of the corrupt system, but another option is
to work to amend the Constitution of the United States.
This is difficult and takes time, but it is not impossible.
Yet to take one issue at a time and try to get reforms made piecemeal would take many years.
Given our planetary climate crisis, this may take too long to bring about
the changes we urgently need now such as a tax on carbon emissions.
I propose that we could bring about the reforms we need more quickly by having
a constitutional convention, like the founding fathers did in 1787,
and rewrite the entire constitution which would then be presented to the states for ratification.
Such a convention could be held on-line so that any registered voter
could participate in the discussion and the voting on various issues.
This would prepare the way for on-line voting on a regular basis
as part of the process of a truly democratic government.
Although some of those currently advocating a constitutional convention tend
to be
conservative with issues such as requiring a balanced budget for the federal government,
limiting the amount of taxes the federal government can collect,
and limiting the number of terms of elected representatives,
I believe that the majority of people would prefer more progressive changes
that do not favor the rich.
Some conservatives have even advocated the reactionary policy
of going back to having state legislatures elect US Senators.
In recent decades conservatives have been trying to reduce the role of government
with the exception of the military and security complex so that private interests
and their lobbyists will have more unfettered power and wealth.
The most effective way to reverse the plutocratic decisions of the currently
conservative Supreme Court is to amend the US Constitution.
Already a movement is growing to amend it so that elections will be more fair,
rather than favoring the wealthy and large corporations.
Elections are contests and therefore require rules so that the contests will be fair.
Recent revelations by Private First Class Bradley (Chelsea) Manning, WikiLeaks,
and the former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden have exposed the
overweening spying of the US Government through its
National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence agencies.
These are violations of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution
and need to be radically reformed.
Citizens have a right to their privacy in regard to their writings, conversations,
and other lawful expressions unless there is evidence
that a serious crime may have been committed.
People’s email, telephone conversations, and internet communications should be
protected from intrusions by government and private corporations.
A United Nations report by a Special Rapporteur in October 2014 found that
mass electronic surveillance of telephone and internet communications violates
the right of privacy and Article 17 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights which was ratified by the United States in 1992,
though with reservations on the death penalty and domestic law supremacy.
More than five million people now have security clearances in the United States
and are involved in spying on Americans and others in the world.
In the Democratic Constitution of the United States I propose many changes
that would make the government more democratic and responsive to the will of the people.
Residents of the District of Columbia would be enfranchised
to vote in all elections just as members of the states do.
Districts for the House of Representatives and for the Senate would be apportioned
by computer calculations equally and compactly without regard to party affiliation
in order to eliminate the party advantages taken by gerrymandering.
The United States Senate would be made more equally representative
of the people rather than the unfair and arbitrary equality of states.
States like corporations are artificial entities,
but people are real and deserve equal rights.
The number of senators representing each state would be based on the recent census.
By the 2020 census the 15 states with less than 2 million people would have one Senator
each, and they would be Wyoming, Vermont, District of Columbia, Alaska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii,
West Virginia, Idaho, and Nebraska.
The 26 states with between 2 million and 10 million people would have 2 Senators each,
and they would be New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Iowa, Utah,
Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina,
Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, Missouri, Maryland, Indiana, Tennessee,
Massachusetts, Arizona, Washington, Virginia, and New Jersey.
The 6 states with between 10 million and 20 million people would have 3 senators each
and would be Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
The 3 states with between 20 million and 30 million people would have 4 senators each
and would be Texas, Florida and New York.
California as the only state with between 30 million and 40 million people
would have 5 senators.
In a future census states with more than 40 million people would have 6 senators.
According to the 2020 census the number of Senators before the 2030 Census
would be 102, and increases in populations would increase this number gradually.
All senators would be elected for four years in even-numbered years not divisible by four.
States with more than one senator would have districts equally and compactly
apportioned by computer calculations without regard to party affiliation.
Representatives in the House of Representatives would be one for each state
plus one more for each million people in a state.
Based on the 2020 census the District of Columbia and the 6 states of Wyoming, Vermont,
Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware, would have one Representative each.
The 8 states of Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, West Virginia,
Idaho, and Nebraska would have 2 Representatives.
The 3 states of New Mexico, Kansas, and Mississippi, and would have 3 Representatives.
The 6 states of Arkansas, Nevada, Iowa, Utah, Connecticut, and Oklahoma would
have 4 Representatives.
The 3 states of Oregon, Kentucky, and Louisiana, would have 5 Representatives.
The 5 states of Alabama, South Carolina, Minnesota, Colorado, and Wisconsin would
have 6 Representatives.
