Archive 2006 (1st half)

060310 END GERRYMANDERING !

Nationwide gerrymandered districts has given us congressional reelection rates of 99%, instead of more ‘normal’ rates of 50 or 60%. This should be of serious concern. The fact that a great many districts are now ‘safe’ seats only assures us that Congress will become ever more isolated, arrogant, an indifferent to the voters.

There have been some efforts to reform the way districts are redefined, removing the process from politics (and from control of the ‘winners’), but in all cases it has been suggested that it be turned over to some supposedly “neutral’ body, such as a group of retired judges or businessmen. Obviously, any proposal involving a set of humans will eventually fail for the same reasons that legislative redistricting fails. It’s the human element, stupid !

There may be reasons for it, but I fail to understand why no one has proposed a purely software-based system of honest-to-goodness random redistricting based only on population and the contiguity of population polygons which nest snugly with one another? No party, no race, no economic class, no tentacles, no nuthin’, to bias the resulting voter distribution. Computer experts have told me this would be perfectly feasible.

For example: Currently, a typical Congressional representative district has a population of roughly 690,000 people (= nat’l pop of 300M / 435 districts). Thus, if a state has 6,900,000 people, it will have 10 congressional districts. This formula is fixed nation-wide.

Almost every state has its population distributed in a few heavily populated cities, with the rest of the people spread out in suburbs, towns, and in low density rural areas. The computer program would start out by fitting the map of a 10 district state with 10 equal-area polygons (mostly square-like, with no tentacles) within the state’s boundaries.Those polygons, or cells, located over cities would immediately shrink, in place, to encompass a space populated by 690,00 people, creating a district. The cells adjacent to that first district would pickup the spillover of people and shrink or expand in place accordingly, until they each met the target of 650,000 people, to form districts. The algorithm would tend to optimize compactness.

This process would continue until all 10 districts shared equally the total population of the state, and all districts were roughly compact polygons, with no significant tentacles.

I am sure this feasible software-wise. Why doesn’t some truly independent organization take this idea and run with it?

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com

060306 VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS ?

While keeping track of various Term Limits activities around the country, I have come across an organization and website called voidnow.org , and I am becoming intrigued with their ideas. (I have their link on my site)

They seem to be pushing, not ‘Term Limits’ as such, but rather the more focussed concept of getting rid of all incumbents generally, in order to bust the stranglehold that professional, careerist politicians have on our system of government.

Thus the name voidnow.org, or “Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy Now”. They are in the process of organizing groups nationwide to educate the voting public to never reelect any incumbent, and to always vote for a challenger of choice. It does not appear that they have any faith in any of the Term Limits proposals because they believe (with some justification) that the underlying fundamental problem is that politicians are always obsessed with the idea of reelection, rather than with doing their best for the country. Most limits proposals include some degree of reelection (2, 3, or 4 terms). Therefore limits may be only a partial solution. (Of course, any limits would be better than lifetime tenure for politicians!)

Urging voters to “vote out incumbents” entails the risk that even more voters will likely not even vote, which generally helps incumbents. I’m sure the VOID guys will take that risk into consideration in their program, and stress that you must vote for challengers for their strategy to work.

I don’t know what their plans will be if they ever succeed in shaking up the public so much that a significant number of incumbents are defeated because, in the long run, the public cannot be depended on to always vote out incumbents . Some kind of term limit arrangement must be the answer.

However, what especially ‘grabs’ me, is the idea that, in the short term, the VOID policy looks like an extremely plausible way to give the public a tool to shake up both incumbents and challengers, to make them listen to the voter. The former will take notice that they are no longer invulnerable to the the Term Limits ‘movement’, and the latter will see that they have an improved chance of winning and will start to promise that they will sponsor Term Limits bills if they get elected. I like the idea very, very much.

Considering that in recent Congressional elections the rate of successful incumbent reelections has reached 99% (!), it would take only a modest drop to 93 or 90% to make everybody sit up and take notice that something new is happening.

Additionally, VOID has made me reconsider my preferred choice of wording of a Term Limits Amendment, which up ‘til now was for 3 two year terms in the House, and 2 six year terms in the Senate (or “6-and-12”, for short).The concept that the pol’s ‘obsession with reelection’ carries so much weight with me that I am seriously considering that I should put my emphasis on a “6-and-6” form of amendment (3 two year terms in the House, and only 1 six year term in the Senate).A single term of two years in the House is too short a period for anyone to consider running for the job, and a six year term in the House would destroy the difference between the House and the Senate, so I am willing to consider reelections in the House. But six years in the Senate is more than enough time to “do your duty’ as a Senator, and accomplish goals, unencubered by considerations of reelection.By and large, I think voidnow.org has a great idea going, I wish them lots o’ luck. They have my full support, and they should have yours.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060305 HOW DEMOCRACY COULD END

Think about the following troubling quotation:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years...
(Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle of Democracy 1770)

Sound kinda' familiar? Statements like the above have a troubling relationship to our modern American system of government.