The 4 states of Missouri, Maryland, Indiana, and Tennessee would have 7 Representatives.
The 3 states of Massachusetts, Arizona, and Washington would have 8 Representatives.
The state of Virginia would have 9 Representatives.
The state of New Jersey would have 10 Representatives.
The 3 states of Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia, and would have 11 Representatives.
The state of Ohio would have 12 Representatives.
The state of Illinois would have 13 Representatives.
The state of Pennsylvania would have 14 Representatives.
The state of New York would have 21 Representatives.
The state of Florida would have 22
Representatives
The state of Florida would have 22
Representatives.
The state of Texas would have 30
Representatives
The state of California would have 40
Representatives.
Based on the 2020 census the number of Representatives would be 343,
and this number would increase more rapidly
than the number of Senators as the population grows.
All federal elections would be by instant-runoff voting with voter
indicating their first, second, and third choices.
By this ranking voting only one election day is required
to determine the preferences of the voters.
Primary elections with voting by political parties would be held by the four regions
of the East, South, Central, and West on the first Wednesday of March, April, May,
and June with the order of regions rotating every four years to assure regional fairness.
This would give voters in every state equal influence and would make it more
economical for Presidential candidates to campaign during primary elections.
In the new Democratic Constitution the registered voters would also have the right
to vote on each bill that either house of Congress passes.
Whenever the House of Representatives or Senate passes a bill, notice would immediately
be sent by email to all registered voters who then
would have seven days to vote electronically.
Tallies of this voting would be made by legislative districts and by party preference
as well as for the total vote by the nation.
A majority vote by the people would enable the bill to move on
to the other house and to the President for their approval.
However, if a majority of those voting nationwide reject a bill, it must be approved
by three-fifths of each house in order to be presented
to the President for his or her approval.
If the President vetoes a bill rejected by the voters, it does not become a law.
Bills approved by both houses and the people but vetoed by the President
could become law when passed by two-thirds of each house.
Elections could also be held by electronic voting.
Voters could request ballots and vote by postal mail in elections,
but voting on legislative bills would be only by electronic means.
Voting electronically would be protected by laws making it a misdemeanor
to try to coerce or bribe any voter or for a voter to accept a bribe in exchange for a vote.
Repeated offenses of this law and attempts to cheat by
manipulating voting results would be felonies.
Both houses would be required to vote on any bill sponsored
by at least one-third of its members.
This is to prevent leaders or a minority of the members
from blocking or filibustering popular legislation.
The Democratic Constitution also gives voters the opportunity to elect
the major office-holders in the executive branch of the federal government
in addition to the President and Vice President.
Ministers of the fifteen executive departments of the United States would be elected
for six-year terms (except in the first two elections)
with five Ministers elected every two years.
The fifteen departments would be Agriculture, Commerce, Communication, Education,
Energy, Environment (formerly Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency),
Health, Housing & Welfare, Justice, Labor, Peace (formerly the State Department),
Science & Technology, Security (formerly Defense and Homeland Security),
Transportation, and Treasury.
The Democratic Constitution authorizes the National Guard and the Coast Guard
for the defense of the United States but does not authorize
war, an army, a navy, nor an air force.
Existing military forces when this Democratic Constitution is adopted are to be
dismantled according to treaties negotiated with other nations doing the same.
Congress is given the authority to regulate and ban dangerous weapons
for the protection of all people.
This Democratic Constitution also bans capital punishment
as has almost every other advanced nation in the world.
Territories of the United States such as Puerto Rico and other islands must either
become a state or part of another state or be allowed to be free and independent nations.
The United States should not be retaining colonies without democratic rights.
The new Democratic Constitution includes the right of citizens to attend
free public schools and use free public libraries
as well as the right to receive free health care.
To reduce corruption elected officers and judges of the United States
would not be allowed to receive other income during their public service.
Elections would also be cleaned up by removing most
of the money that has infected campaigns.
Citizens would be allowed to contribute up to $100 to one candidate in each office
for which they are qualified to vote during each primary and general election,
and no other person, group, organization, or business could contribute to these campaigns.
The United States Treasury would finance debates broadcast for each elected office
and the sending of sample ballots to voters with equal space for all candidates.
Days on which federal elections are held would be federal holidays.
Although in May 2025 the United States with 347,069,495 people had only
4.2 percent of the world’s population, one-fourth of those imprisoned on Earth are in the US.
The vast majority are locked up because of the “war on drugs,”
and more than half are people of color.
In 2016 about 2.3 million adults were in federal or state prisons or local jails
while the US Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that a total of 6,851,000 adults
were supervised in correctional systems at the end of 2013 including probation and parole.
More than eleven million people are arrested in the US each year,
including more than two million youths.
Americans spend on crime seven times as much per person as most European democracies.
The rate of homicides with guns in the United States was 68 times that of England in 2011.
In 2013 the United States had 11,208 homicides with guns and 21,175 suicides.
The United States suffers about 40,000 deaths by gun violence each year,
and the next two nations France have 2,098 and Germany 1,020.
Ten other major nations have less than one thousands deaths from guns per year.
Yet 88% of US crimes are nonviolent, and only three percent result in injuries.
In 1980 the state of California spent 3% of its budget on prisons
and 18% on higher education; but by 1994 the prisons budget
had passed the higher education budget.
Because of the 1994 “three-strikes law,” California’s spending on prisons greatly increased.
From 1980 to 2000 the US per capita spending on prisons went up 189%,
and in Texas the increase was 401%.
This shameful situation is a gross waste of human and financial resources.
Most ancient and indigenous cultures used a
community system of justice that has been called restorative.
In order to prevent revenge and on-going feuds,
offenders had to compensate their victims in some way.
Although some of these also used barbaric punishments such as death or mutilation,
these were usually only imposed for the most serious offenses.
Tribal cultures have also used peacemaking circles to solve problems and resolve disputes
and conflicts by talking out the issues and coming to consensus agreements.
Peacemaking circles concentrate on healing and repairing the problematic situation
while respecting the dignity and worth of all persons.
This requires truth-telling and deep listening.
In addition to interventions ways of preventing conflicts may be discussed.
Peacemaking circles work to gain understanding, respect,
and personal empowerment by creating better relationships.
During the rise of empires and the powerful nation states under monarchical power,
governments took over the community function
and made criminals pay them fines, ignoring the victims.
In the late 18th century prisons began to be used more extensively for punishment.
The idea of using them as institutions of corrections developed,
and they were renamed penitentiaries with the hope that
criminals would repent and become rehabilitated.
This philosophy reached its peak during the liberal era of the 1960s and 1970s;
but since then a conservative trend has brought back retribution,
and politicians have exploited widespread fears of having criminals “back on the streets,”
resulting in longer sentences and large increases in prison populations.
At the same time a victims’ rights movement has sprung up, and now the federal
government and all fifty states in the US allow victims to testify at sentencing hearings.
A few experiments have been successful at applying a modern approach
to restorative justice that balances socially beneficial forms of retribution such as
restitution, fines, and community service with practical methods of rehabilitation.
The state or government is not usually harmed by most crimes.
People are usually the victims of crimes.
“Victimless crimes” such as drugs, prostitution, and gambling
could be treated by rehabilitation instead of punishment.
The lives of people need to be restored, not the laws or government.
How does locking up someone in a cage like an animal for months or years
at a time help that person reform one’s life?
and how does paying fines to the government help compensate the victims of the crime?
Restorative justice programs have been found to be more effective at reintegrating
offenders into society and preventing recidivism, especially with younger offenders.
Restorative justice is designed to create a process by which those involved
in the harms caused by a crime can come together to collaborate
on solving and healing the bad effects of that crime.
It can work in many different ways,
but the following explanation gives the reader a general understanding.
If the offender admits guilt, then no trial is needed.
If a person is convicted in a trial, then the sentencing phase
can still use the process of restorative justice.
Offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their crimes
by participating in a conference with the victims.
If a victim refuses to participate in the conference,
then a community person may represent that type of victim.
Also the offender may choose a support person who may be a relative,
a friend, an attorney, a spiritual advisor, or other counselor.
The victim may also have a support person, and the community may be
represented by a probation officer, a relevant social worker, or a counselor.
A facilitator or mediator directs the conference.
In some cases the judge, the defense attorney, the prosecuting attorney,
and perhaps the police may also participate.
During the conference the offender explains what he or she did and why.
This account may help those involved in the process to understand the causes
and reasons for the crime, thus contributing to learning
how crimes can be prevented in the future.
Then the victim or victims tell their story.
This helps them find psychological release and especially helps the offender
to understand the consequences of his or her actions.
The offender is encouraged to take responsibility for the harmful consequences
by apologizing and offering restitution to the victims.
Seeing how the offender is promising to make amends
may help the victims to forgive the criminal and gain closure.
In a negotiated process the offender, the victim, and the others work out a plan
that might include compensating the victim, a fine, community service, and a program
for the offender such as drug-treatment, counseling, education, and job training.
Ideally consensus is achieved; but if not, a majority vote may settle issues.