Just one of the reasons that our Congress has succeeded in getting itself reelected 99% of the time is that each legislator has pandered to the his local voters by including in the federal budget spending for projects in local jurisdictions that the voters there would never vote for if they had to pay for it with local taxes. And every legislator can depend on his colleagues to vote for his ‘pork’ because he will vote for their ’pork’. ( I’m not including the few mavericks like Senator Tom Coburn and Rep Mike Pence, a very lonely pair!)

Examples of this wasteful spending are far too numerous to list, but there are a number of references, such as the annual “Pig Book”. While much of such pandering is endemic to the democratic process, it has has become appallingly, blatantly, and arrogantly ‘in your face’ to the American public, knowing that the legislators will not be held to account.

Kinda’ like a dictatorship, isn’t it? Where each ‘permanently elected' Congressman is like a king, distributing largesse to the masses.

That’s why we need Congressional Term Limits.

I'm Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060218 TERM LIMITS BACKERS : DON’T SELF-LIMIT!

I recently saw a report that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a principled believer in Congressional Term Limits, serving his first term in the US Senate, was quoted as saying that, if he won a 2nd term, he would not run for a 3rd term. Remember, he served in the House for three terms, and term limited himself there, before running for the Senate.

Now it is all well and good to have the integrity to stick to principles, and normally I would commend him on his position.

On the other hand, wouldn’t the greater good (AND his principles) be best served if he were to run for a third Senate term (and more), and dedicate those terms to fighting for an amendment for Congressional Term Limits? Of course, he would also continue his current efforts toward lower spending and smaller government.

For that matter, I think that if he were to run for a 2nd Senate term on a platform espousing Congressional Term Limits, which is extremely popular with the American public, it would give him even greater momentum than just his current fight for Congressional fiscal integrity, which I am certain his constituents (and the rest of the country) approve of, mightily.

And there is no reason why he shouldn’t stand for both reduced spending and a Congressional Term Limit Amendment.

Over the years, a number of Congresspeople who believe in legislative term limits have term limited themselves out of the Congress, and I believe that in doing so, they have done their cause more harm than good. For example, who remembers those stalwarts who unilaterally term limited themselves just to make the point that they really believed in term limits? What did they accomplish besides abandoning the issue to the careerist professional politicians? Wouldn’t it have been more productive if they had continued to run for reelection, loudly proclaiming that they were going to serve until they won the battle for Congressional Term Limits, and while serving, demonstrate their committment to Term Limits by cultivating media attention to the subject while constantly being a thorn in the sides of their reluctant colleagues?

Such a performance during several terms in the House or the Senate would be effective insulation against the inevitable charges of 'hypocrisy' every time they ran for reelection after their 4th, 5th, or 6th term.

Furthermore, just imagine how much more effective each Term Limits committed Senator or House member would be if all those self-limited predecessors would have stayed in their seats until a contingent was built large enough to help get the Term Limits bill passed. It is quite likely those self-limiters would have continued to get reelected indefinitely as long as they showed a strong, visible, maverick commitment to pushing for a Congressional Term Limits Amendment

And guys like Senator Tom Coburn, who’d rather be right than popular, is just the man to start such a tradition.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060129 WOULD SINGLE TERM LIMITS BE BETTER?

Recently, there have been some articles which say that Congressional term limits would be best if they were set up as only one term in office, as compared to 3 or 4 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate. The authors make some very good points that should be discussed.

When I started my own campaign for the enactment of Congressional Term Limits and compared the several ways that a term limits amendment might be worded (tenurecorrupts.com/amendments), and considered the difficulty of getting ANY term limits thru the Congress, I intended to focus on ways that would succeed in getting it thru. I came to the conclusion that a ‘Grandfather Version’ would most likely have the best chance of getting passed by a very reluctant set of careerist, professional politicians who would be hanging on to their jobs as tho’ their lives depended on it. In addition, I believe that an amendment which departs only slightly from historical practice would be more acceptable to voters (e.g. 3 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate, is closer to ‘tradition’ than only one term for either). I have been pushing that idea for a year now.

In the meantime, more people are perceiving that the fundamental problem with professional politicians is their 'lust for reelection'. That is, directly upon winning office, they immediately start campaigning for reelection, which then colors all their efforts from then on out. In other words, reelection becomes their first priority, instead of what would be best for the country, and/or their constituents. The rewards of office have become so substantial, that holding on to the office is all that counts, good government be damned! (See “Follow the Money!”) This is the single most powerful argument for term limits. Indeed, it is the biggest argument for a limit of ONE term! Whereas limits of 2, 3, or 4 terms reduces the time politicians will spend on reelection concerns, a limit to one term eliminates any consideration of reelection, leaving them free to be ‘good’ officeholders, more responsive to the electorate. (However, to be realistic, we should not be blind to a human tendency to cultivate special connections toward post-incumbency jobs).

Thus, it becomes obvious that any plan which considers limited multiple terms, is only a partial solution to the problem of ‘lust for reelection’, which is the gorilla in the room. In fact, I suddenly realize that the ‘Grandfather Version’, which “exempts incumbents as long as they are successfully reelected”, would sharply intensify every current incumbent’s efforts to hold on to his seat, to the point of creating lots of serious criminal activity on their part (and I ain’t kidding!).

On the other hand, I see problems with some of the single term plans. For one thing, running for Congressional office is a tough job, and if the office is limited to only 3 ,4, or even 6 years, it would reduce to some degree, the number of ordinary citizens willing to run. It’s difficult to say how serious a factor that is. (see 3 Term-1Term Congress )

Another plan suggests that, in order to make it more attractive to the general middle class citizen to run (as compared to wealthy citizens), we should set the salary to perhaps $1 million/year. (If single terms would end ‘pork’, it would be a bargain!). But would the high salary be like a ‘lottery’, attracting more unprincipled types, like bears to honey? The voters would then have to be especially discerning in their choices, which is not a quality they have shown in the past!

These ideas deserve more study and hard reasoning to sort out their pros and cons. But I would not like to see “the perfect become the enemy of the good”. All in all, I continue to see Congressional Term Limits in any format as being a major net gain toward improved quality of governance for our country.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060127 FIRST THINGS FIRST !

Back in 1770 a cynic wrote: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, and is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Of course there is a certain amount of wisdom in that gloomy forecast, but I believe that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

However, it does illustrate that the reason we need Congressional Term Limits today is precisely that careerist politicians are driving us in the direction the cynic predicted, driven by their lust for reelection. When politicians are primarily focussed on reelection, they don’t think about the best policies for the country, but rather on the ways to get reelected. And one of the principle ways is to vote for ‘pork’ for their constituencies. And they will vote for this pork even when the country is staggering under huge debt burdens, and in spite of large current deficits. And they do it reciprocally (“You vote for my pork,and I’ll vote for yours”) so that the evil is compounded. And to hell with attempts to balance the budget, or any other commonsense policies.

Much, if not all, of this pork is sneaked into enormous, complex appropriation bills, hidden from public scrutiny. (Truth be told, few Congressmen even read these bills!) If any of these pork items ('markups') are exposed, the pols can always fabricate plausible reasons why the item is vital to his district, and besides, “It is really such a miniscule fraction of the multi-trillion dollar budget, that it needn’t concern anyone!”

Multiply this position by 535 lying, hypocritical politicians, and you’re talking about real money!

Commonsense tells us that term limited politicians, or a 'citizen Congress' whose members expect to return to the private sector, would be far less inclined to say “to hell with the budget”. Maybe not all of them, but a large majority of them. And that’s all we would need to turn the country around. Most of these ordinary citizen legislators will have come to Congress to do a job, do it right, and then leave. Because that’s what ordinary citizens do! And many of them would, during their tenure (while not expecting reelection), educate their constituencies on the proper and ethical use of political power.

It seems to me that all the political organizations out there who are pushing truly legitimate and worthwhile political issues, and spending lots of money to get their points across to the public (and to bribe their Congresspeople), would find it a lot easier to succeed if we had a ’citizen congress’, by FIRST getting a Congressional Term Limits Amendment enacted.

There is no doubt in my mind that a Congress made up of new people, non-professional politicians, untainted by excessive tenure, would have a remarkably fresh outlook on the issues of the day, and be inclined to use much more commonsense in resolving those issues.

On the other hand, it appears that many of the most vigorous opponents of term limits are precisely those organizations which are called ‘special interests’, and it is those organizations who have the most intimately corrupt relationships with the entrenched careerist professional politicians of the modern day Congress. These are the people we have to beat.

Our wonderfully diverse and free political system is made up of all kinds of people who are tugging at ‘the powers that be’ in Congress for good laws and bad laws (e.g. increasing or decreasing the size of government, balancing or unbalancing the budget, raising or lowering taxes, etc.). We need a Congress that is responsive to the voters in a thoughtful and responsible way, consistent with what is best for the country longterm, not with an eye to the next election. A term limited, citizen Congress will do that.

So I say “Let’s do first things first! Let’s establish Congressional Term Limits!”

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060118 A FOOLISH ANTI - TERM LIMITS ARGUMENT

I recently heard a radio talk show host (Paul W Smith on WJR Detroit) vehemently declare his opposition to Congressional Term Limits because he “absolutely refused to let anyone restrict his right to vote for whoever he chose to vote for”. I have heard this foolish position maintained by many otherwise intelligent anti-term limits people, and cannot understand their blind adherence to this self-defeating idea.

In the last 10 years, the rate of the successful reelection of Congressional incumbents has risen to well over 90%, and in the last two elections has exceeded 99%! In light of the very low esteem in which Congress is held by the country at large, does this statistic make any sense? And if it stays at this unreasonable level (as I am sure it will!), what kind of choice does Mr Smith and his cohort of anti-term limitters really have?

Their usual response to this question is that we only have to vote ‘responsibly’. Oh? What have the voters been doing lately? And how do we change the habits of the voting public to get them to ‘vote responsibly’? Can we get them to get over their love affair with ‘name recognition’ of their current Congressman, vs relatively unknown, poorly funded challengers, not to mention those who do not choose to run in a lopsided race.

And as the number of incumbents who run unapposed rises, what kind of choice are we talking about? A job in Congress for life does not sound like any ‘choice’ for voters to me.

Wouldn’t Mr Smith like the opportunity to choose to vote for any number of really talented citizens from the real world of business and commerce who would not do the Washington 'business as usual’ game, but who do not choose to run in the rigged game of election politics?

It is past time for people like Mr Paul W Smith, especially those with the special advantage of media access to the public, to get their thinking straightened out, and help in the job of throwing out the professional career politicians, so that we can get a Congress of common sense citizens who are willing to spend a few years in public service, then get back to their normal lives.

This is what the Founders envisioned, and it is the sound thing for us to do. Tenure Corrupts!

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060112 IS TERM LIMITS UNDEMOCRATIC ?

One of my anti-term limits correspondents maintains that term limits do not belong in a democracy. She claims that candidates should be given free air time to get their messages out, and that the media should focus more on issues like the economy, the war, etc, and not on trivia like accidents and hurricanes.

On the last item, I could not agree with her more. However, the media live in a democracy, and we have to live with their choices. But as far as free TV air time is concerned, that would be an unmitigated disaster. It is already bad enough when all sides have plenty of money to use to spread their many lies, distortions, and false allegations. (more of democracy’s blemishes). What do you think would happen if their air time was free? Every nut job in all creation would seek and get their allotted time to harangue us with junk propaganda, drowning out the messages of the few sane candidates out there. But yes, it would be more democratic.

Forunately, our Founders gave us a republic designed to avoid ‘mob rule’.But her contention that term limits is anti-democratic is nonsense, for several reasons:

Firstly, term limits can only happen by a vote of the people, and by a large majority at that. It takes 2/3rds of each house of Congress, and 3/4ths of the states to pass it. How much more democratic can you get?

Secondly, in spite of the low regard that most people hold for politicians in general, why is it that the reelection of incumbents has reached the 99% level? Certainly not because their voters think that they are doing such a sterling job. No, it is more likely that most voters unthinkingly go along with their guy who is in office now, unless he has done something to anger them.

Thirdly, does it not seem that the 99% reelection rate is undemocratic on its face? It defies commonsense that 99% of challengers are inferior to the incumbents. Or that 99% of incumbents really deserve reelection.

Fourthly, I strongly disagree that a Congress full of term-limitted ‘citizen legislators’, fresh from the private sector, where they have gained a lot more real world experience than career professional politicians who have spent their life in government, would be led around ‘by the nose’ by the staffs, or the bureaucracy, or by lobbyists. No way!

On the other hand, I contend that the absence of term limits is very undemocratic, because the professional politicians have discovered how to prevent challengers from winning elections, thereby eliminating more choice for voters.

I’m Nelson Lee Walker, and I believe our country needs Congressional Term Limits. Desperately!
tenurecorrupts.com comment

060107     WHO SAYS IT CAN’T BE DONE?

Ever since I started my term limits website TenureCorrupts.Com, in March 2005,I have been bombarded with negative and discouraging comments like “You’ll never succeed!”, and “You don’t expect Congress to cut their own throats, do you?”
Well no, I don’t think it will be easy, but I think the voters will eventually force the issue, one way or another. People will put up with Congressional arrogance only so long. “It can’t be done” has proved wrong many times in the past..history is full of examples.

Nowadays, the common feeling is that we’ll never get Congressional Term Limits! And this is in spite of the fact that every time Term Limits is placed on any state or local ballot, it gets passed overwhelmingly! Not just barely, but overwhelmingly, like by a 70 to 30 ratio! So why shouldn’t it get passed on a national ballot? Well, for one thing, there is no ‘Initiative’ procedure in Federal elections which would allow the voters to place it on a ballot. Term Limits requires a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress, which is adamantly opposed to the idea! Or by a Constitutional Convention, which has never been tried and which many people are afraid of.

Actually, things are worse than that. Since the Supreme Court recently decided (in a controversial 5/4 decision) that individual States cannot set term limits on their own Senators and Representatives in Congress, the growing trend toward state-determined Congressional Term Limits was stopped in its tracks, after 15 states had already enacted limits for their delegates, and 11 more were ready to put it on their ballots! (that's more than half the states!)

However, there are so many other ways that it could happen, and, given that it is basically so popular with the voters, it really is not a matter of whether it will happen, but when.

Let’s make a list of ways it could happen:

1. A simple national email campaign by all interested voters, simultaneously, to Congress, the media, and to bloggers,     demanding a Congressional Term Limits Amendment, creating a media 'event' that could not be ignored by Congress.
2. Get the Initiative process enacted in more States, and get a Congressional Term Limits Amendment on the the ballot     in those States to force those legislatures to demand a Congressional Term Limits Amendment.
3. Call for a Constitutional Convention to pass a Congressional Term Limits bill.
4. Appoint ‘originalist’ justices to the Supreme Court to reverse the controversial 5-4 decision which denied the States     the right to term limit their Congresspeople.
5. Focus the national trend toward state and local term limits to include term limits for Congress. The more state     legislators who are term limited, the more will ask "Why not Congress?"
6. Promote a national chainmail program demanding Congressional Term Limits.
7. Devise ways to get major institutions to periodically publish papers, and sponsor lectures and debates, to raise voter     awareness on Congressional Term Limits.
8. And last, but not least, join a movement to “Never Vote for Any Incumbent, Period”, until Congress passes a
    Term Limits bill.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com Comment

060106 A WEASEL WORDED AMENDMENT ?

Part of the Congressional Term Limits problem involves the matter of how to construct the required Amendment to the Constitution.
The particular wording I am proposing, besides specifying 3 terms for the House and 2 terms for the Senate, (see tenurecorrupts.com/amendments ) contains the phrase...‘exempts current incumbents, as long as they are successfully reelected’...

The obvious objective here is to make the amendment totally unobjectionable to the current members of Congress who would be voting on the proposed amendment. It is conceivable that when there is a great enough public outcry, an otherwise very reluctant Congress would be far more likely to pass the Term Limits Amendment bill if it did not limit themselves from getting reelected. I conceived this ‘weasel wording’ (the 'grandfather version') back in the days when successful incumbent reelections were running in the low 90 percentiles, and I figured that if it took a few years after ratification for term limits to effectively take place, it was a worthwhile tradeoff.

Imagine my horror when I discovered that the 2004 reelection rate was 99%! At that rate, replacing only 1%, or 5 or 6 incumbents every
2 years, it would take about 50 elections ( or 100 years!), to get only one-half of Congress to be term limited!

Of course, the skeptic will say that 2004 was an anomaly, and that future reelection rates are not likely to be so highly successful!
Yeah, sure! In the face of historical electoral trends, I would be willing to bet that 99% is gonna be far more frequent than 90%.
I think the lazy, indifferent voter who votes mostly on name recognition is here to stay for a long time, sustaining the status quo and the entrenched incumbencies.

Remember, when elections are even reasonably close, it is that small fraction of ‘stand-pat’ name recognition voters who keep the incumbents in place. And they, the 'stand-patters', will always be with us.

But, in spite of the high election rate problem, I still believe that the ‘weasel word amendment’ (the 'grandfather version') is a worthwhile strategy to get Term Limits enacted and on the books. As Congress gets its first few term-limited members, the trend will pick up steam.

Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
tenurecorrupts.com

Comment by email. Good remarks will be selectively added to each blog entry. Back to top