If it is the first offense for which the person has been caught, a successful mediation may
result in no formal criminal record once all the conditions agreed upon have been fulfilled.
Preliminary studies have shown that restorative conferences help the victims recover
psychologically by understanding the offender better and experiencing closure
on the incident as well as by gaining compensation for the wrong suffered.
The offenders may realize the consequences of their crimes
by seeing how they have affected the victims.
By being given the opportunity to take responsibility and make reparations,
the offender is much more likely to understand the consequences of what occurred
and to be reintegrated into society.
Recidivism has been shown to be much less likely for those
who go through restorative justice conferences.
In some areas they are called mediation, circles, or boards.
Thus in restorative justice the offender, victim, and community are more likely to be healed.
Taxpayers save money because of fewer and shorter sentences of imprisonment.
Punishment that is justified only as a deterrent
tends to make the people suffering it worse.
They may become angry at the society which is punishing them and while in prison
may learn more criminal behavior and attitudes from fellow inmates.
Society loses by paying high costs for incarceration.
Victims who neither receive restitution nor reconciliation
continue to suffer from the consequences of the crimes.
Restorative justice could be applied to many more cases and could eventually
transform the criminal justice system so that victims get more justice,
offenders find the reconciliation and treatment they need,
and the huge expenses of the penal system could be greatly reduced.
More understanding of the causes and effects of crime
may reduce the number of criminals and crimes.
The United States experimented with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s
and found that it increased violent crime but did not solve many drinking problems.
Because alcohol continued to be the drug of choice for a large number of people,
that experiment was abandoned in 1933.
However, other drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, psychedelics, and narcotics
have continued to be illegal.
Some narcotics, stimulants, and depressants are allowed
only with a prescription by a physician.
Many people believe that the abuse of these drugs could be treated better
as a health problem rather than as a criminal issue.
Similarly, other “victimless crimes” such as gambling and prostitution could be handled
better if they were not illegal so that government could regulate and tax them appropriately.
They are called “victimless” because they may not hurt other people but only oneself.
Therefore libertarians argue that the government should not interfere
with people who are not harming others.
By making drugs legal for adults with prescriptions the huge resources of law enforcement
and the penal system used for catching and incarcerating those who use such drugs
could be saved and redirected into more productive activities
such as treatment programs that help people break these addictions.
Millions of people would not have to waste their time
and society’s wealth locked up in prisons.
People can still believe certain behaviors are immoral
without necessarily making those actions illegal.
These problems are often solved better by using education and counseling
rather than law enforcement and punishment.
Jails would still be used for those temporarily under arrest and awaiting bail, trial,
or restorative conferences, and prisons primarily would only be necessary
for the most violent and hardened repeat offenders.
Law enforcement would be able to spend more time finding those committing other crimes
such as fraud, identity theft, and other nefarious activities that are harming other people.
Restorative justice would help those who think they can get away with stealing by teaching
them that they will have to pay back their victims and society
by working honestly to make amends.
With fewer people in prisons more efforts could be made
for rehabilitation by education, counseling, and job training.
Ironically the most deadly drugs in our society
are legal and do not require any prescription at all.
The biggest killer by far is the nicotine that is inhaled in the smoke from cigarettes.
This is changing in educated countries, and people realizing the dangers of second-hand
smoke are passing laws against smoking in places where other people breathe.
Alcohol is still a much abused drug and is most lethal
when it affects those operating motor vehicles.
Law enforcement for the latter and education are also ameliorating this problem.
The drug that is most widely used is caffeine, which is found in coffee, tea, and colas.
This drug is addictive, and more than eighty percent of the American people
have the caffeine habit.
Many cannot wake up properly in the morning until they have had coffee.
Others are hooked on soft drinks that are combined with so much sugar
that drinking them is contributing greatly to the recent epidemics of diabetes and obesity.
Most Americans are overweight, and obesity has passed smoking
as the leading cause of death which is preventable.
The selling of colas has even been allowed in schools,
where children can develop the bad habit.
I believe we have the right through our government to regulate the sale of substances
that cause harmful effects to health, especially since the society
and its government have to pay for health care.
Thus I suggest that we can tax these products with the estimated amount
that would pay for the likely health costs they inflict.
This provides some deterrent to such bad habits without
prohibiting them altogether and making them into a criminal problem.
Instead of threatening to make people’s lives worse by punishing them,
society can regulate these problems more effectively by having our democratic government
apply financial disincentives that discourage self-destructive and abusive habits.
These taxes then can be put to work in programs of prevention
and health care that make people better.
1. How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman.