Democracy's Missing Pieces (Parts 5-6)

Parts 5 and 6 cover some “details”, about democracy. You can skip to Part 7: The Ideal Democracy if you are not interested.

Source.

Part 5 – Districts (Electoral College, Gerrymandering, Apportionment, Etc)

Our votes sometimes get counted up in strange ways [gerrymandering, electoral college].

Furthermore, “apportionment” – ie, the “voters per politician” ratio, or “seats-to-votes” ratio – vexed society for centuries until (in 1983) mathematicians determined that the problem is not solvable.

Luckily, it doesn’t matter – because we shouldn’t do any of it.

As I will explain in this section, we only need to do the common-sense thing: [1] assemble all people affected by a given problem, [2] form a new organization, to solve that problem [3] give each member one vote (in this single “district”), [4] govern the ballot via a two-party system (as I describe in Part 7).

I’ll start with an easy one: the electoral college.

A. Electoral College

The electoral college is a bad idea – most people already know why, but I’ll explain it again here.

Under the EC, residents of “safe states” might as well not vote – their state is a foregone conclusion. This is obviously an insult, to red voters in blue states (and likewise, to blue voters in red states). Why is the state government rewriting its citizen’s votes? Why does Connecticut, (for example) rewrite a vote cast for the federal Red party, as Blue? This makes no sense.

It is also perverse for blue voters in blue states (and likewise, for red voters in red states). Politicians know that these votes are not “in play”. They can take them “for granted” – literally. In these states, no individual can “change” his vote – no individual person, is responsible for making up their mind. It’s all a farce.

Only in the “swing states” does anything matter.

Similarly, “jerrymandering” is, basically, the intentional creation of mini-Electoral-Colleges. Evil politicians scheme together “blue districts” and “red districts”, in order to override the real vote-totals actually cast by real humans. The sinister goal, is to cause a mismatch between the popular vote and the outcome – making a farce of democracy.

Supposedly, the “intent” of the electoral college, was to prevent politicians from “neglecting the countryside” (and campaigning only in cities). I wonder if anyone has ever seriously believed such a flimsy justification? Meanwhile, over here in our real world, the EC has produced a situation where 7 swing states (with 17.4% of the population) are obsessively targeted, and all other 43 states are “neglected”.

Why micromanage the politician’s attention at all? The relative attention paid to cities-vs-countrysides (or any other arbitrary X-vs-Y), should be determined by their relative populations. The President should win via national popular vote – each vote should count equally. One district; with no fancy counting.

B. Organizations of All Shapes and Sizes

We live in many “organizations” simultaneously.

In America, we live in a [1] town, [2] state, and [3] nation. We also (maybe) have a [1] job, [2] family, [3] church, [4] country club, [5] condo association, [5] PTA, etc.

Indirectly, we also belong to international organizations. For example, NATO is a treaty directing the violent actions of our military. NAFTA/USMCA is a free trade agreement, to lower tariffs. Amnesty International, the African Union, the United Nations, the “Quad” (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue), the Five Eyes, SALT, the Basel Accords – there are many. If our politicians sign us up for any of these groups, then that is a decision they must explain and justify to us –the voter– on election day.

Many organizations are hybrids. The Port Authority – governs the waterways of the greater NYC area. The Western States Water Council – governs the water supply of 18 western states. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) – provides electricity to 7 southern states. The Great Lakes Commission, overseas the great lakes region (and includes two Canadian provinces). If a governor, or mayor, joins his city/state to these organizations, then this is a decision that they will have to explain and justify to us –the voter– on a different election day (since they [usually] run for office in different years).

Corporations elect their Board of Directors, via one-share-one-vote. Shareholders have a big advantage over citizens – they can easily sell their shares, and walk away. (In contrast, leaving your city, state, or country, is far more difficult.) This “easy exiting” means that Board members are far more loyal to their shareholders, than politicians are to their voters.

Different organizations have different leaders:

We may elect a mayor – to solve the problems facing the whole town. We may elect a governor – to solve problems facing the whole state. We may elect a president – to solve problems facing the whole nation.

C. Hangups Complicating the ‘Problem of Districts’

I think it is misleading that:

• election day is the same day every year (1st Tuesday in November)
• the state, local, and national parties, all have the same name (“Democratic Party” and “Republican Party”)

This blurs the lines between them.

Ideally, the “Mayor of New York” would see the “Governor of New York” as both adversary and friend – even if they are both democrats. Similarly, the Mayor of Dallas should see the Governor of Texas as both adversary and friend – even if they are both republicans.

They should NOT be thought of as “the same”. The Republican Party of Texas, is different from the Republican Party of Dallas. After all, the [United Nations] is not [The Port Authority of New York]. They may collaborate, if they wish – or, one may bully the other – one may resist the other – they may choose to ignore each other – or they may compete with each other as rivals. Their friendship (if any), rises or falls on its own merit, as the need arises.

D. Punish the Right Group!

In this essay, I will argue that we do NOT vote “for politicians” – we actually vote against parties.

The party is the appropriate vehicle, for democratic control. (Just as the Crest/Colgate “brand” is the appropriate vehicle, for popular control over toothpaste-production.) This is because the party has no fall-guy. It is a long-lived brand, and any mistakes that it makes – it will be stuck with forever. Only a party has the credibility to rule; only a party can self-police (and kick-out its low-quality members); and only a party is uniquely vulnerable to our rejection. When the government fails us, we fire the Ruling Party.

Hence, the [state, local, federal] parties must be considered separately. They are separate people, solving separate problems.

For example, imagine that Colorado (the state) had two parties: the “Hiker Party” and “Rocky Party”. For fun, let us say that Hikers are outdoorsy people, and Rockies are city slickers – (surely, these labels makes about-as-much sense as “Democrats” and “Republicans”). The city of Denver, also has two parties: “Homelanders” and “Free Spirits”. Homelanders have lived in Denver a long time, Spirits are nomads, college students, immigrants, stoners etc. I have invented these silly titles, to emphasize why it is irrational for a voter to ever vote “Republican” down-the-line, to punish ALL state-local-federal Democrats simultaneously.

I must clarify this point, because it is the heart of the matter. We want collective punishment, of the correct group.

For example, if the national red party screws up, (perhaps, by leading us into a disastrous War in Iraq, and later a financial crisis), then it is rational to punish all national reds, for this – by voting Blue in the national elections. Everyone in the Red Party in Washington DC will be out of a job – and rightly so. But… what did your local mayor, or state governor, have to do with that? It seems pretty unfair to punish them, for something they could not control. And remember: if our punishments are unrelated to the way politicians actually behave, then they will quickly stop policing their own behavior.

Conversely, if your local mayor is a success – (s)he builds a new community garden, or improves local drainage – then why should they share credit with the higher-ups [the state and federal politicians]? Did they do anything to help our Mayor? Perhaps the mayor struck some deal with them – but, if so, then it was the Mayor who did the deal, and if that deal involved sharing credit, (or photo-ops, etc) – then that is a matter between the Mayor and his/her allies. On the governor’s election day, the Mayor should be advising you, the voter: “hey voters: this governor was really easy for me to work with”. And you should trust the Mayor’s opinion, in the first place, only if you think they are doing a good job.

Our three-level democracy [local, state, federal], is like owning a sauna where you can set the temperature, humidity, and lights. Three separate dials – that turn up or down, as we like. Of course, in reality, we live in many organizations. The democratic ones, should each have their own two-party system.

And in reality there would be many dials – as many as needed.

E. Summary

To summarize, yes – we must punish the government for doing the wrong thing(s).

Our only viable option is collective punishment – punishing the whole party, for failing us.

For example, when you agree to work for Trump (or Harris), you take the risk that they will fail. They will fail, as leader of the party – ether in their presidential campaign, and/or as president. If they fail, you fail. If they succeed, you succeed. You are a totally united team, under one leader. This accountability, is what motivates the leader, to root out any misbehaving subordinates.

However, we should not let this fact blind us to the reality that we live in multiple political systems at once. We must attribute responsibility accurately. State, Local, and Federal issues are mainly separate. Different organizations are responsible for solving different problems, and they should be blamed if (and only if) they fail to solve those problems.

F. Bonus: Problems, Create Their Own Districts Automatically

How do we know that our “district” is the right size? Perhaps we should resize the districts, or create new ones?

Of course – this happens all the time, automatically. Earlier I mentioned the Tennessee Valley Authority, for example.

If a nearby problem is irritating a group of people, then they will try to solve it. They will not always form a democracy, per se – perhaps they form a business partnership. Perhaps they form a corporation (a [one share one vote] democracy), and alter the share allocations / equity vesting schedules, to account for differences among contributors.

But – if they want democratic control over their organization, then they should form two parties – as I will advocate in Part 7.

G. Electoral College, Revisited

When we elect the federal government, ie the president and Congress, it should all be one district. Ie, the popular vote.

Furthermore, the separation of the election – into Congress and President – should not happen at all. In other words, we should elect one party as the “Ruling Party” – and relegate the other to the status of “Opposition Party”. The ballot box can be reduced to one choice: ruling party (thumbs up), or opposition party (thumbs down). There should be no separate checkboxes, for Vice-President/Senator/Representative. Since they would all work for the President.

There should be no “sub-districts”; and no fancy ways of counting. Popular vote, single-districts – all the way.

Under this setup, the problematic scenarios never arise. There is never a reason to –for example– carve up Massachusetts into strangely-shaped districts. Any problem affecting the whole state will be solved at the Governor’s office. A problem affecting small parts of the state, will be solved by a group of mayors. A problem affecting a district-shaped area, would be solved by an elected district leader. If we don’t have an organization of the right size and shape, then we can simply make one (as we made the TVA, or Port Authority).

The question of “apportionment” –which vexed politicians, academics, and mathematicians for hundreds of years– can now be safely ignored. Under my conception of democracy, the popular vote is what matters – and the national popular vote is just a single number (the “thumbs up” quantity, minus the “thumbs down”) – it does not care about the district that the vote came from.

But isn’t that too drastic a change? What about “separation of powers”? I explain this in the next section.

Above: The “leviathan” – an unstoppable sea-monster from the Bible. “Nothing on earth is its equal” (Job 41:33). Thomas Hobbes thought of governments as leviathans – all-powerful social contracts, which no man could oppose. To him, a weak government meant chaos, war, and disorder. Image 1 Image 3.

Part 6 – Integrity (Independent Agencies, Separation of Powers, Checks-and-Balances, Etc)

Should the winner of the election control the government? Should the government then control everything? What about tyranny?

I will break this topic into four sections:

1. (A) Eight Arguments Against Independent Agencies
2. (B) Separation of Powers – The Executive and Legislative Branches
3. (C) Separation of Powers – The Judicial Branch
4. (D) Checking the Power of the Ruling Party
5. (E) The Real Separation of Powers

A. Eight Arguments Against Independent Agencies

Intro

Many federal agencies call themselves “independent”. These include: the Department of Justice, the FTC, and the FED.

What’s the benefit of Independence?

Well – supposedly, “independence” helps these agencies stand up to a tyrant. It helps them “do the right thing”, even when the president is on the phone, pressuring them to do otherwise.

The FED is a prime example. As they themselves say:

Congress also structured the Federal Reserve to ensure
that its monetary policy decisions focus on achieving
these long-run goals and do not become subject to
political pressures that could lead to undesirable
outcomes. So, members of the Board of Governors are
appointed for staggered 14-year terms...

There is a popular theory that Paul Volcker cost Jimmy Carter the 1980 election, a sure sign of “independence”. Plus, economic research suggests that countries with high central bank independence, are better at resisting the temptation to inflate.

Sounds promising!

But –unfortunately, as we will see– “independence” causes more problems than it solves.

1. It Cheats the Voter

First of all, “independence” means no accountability. If someone [at the FED] is screwing up – then we cannot reign them in. (Our politicians cannot, and we cannot either.)

In some cases, these “independent” organizations may be trying to sabotage the sitting president. What should the president do then? (Come to think of it, what should we do then?)

Independence also reduces the motivation to win. If everything is independent, then the election doesn’t matter. In other words, the democracy doesn’t matter.

In contrast, imagine the election is “worth” $50 billion – literally. In other words, hypothetically the government “loses track of” $50 billion (in cash), after each election. If you win the election, you can take that $50B for yourself [and your friends]. This gives you a stronger motivation to win – if you think you can increase your odds of winning, from 40% to 60%, then this is literally worth $10 billion dollars of expected value to you. You should be willing to spend $0.99 billion, if it earnestly improves your chances. And (of course) it would be a higher incentive still, at $500 billion. Consequential elections, equals motivated candidates. More independence (in contrast), means less motivation.

The “independent” people at the FED, can sit smugly, in their expensive offices, and laugh at the politicians who desperately scramble for votes. The voters meanwhile, might shake their heads, and even their fists, at these un-fireable people… they would not be “civil servants”, but instead “uncivil masters” (to borrow Winston Churchill’s phrase).

In contrast, if everyone can be fired, then the election is really important! Parties will try really hard to win. Politicians will seek us out, asking: “How can we win your vote this year? What is important to you?”. They will be desperate to cater to our needs. That is precisely what life should be like.

But there is a long list of other problems, with independence.

2. It May Be Illusory

Is the FED (for example) really that independent?

Yes – I admit – the American FED doesn’t inflate as much as other central banks. (A very low bar, by the way.)

But is the FED really untouched by politics?

Janet Yellen was a FED chairman – who then became Biden’s Treasury Secretary. Same for Timothy Geithner – first he worked for the FED (NY), and then became Treasury Secretary.

Alan Greenspan was Chairman of the CEA under President Ford (1974-1977), before becoming FED Chairman (1987-2006). So was Ben Bernanke (2006-2014). Paul Volcker was in the Nixon administration. Same for Arthur Burns. William McChesney Martin Jr, the longest-serving FED chairman (1951-1970), was assistant Treasury Secretary right before (1949-1950).

Quite a coincidence! If you work directly under a democratically-elected president, your career prospects at the FED seem to improve. And vice-versa.

Hank Paulson (FED Chair under Bush) was formerly CEO of Goldman Sachs. During the 2008 financial crisis, Goldman received 12.9 billion from a government loans program, and otherwise would have been “toast”, seemingly. Other banks –whose CEO was not FED chair– instead went bankrupt.

Trump’s new treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has literally authored a proposal to hijack FED independence (which is in a section of his wikipedia page). Trump-2024 has taken a keen interest in reigning in the Fed (to say the least), even suggesting that Ron Paul should audit the Fed, and/or take over the Fed as chairperson.

So, how independent is it, really?

And why would any other “independent” agency be any different from the FED? (This is just one agency I happen to know a little about.)

3. It Denys Citizens The Chance to Improve

It is reasonable to think: “Most citizens are so stupid – can we really put ourselves at their mercy??”

Yes, its true – most citizens are not that bright. The median voter is, after all, just the median.

Nonetheless, I think our culture is pretty strong and can absorb information pretty well.

In 1997, two-thirds of the country of Albania fell for a big pyramid scheme, leading to roughly 2000 deaths, and (ultimately) a UN peacekeeping mission. How could so many people fall for something so stupid? Well, the whole county had lived under Communism for decades – in contrast, a market economy was something new.

My guess is: today, Albania is one of the most difficult countries in the world to run a pyramid scheme. (Just my guess.) Just think of the mockery, the boos and jeers of anyone who brings up such a thing?

Their culture made a mistake… but then leveled up, and became stronger.

Consider the story of UK and the high-trust society as recounted by the leader of Singapore:

 After six exhausting years of bombings and privation,
 Londoners in the 1940s took great pride in themselves,
 were courteous and disciplined. Bomb sites were cleared,
 with the bricks neatly piled to one side and little
 make-shift gardens created.
 
 Perhaps the most impressive sight I came upon was when I
 emerged from the tube station at Piccadilly Circus. I
 found a little table with a pile of newspapers and a box
 of coins and notes with nobody in attendance. You take
 your newspaper, toss in your coin or put in your
 10-shilling note and take your change. I took a deep
 breath - this was a truly civilised people.

Building a culture like that, takes significant buy-in from most of the people. It would not work, if the government, had to go around, and force people to create gardens, or to pay for their newspapers. It is a voluntary choice made by people – in their brains. As with the Albanian case, I guess that cultural evolution requires a fair amount of blood and tears along the way. Everyone involved must understand why it is wrong to steal, or vandalize, or to be rude… or to tolerate thieves [or rudness] in their vicinity.

How does this apply to majority rule?

Well – imagine the FED example. Imagine that people are short-sighted (they demand “easy money” from the President). The nervous President (being unconstrained by checks-and-balances, but worried about losing the next election), calls up the FED chairman and orders him to print more money. The FED is not independent, and yields to the pressure. This causes short term prosperity, but harmful future inflation. Well? Isn’t this a problem? The next President will be blamed, unfairly, for crimes committed by his predecessor!

( First of all, notice that there is a tiny problem with the logic of that story. If the president wins reelection (via the easy money), then the ticking time-bomb of inflation is still before him. It is now his problem. By skillfully manipulating the FED into helping him, he wins election-after-election – but he also puts himself further-and-further into the long run! So, the incentives only misalign, when a politician thinks his reelection chances are slim. Nonetheless – that is bound to happen sometimes, so let us now continue. )

Plenty of the things we buy –such as alcohol– have short-term benefit and (potentially) long-run costs. Other things –such as sunscreen– are the reverse. As children, we may be ignorant of these effects – but as we grow older and wiser, we better optimize these trade-offs so as to maximize our overall life-satisfaction. After all, you might need a little liquid courage tonight, to meet the love of your life – (so as you sip that beer, are you really going deeper into debt (?), or are you making a cold, calculated investment in your future)? Today, as adults, we already weigh complex issues –such as global warming, or war– this way. So…. why should the FED (or anyone else) get some special carve-out?

Should we ban all alcohol sales? Or instead – should we live in a world where people understand the costs and benefits of alcohol consumption. A world where addiction, alcoholism, and time-inconsistent preferences, are confronted, understood, improved, and eventually solved by the long march of science. A world of freedom and progress!

In particular, the 2nd politician (the one who has to clean up the inflation caused by the 1st politician) should view it as part of his job, to explain to the people why the inflation is not his fault. Politicians should improve these explanations, over time, until eventually guilt is assigned correctly. The party who makes a short-sighted mistake, should (eventually) suffer – when the true explanation is finally given and accepted by the public. That party should then lose elections, until they can regain the trust of the public.

After all, the Crest brand could do something short-sighted, also. They could do a “Crest pyramid scheme”, or cut corners on product safety (or worker safety, etc). Eventually there would be a disaster, and the “Crest” brand would suffer. That is exactly what should happen, with Party Democracy.

4. Proxies and “False Flags”

Vladimir Putin is believed to have used “proxies” to attack Ukraine (and Georgia, and Chechnya, as was also done to Finland, and Abkhazia, Transnistria, Tajikistan, … you get the idea). These are Russian troops, controlled by Putin, but which are “dressed up” as though they are from somewhere else.

What a nightmare! Just imagine the full scenario: Russia trains soldiers, disguises them as Ukrainian citizens, and smuggles them into Ukraine (slowly over a period of years).

Once there, they split into two groups. Group 1 is told (by Putin) to imitate pro-Russia pro-separatist protesters and agitators. On Putin’s orders, they attack and sabotage various aspects of Ukrainian life… demanding that Ukraine “rejoin Russia”. Next – Putin orders Group 2 to imitate evil pro-Zelensky pro-Ukraine citizens… who openly desire genocide of Russians. Putin then commands these two groups, to attack each other (and innocent bystanders), causing chaos and destruction across Eastern Ukraine.

Finally, “to protect Russians” living in Ukraine, Putin invades with a 3rd group: the Russian army proper. He can now appear as a savior of Russians (when in fact his actions endangered all Russians for no reason). He can also cast Zelenskyy as negligent and inept (when in fact he was merely the victim of a sophisticated sabotage). On top of all that, Putin has two groups of troops, ready to go, in Ukraine already; paving the way for a smooth official invasion.

In contrast, during USA’s election season, the TV ads end with “I’m __, and I approve this message”. This prevents (among other things) crazy ads like: “I’m Kamala and I want to kill everyone, vote for me!” (secretly paid for by Republican donors, who hire a random black lady to impersonate Kamala and say that). Someone prominent has to take responsibility for the ad.

An evil leader can escape responsibility for their bad acts, by hiding behind proxies. The “dirty work” is done by these proxies, and the leader says (falsely): “I had nothing to do with it”. The general public is left wondering who to blame.

“Independence” gives politicians this gift, on a silver platter.

5. The Fall Guy

In Margin Call (2011), the CEO has made a mistake. He needs to pin it on a subordinate (whom he plans to pay off with cash). He needs “a head” (ie, to fire someone).

 Tuld: .... Sarah,
       I need a head, to feed to the traders
       on the floor... and the board.
 
 (Sarah takes a nervous gulp)
 
Sarah: Is it me, or Cohen?
 
(Tuld is stern)
 
 Tuld: It's you.
 
Sarah: ... Of course, you're well aware
       that I filtered several warnings...
       to you and Cohen about this a year ago.
 
 (Tuld stares intently)
 (a pause)
 
 Tuld: I really don't think,
       that's the best path,
       for you to take at this point.
       You're going to be well taken care of here.

In this way, the leader (Tuld) escapes blame.

This is why drug lords often employ children as foot-soldiers – and assassins.

In contrast, this Japanese CEO resigned after an employee committed suicide. The captain always goes down with the ship! In the US Marines, the “officers eat last” – literally (this phenomenon inspired a whole book on leadership).

6. Excuses, Excuses

These days, the government has figured out how to gaslight the public into becoming their own fall guy – via post-election processes.

California’s experience with high-speed rail is an example of this.

In 2008, California’s “Prop 1A” was approved, granting $33 billion for a high-speed train connecting LA and San Francisco (381 miles).

This train was supposed to open in 2020, but today only 119 miles (31%) of track are currently under construction. (To say nothing of the San Diego and Sacramento extensions, which would [by now] have lengthened the line to 776 miles.)

Other countries manage to build trains just fine. Back in the same year (2008), France approved the LGV Sud Europe Atlantique – connecting Tours and Bordeaux (187 miles). They completed it in 2017; at total cost $5.2 billion. Also in 2008, China approved the Beijing-Shanghai railway (819 miles), completing it in 2011, at cost $33 billion. In 2018, Indonesia approved the Jakarta-Bandung line (89 miles), completing it in 5 years for $7.3 billion – not bad, considering they had to tunnel through 13 volcanoes [inactive - for now], in a region featuring monsoons, landslides, flash floods, and one of the highest population-densities on Earth.

But volcanoes and monsoons are nothing – compared to the dreaded environmental review:

On Tuesday, the project's CEO told state lawmakers in Sacramento 
that another $100 billion —yes, in addition to what state and
federal taxpayers have already contributed— will likely be needed
to finish the project. Meanwhile, there's still no timeline for
when passengers will be able to take the train due to ongoing
environmental reviews, Sacramento-based KCRA reported.

These environmental reviews are very “independent”. They install a “process” where it doesn’t belong: after the election. Thus, they subvert the will of the people. They are anti-democratic.

The truth is that the election –is– the environmental review. (It’s the everything review.) The governor¹ would campaign on “a train connecting LA and SF!”. His political opponent, would then raise the issue of “environmental damage” (and “costs”, and “inconvenience”, …), and finally the people would vote. They’d vote on the whole “bundle” – at once.

Let me repeat: if you feel the government is mis-managing the environment, you should either: [1] criticize the plan [when it is first proposed] – or, [2] criticize the execution [during construction]. If [1] the plan is terrible (because it leads to environmental damage), then the voter should be told why it is terrible. Alternatively, if (later on) [2] the government’s contractors are misbehaving (needlessly damaging the environment), then the voter should be told why their contractor’s behavior is wrong (and why they would behave rightly, if subjected to proper oversight). In both cases, voters should punish the Ruling Party, by withdrawing their vote.

Thus, we take an “independent” process and bring it back under the umbrella of “dependence” – restoring its health.

7. Lying to the People (For the Greater Good)

Let’s take an example where:

1. You are elected on a platform of “reducing crime” or “tough on crime”.
2. Once in office, you discover that activist judges insist on fighting your platform (as you see it). Perhaps with lenient sentencing, etc.
3. Your constituents now see you as failing to reduce crime – ie, breaking your campaign promise.

What are your options? Well, you could:

1. Come clean – explain the situation to the voter, (and hope that they understand and forgive you).
2. Negotiate – cut some kind of shady backroom deal, with the judges; giving them something they want, in return for getting what you want.
3. Go dark and ruthless – [secretly] threaten to deport the judges, hire Batman to clean up the streets as a vigilante (beating people up, without a trial), hire journalists to write hit pieces on your opponents, build an intimidating political machine, lie about how the judges are all secretly pedophiles, etc.

The third option is the most “fun”, and (in many cases) most likely to actually work. And that is the point. Once a politician takes responsibility for “tough on crime” – they will want to bring about that outcome. If they lack “legitimate power”, then they will seek out illegitimate power. And this is just worse for everyone.

So it is better to just give them legitimate power.

8. Everyone Is Dependent on Something

Politicians are motivated to [1] win elections, and [2] “move up” in their party.

At least we know what those motivations are.

At the FED, (or some other “independent” agency), what is motivating the executives? It must be something.

But we don’t know what it is.

Supposedly, these executives are angels – motivated to “do the right thing”. They’re in the office every day, at 9 AM, to work hard for the taxpayer, unperturbed by meddlesome politicians. No offense, but I don’t buy it! I think everyone needs a boss.

All types of independence have the same problem: if we don’t know who-depends-on-who, for what, then we don’t know who believe – or why. Everyone is in the dark. So – how is that helping anyone?

Now – the next two sections are about “checks and balances” and “separation of powers”.

B. Separation of Powers – The Elected Branches

i. The Ancient Origin of this Idea

In school we were all taught about Baron de Montesquieu, and his idea of “separation of powers”.

The only problem is that it is not quite accurate…

In 1743 the French philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu,
thought England's constitution had reached near perfection because its "separa-
tion of powers" among the legislature, executive, and judiciary seemed to pro-
tect citizens from overweening authority. But the baron was working with old
news. In a series of power plays that included killing Charles I in 1649,
winning the Civil War in 1651, and bringing William and Mary to the throne in
the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament reduced the monarch to an executive
who had to work with a legislative majority. ... The king's influence declined
in stages, leaving behind a powerful ministry headed by an elected leader of
the majority party -- the system we know today as Westminster. ... Parties, not
individual MPs, had come to control the nomination and renomination of
candidates running for office.

-Chapter 4, "Responsible Parties", by Frances Rosenbluth and Ian Shapiro

ii. The Voter Always Rejects This Idea

At the party level, voters do not seem to ever want separation of powers.

For example, often there is a trifecta – where one party wins all three elections. The Senate has only been settled by election since 1913, leaving only 28 presidential elections (1916-2024) in which election-trifectas were possible, of which 20 have been trifectas (71%). In contrast, there has never (0%) been a presidential election, where the ruling party was fired from the presidency, and yet installed into Congress (to “check” the power of the new party).

The party mixtures (when they happen at all) are a result of the midterms – when there is no presidential vote. At these times, the ruling party can only be fired in Congress. When this happens, it is always interpreted as a rebuke of the sitting president (for example, Obama said “we got beat” after his party lost Congress in the 2014 midterms). Presumably, had the president been on the ballot, he would also have been fired. So, these “mixtures” are actually just trifectas – one where the president wins on a technicality.

Of the 8 non-trifectas, 6 upheld a status-quo created during the previous midterm. In other words: first, the midterm elections created a “combo” of parties, effectively forming a new “mixed” Ruling Party (for two years). Next, the voters (after living under this “combo” government, for two years) upheld it – keeping everyone at their current job. The “combo ruling party” won all 3 contests. So it is, in fact, a kind of trifecta – a status quo trifecta. It is not what I would prefer, since it was assembled accidentally instead of deliberately. Yet – if voters choose to uphold the status quo, across the board, then surely this is a sign that things are going pretty well.

The two exceptions are 1968 and 1980. In both cases, Republicans took the Presidency and Senate from Dems, and gained seats in the House… but not enough seats. So, while not a trifecta, the direction of movement in all three contests was identical. So – on election day, voters first decide which party they like, and second they try to give all branches to that one party.

To double-check, we can examine all cases with “separation of powers”. In other words: one party controls the executive branch (president) and another party controls the legislature (House+Senate). This has only ever happened during 4 presidential elections, 100% of which were (as I mentioned) continuations of a status quo mixture that arose during the previous midterm.

Above: a table of election results, during presidential-election years.

iii. Mixed Governments

Mixtures (red & blue) are unsatisfying in many ways.

First, both parties can evade accountability. The two parties, can each point the finger of blame at the other – “they are obstructionist, they are not cooperating”, etc. In the toothpaste analogy, it is as if the CVS cashier always gives you a random mixture of Crest and Colgate, in an opaque bottle. If the toothpaste is bad (or is expensive), then it isn’t clear what you should do about it.

Second, the mixture is unforeseen – no one campaigned on it. No one explained it. What was explained, were the two un-mixed party platforms – two candidates, each laying out exactly what they would do, if elected, and why. In contrast, no one campaigns on what they would do, if they were “half” in power. In this way, the mixture is more like the coalition government idea that we saw, back in the Proportional Representation section. The presence of these “unforeseen” coalition-outcomes, makes it hard for voters to figure out what they are even voting for. This robs democracy of its meaning.

Third, the mixture is a contradiction – like steering a car more to the left, and more to the right, at the same time. It doesn’t make any sense. (That’s why the voter doesn’t do it.)

iv. Conclusion: Integrate Legislative and Executive Branches

For these reasons, it is better to install the winning party into power. They won – so let them implement their agenda.

The Executive and Legislative branches should be run by the Ruling Party – no mixing. On election day, the ballot only needs to have one choice: thumbs up (re-hire the Ruling Party), or thumbs down (fire the Ruling Party and hire the Opposition Party). Voting for presidents and congress-people separately, is a mistake.

The individual personalities (ie, the humans) matter very little, in comparison with the Party Brand. If a “red wave” is going to install the Red Party into power, then many Republican candidates will win [and Dems will lose] regardless of their individual charisma or effort. If you are a party member, your job is to help your entire party win. It’s all or nothing.

Ok – but what about the Judicial branch? They are not elected.

C. Separation of Powers – The Judicial Branch

Below I have 10 comments on the judicial branch.

In my opinion, it is mostly also following the majority around. It is part of the “trifecta” – or [as it would now be], the “quadfecta”.

i. The Conventional Wisdom

The conventional wisdom asks: perhaps we need old, dignified, stern, wise, robed judges – to uphold the “Rule of Law”. And to temper the fickle opinions of the masses? To protect the rights of minorities, (and individuals) against mob rule? Possibly appointed for life (to shield them from the corruption of the campaign trail)?

Supposedly, there is a contrast between [1] Majoritarianism, which says: “you prevail, if you persuade the mob”, and [2] Judicial Independence, which says: “you prevail, if the written word of the contract [or law] is on your side (as interpreted by Wise Judges)”.

Who wins?

ii. When Push Comes to Shove

Even in the United States (a relatively law-abiding nation), presidents have occasionally ignored the Supreme Court, most famously:

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
- President Jackson, (misquoted)

The actual quote, spoken to Brigadier General John Coffee, was:

"The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and
they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."

…but it has basically the same effect. The US judicial branch, failing to “check” the other branches.

That was a long time ago. Could something like that happen today?

iii. Trump’s Disdain

Of course, it already has.

Trump-2025 has done more than any president, to reject separation of powers.

He is quite “unchecked” by the Judicial Branch (proving that our current checks, are not very effective). The most obvious example is Trump’s abject refusal to comply with a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Abrego Garcia (who was mistakenly deported to a foreign prison due to “administrative error”). This has led one judge to write:

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a
conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The
Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent
of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from
a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive
may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic
gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph

…a perfect example of the system not working, in practice.

However, there is an opposite sense, in which the courts are preventing Trump from implementing his agenda. Courts have blocked a number of Trump’s actions, including his [1] DOGE spending cuts and layoffs, [2] efforts to ban DEI, [3] dismantling of government-funded news services, [4] funding cuts for “sanctuary cities”, and [5] revoking security clearance from the WilmerHale law firm. Trump has then complained, both to the people and to the Supreme Court (as has Vance), leading to an overall mixed result.

So, which is it?

Well, there is a way of improving both fronts. But it will take a few more sections to explain.

For now, I will just say…

iv. Non-Compliance Leads to Unpopularity

A party must be obsessed with popularity – since this is the key to winning future elections.

A recent poll found that 88% of Americans believe that Trump must follow Supreme Court rulings (among Republicans, this only drops to 82%). A second poll puts these numbers at 83% and 77%. Even a Fox News Poll finds similarly. Rolling Stone reports on its poll:

Trump's defiance of the court garnered one of the biggest swings of disapproval
in the Times/Siena poll — which comprised 913 voters and was conducted April 21-24
— with 76 percent of voters, and 61 percent of Republicans, saying a president
should not be able to ignore the Supreme Court.

The proper way to “check” a President, is via a recall election – firing him if he becomes too unpopular. I will explain that below, in the “impeachment” section.

But, continuing (for now) on the theme of “judges” vs “majority rule”, I would like to note that the unpopularity goes both ways.

v. Unpopular Court Decisions Lead Directly to Electoral Defeat

In May 2022, the Supreme Court returned “Roe v. Wade” to the states – removing nation-wide abortion access.

First, notice this is an example of an “independent court” removing a progressive right, rather than protecting one! Second, the overall effect of their ruling, on actual abortion rights, has been small. Abortion bans were passed in only 14 states (29% of the US population). Of all women affected by these bans, plausibly most² (albeit not all) could travel to a nearby state and get an abortion anyway.

But, much more importantly: the main effect of this ruling, was to cause sweeping Republican losses throughout all levels of government in the subsequent 2022 midterm elections. This included: [1] a new Democratic governor in Kentucky, and [2] ballot measures & constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights, in 20 states (including Michigan and Kansas). Most crucially: this 2024 presidential race, the main Democratic argument for re-election was reproductive rights. It was the biggest obstacle to the election of Trump. In other words, the main thing accomplished, by the Republican Judicial Branch, has been to effectively sabotage the Republican party, decrease their odds of taking the other two branches, and move the entire country to the left (in the ballot box).

So – the majority seems to have a way of getting what it wants, eventually.

Did the judicial branch “check” the power of Biden? Their Republican ruling (in 2022), shifted the whole country blue. Perhaps it is the reverse? Perhaps the court wanted to “check” Biden, by forcing pro-life policy into his pro-choice government? But (as we saw) Biden’s #1 priority is his own re-election.

vi. Integrity as a Selling Point

integrity (n)
 1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
 2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
 3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness. 

I am not vexed by those questions. Because my view, is that the Ruling Party should drive the government – ie, all the branches.

The civil service is a good example. When the Democrats lose an election, we fire the Democratic President – but we don’t fire every Democrat-[TSA Agent] and Democrat-[FBI Agent] and Democrat-[Brigadier General]. That’s just not efficient. In the same way, we should keep our Democrat-Judges and Democrat-appointed judges, even if Democrats lose a federal election.

But – if Democrats lose an election, then Republican leadership is coming in. They will write Republican-shaped laws. They have Republican-shaped ideas. The intent of the new laws will be Republican – and so the laws should be interpreted more in that way. (And vice-versa, when Republicans lose.)

When the Judicial Branch interprets laws honestly and fairly and consistently – this should help the Ruling Party win re-election later. It helps the voter see that the Ruling Party will hire [or will at least, retain] the right judges – judges who protect their rights, uphold the law, and act with integrity. This is especially if the court’s ruling was not to the President’s liking – and even moreso if the president voluntarily defers to it. (Presumably, the President would then either [1] give up, or [2] go back to the drawing board, and draft a newer-and-more-specific law [that would apply in the future].) All of this would help reassure the public that the President is a reasonable person[^3].

^[3]: Note: I wrote most of this essay, before Trump won re-election. I did edit it heavily, before publishing – but mostly the structure is intact. This part (“integrity helps you win, later!”), and the “turnabout-is-fair-play” part (below) fared badly, as predictions. But other current events lined up quite well, such as: [1] Biden’s debate performance killing the whole Democratic party, across all branches; [2] the ineffectiveness of identity politics; [3] Trump threatening to primary Republican congressmen if he can’t get the cabinet he wants, (the President should always get whatever cabinet he wants; + the idea that congressmen are more vulnerable to a primary [than the general election], is an outrage); [4] people complaining about “separation of powers” after they lose an election (with the winners, of course, rejecting S-o-P); [5] Democrats rightly saying that “the brand” of the party is ruined and must be repaired; [6] Trump complaining that FED-independence and Judicial-independence are sabotaging his platform (which they are); [7] Trump ruling by executive order to cut out the middleman; unilaterally disbanding whole departments (USAID); [8] the highly-problematic lack of a “leader of the opposition”, leading to awkward nonsense (Schumer’s “strongly worded letter”) and a generally uncoordinated response (State of the Union); [9] Trump taking full control (ie Liberation Day tariffs), and as a result, being struck with 100% of the blame (rightly so), [10] Musk becoming frustrated with both parties (rightly so), but mistakenly starting a 3rd party (or, perhaps, Musk is intentionally splitting-the-red-vote, or threatening to do so).

My view is that “separation of powers” is primarily a way to enhance transparency, enhance accountability, commit to the rule-of-law, and weed out corruption in your own government. We should refine the “separation of powers” technique – year after year – so that it gets better and better [at those tasks].

I am not worried about cross-branch collusion (just as I am not worried about [Postmaster General]-[Treasury Secretary]-collusion). Everyone in the government, should be cooperating to enact the platform that the Ruling Party ran on. If there is cross-branch collusion, (or any improper collusion, of any kind – or any improper anything of any kind), then the Opposition Party should point it out, to us, and we should blame the Ruling Party (and they should lose the next election).

vii. Do courts lead, or follow?

Back when it mattered, Courts did very little to protect blacks, (or gays).

Only after 50% of the population was persuaded, in favor of dignity for blacks/gays, did the actual government begin to help them in earnest. (The gay marriage ruling (2015), came ~3 years after public support crossed the 50% threshold.)

viii. Further Research

For further study, 20:29 of this video, cites numerous sources supporting the following quote:

If you look at the real progress that has actually been made
where it has been made, it has come from legislatures and not
courts. ... We should think about the reality that ... the
most important variable, from the standpoint of protecting
individual rights and vulnerable minorities, is getting democ-
racy. ... And adding judicial review, on top of that, doesn't
do very much, if at all. And sometimes its inimical ...

All of which suggests that an independent judiciary does not exist – or, if it does exist, it does not accomplish much “progress”.

ix. Judges are themselves Proud Majoritarians

Judges are often proud to enforce contracts, that they themselves would never choose to sign. Indeed – the whole logic of the contract system is that signatories can rely on their agreements being honored, as-written, without having to justify themselves to innumerable 3rd-parties [ie, complete strangers, who could have any opinion at all, on the fairness of the terms].

In the same way, the Supreme Court is often proud to defer to “the people”. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

    Petitioners make strong arguments...[their] position
has undeniable appeal...
 
    But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us...

    It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own prefer-
ences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court
has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitu-
tion "is made for people of fundamentally differing views."
Accordingly, "courts are not concerned with the wisdom or
policy of legislation." The majority today neglects that
restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for
itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people...

…implying that “his own preference” is for gay marriage to prevail – but that the question should be settled in only one place: the ballot box.

Finally, consider the mantra “elections have consequences”. This reminds us that the Supreme Court is chosen by the president (and, by extension, the voter). So, in this way, the Court is majoritarian anyway – just with a time lag.

x. High Courts As “The Brain of the People”

Nonetheless, the Judicial Branch does play a special role in constraining the government.

They are specialists in neutrality. And they are also first-rate experts in the law. They have enormous prestige. They themselves were appointed by past presidents – and confirmed by past Congresspeople. The great law firms, and law schools, hang onto their every word.

The Supreme Court has no army. In a superficial sense, this makes them weak. But in a deeper sense, it makes them more persuasive. It’s hard to be suspicious of something that cannot harm us. And it reminds us all, that the Court’s focus is on argument and persuasion.

A president is not literally forced to obey the Supreme Court. But the Court can write “This president is doing the wrong thing!” – and the President will have to deal with the consequences of that.

Now – the previous sections built up the Ruling Party – giving it power (by clearing away obstructionists). The next section is about limiting the Ruling Party – and holding it more accountable.

D. Checking the Power of the Ruling Party

I don’t want a Leviathan at all – I want a servant of the people.

So – let’s add some “checks and balances” that actually work.

As I see it, the main difference between a President and a Tyrant, is that a Tyrant cannot easily be fired. The ideas below, are all designed to make the President (and Ruling Party) easier-to-fire.

i. Free and Fair Elections

One power that must be denied to the Ruling Party, is election tampering. This is the ultimate crime.

To counteract this, citizens must:

1) Establish bipartisan polling places, and good election practices. 2) Punish any party that flirts with election malfeasance, by strongly voting against them. 3) Wield freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-the-press to both (a) point out any election interference in real-time, but also (b) whip up supporters into an increasingly-public display of support, as election day approaches. 4) Be prepared to protest/reject the government, if the elections are not fair.

This is a role for “independent” agencies, if there ever was one.

It is also a role for the Judicial Branch. Presently, federal elections are handled by the states. But instead, the federal Judicial Branch, could take it upon themselves to ensure our federal elections are free and fair – an appropriate job for them, given their obsession with “procedure” [and with “letting the people decide”].

More generally…

ii. Enforcing the Constitution (and laws), As Written

It would be tyranny, if the president could [1] suddenly change the law, and then [2] punish us severely for breaking these new laws.

Therefore, our laws have to be written down – in advance. (As they were with Hammurabi’s Code, thousands of years ago.) We need at least 60 days or so, before they come into effect. And then, they have to be enforced, as written. Finally, they must be interpreted by a neutral 3rd party (ie, the Judiciary).

So, the proper use of multiple “branches” and “departments” of government, is to maintain and enforce the contract between government and citizen. (In contrast, the improper use, is to interfere with the rightly-elected party, and prevent them from implementing their platform.)

Again, the Judicial Branch helps, by providing the last word on interpretations of ambiguous law – especially Constitutional law. So, if the Executive wants to make new laws, then he had better write them clearly – and, secondly, he had better patiently wait [for the interpretations to roll in].

Now – before continuing, let me note that many majoritarian power-abuses, will (hopefully) take care of themselves, because…

iii. Turnabout Is Fair Play

Majority rule is often feared – it is critiqued as “mob rule” or “populism”.

People ask: how will minorities, ever have any rights?

Here are some answers:

First: everyone is in the minority on something. There are many ways of “slicing” society up – race, age, wealth, education. If you combine a few factors –for example: white, non-college-educated, heterosexual, Christian, men– then, even if each of those is a large majority, probably fewer than 15% of the country belongs to the whole combination at once.

Second, these days, America is more blended up than ever, especially once you include associates (co-workers, cousins, friends, spouses). For every vulnerable [“friend’s black girlfriend”] you have – they have a [“gay mechanic cousin”] you might retaliate against. Most people are wise enough to understand, that an endless cycle of retaliatory nastiness is not in anyone’s best interest. It is actually less work, to “carefully weigh the issues and try to do the right thing”, when the alternative is endless feuds with everyone.

Third, in my ideal setup (of two strong dynamic parties – Part 7), minorities have a lot of leverage – with the losing [Opposition] Party. The Opposition Party will be constantly “rotating” – trying to squirm their way back into majority. In essence, they will be trying to grab that last 2% of the votes, to escape the Loser-dom of 49% – and make it back to Victory-town of 51%. Inside the Opposition Party, each percentage point contributes equally to their upcoming victory. Outside it, (in the Ruling Party’s 51%), there are 25 groups of 2%-size – ripe for the picking. The Opposition need only snatch one of these – whichever 2%-group feels most neglected by the Ruling Party. Then they’re back on top.

Fourth, under majority rule, the minority may indeed be powerless today… but retribution is just one election away! Even a selfish President cannot arbitrarily imprison [or execute] his opponents. [Notice that Trump did not do this to Hillary Clinton, despite his popular “lock her up” chant.”] After all, what happens when the President’s party loses, (and the tables are turned)? The President will find himself on the chopping block! And rightly so – after all, turnabout is fair play.

Moderator: Why should [Christians] vote for you, if you [reject the idea of
            tying the morals of govt to beliefs of today's Christians]?
Ron Paul: ...My defense of liberty, is the defense of *their* right to
          practice their religion, and say their prayers [how they like].

Above: Ron Paul explains why protecting individuals rights is (or should be) a universal value.

If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority
will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil:
the ... [uninteresting one], and, the other, by comprehending in the society
so *** many separate descriptions of citizens *** as will render an unjust
combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.

Above: Federalist Paper No. 51, (emphasis added)

iv. The Shadow Government

Now let’s go further.

The Opposition Party must be able to criticize, and replace the government, at any time.

This is their official job. It must be so, both legally and culturally.

In particular, the Opposition Party must immediately form a shadow government to mirror the activities of the real government. The “shadows” should have special rights to “listen in”, on everything the real government is doing. They should have full access to classified documents, budgets, transcripts, databases, etc. They should be able to interview the civil service, whenever they like – and inform the public, of whatever they think is newsworthy. Ideally, they would have the right to linger in the Oval Office, to (quietly and peacefully) observe what is happening there. Arguably – they would even be able to spy on government officials, tap their phone lines, read their emails – but I admit that this invites sabotage (or would lead to the Ruling Party developing their own email-servers, etc).

With so many aides (and staff), there are bound to be many “leaks”. It should always be legal to “leak” to the Opposition Party (and their shadow government) – even if the information is deemed “classified”.

On top of that, the Opposition Party should have the right to periodically, publicly interrogate the President.

In general, we want the opposition party to be seen as a “legitimate grievance collector” – someone you would call, when the government is screwing up.

v. Impeachment

Only one thing can actually hurt the Executive Branch – firing the President.

The Founding Fathers called this power “impeachment”, and gave it to Congress. The House initiates impeachment (via majority vote), and the Senate later “convicts” (during an “impeachment trial”) with a 2/3rds vote.

I admire the Founders’ desire to make the President more immediately vulnerable to his mistakes. But their process has some serious shortcomings:

1. If the President is fired, then the Vice-President takes over… but the President and VP are from the same party³. So the party is never fired. This makes the president vulnerable to his subordinates (undermining his authority – and accountability), as follows:
   • The VP can find it in his best interest, to stab his president in the back, at an opportune moment. (As a second-order effect, this encourages Presidents to only pick VPs who are either incompetent or sycophantic [to mitigate this threat] – both of which are bad for us [the citizen].)
   • The Ruling Party doesn’t suffer enough, as a result of impeachment! They continue on as before – only the President is disgraced and fired. But the Ruling Party are the ones screwing up.
2. If the Ruling Party merely wants to recall their CEO [and replace him with someone even better], then why should the Opposition Party have any say in the matter? The Opposition Party wants the Ruling Party to fail – and their job is to criticize (and replace) the Ruling Party. But the 2/3rds threshold is so high, that it (presumably) can never be met without buy-in from the Opposition Party.
3. The two-thirds “super-majority” threshold has the same problem as every super-majority: toxic limbo. A minority of 35%, can hold the [2/3rds] process hostage, leaving people unsure of what to do. In the next election, should they try to pump up the Ruling Party, past 66% (giving them enough support, to fire their own CEO)? Or – should they vote in the opposite direction (to fire the president and his whole party)? The opposition may prefer to let the rotten president stay in office, aiming for a clean coup next election.
4. The president was elected by “the people” [citizens], directly, via election [nationwide secret ballot]. With impeachment, he is removed by different people [Senators only], indirectly, via something else [Congressional vote] – this undermines the sovereignty of “the people”. It de-legitimizes the entire political system.

The president was hired by “the people” – and only “the people” can fire him.

So the “conviction” phase [of Impeachment], cannot be done by the Senate – it must be done by a full blown recall election. The president must drop what he is doing; he must win his party’s nomination; must campaign again; and must win the national popular vote again – if he loses, then he and his entire party are fired. And the Opposition Party takes over. That’s what real impeachment looks like.

Obviously, a recall election is expensive. Over $200 million was spent on the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election (for example). Worse, it distracts the president. The #1 priority of any politician, is remaining in power. Therefore, we must end the campaign – if any “real work” is ever to get done. (Similarly, citizens do not want to be constantly distracted by elections.) However, the biggest problem with a recall election –by far– is that it de-legitimizes the original election. Paradoxically, the easier it is to call a recall election, the less politicians will care about winning the scheduled [Nov 5th] election. But that is unacceptable. We need them to care. In fact – tears must be shed, by the losers [Nov 5], tears of pain and despair! – and the winners must jump with joy, hug and kiss, fall to their knees, and thank the almighty, crying delirious tears of gratitude. The [Nov 5] election must have “stakes”; it must be important. Recall elections –while important in their own right– must always take a backseat. Otherwise the legitimacy of the whole system, will collapse.

We can deter frivolous recall elections in three ways. First, the Opposition Party should suffer a negative consequence, if they initiate a recall election and then go on to lose it (I describe this in Part 7). Second, initiating a recall should require buy-in from laypeople – signatures from 10% of the registered voters.

Third, low turnout should cause the Opposition to lose. Specifically, the Opposition must get more votes, this time, than the Ruling Party got in either election. I clarify this in a table below:

In the 2024 election, Trump got 74 million votes; Kamala 71 M. So, in a hypothetical recall election [to fire Trump-2024], the Opposition needs: first, to win (ie, a majority of votes); and, second, they need at least 74 million votes, total. Under this system, “diehard Trump supporters” (those who voted for Trump in 2024, and who still support him today, on the day of the recall), are allowed to stay home on “recall election day”. In contrast, the Opposition needs to “turn out” every vote they got before, plus they need to have changed enough minds, to beat the old number [of 74 M].

That will be tough!

But the consequences are enormous: the immediate obliteration of the Ruling Party – and the Opposition sweeping into power instead. (They serve for the remainder of the 4-year cycle. The next “scheduled election” takes place, as scheduled.)

When should a president be impeached? My humble opinion, is that the campaign promises constitute a binding verbal contract – between The People and The Government. If the President is not living up to his promises, in good faith, then he should be fired early.

vi. Term Limits

Term Limits make it mandatory to fire a politician after a certain length of time.

George Washington, famously stepped down after only two terms – to the surprise of King George III. Future presidents (except FDR) voluntarily obeyed this precedent.

Is it a good idea?

Well, first of all, it has two problems:

1. We want our politicians motivated to do a good job. We only want to fire them, if they are doing a bad job. (If they’re good, then we want them to stay – ideally forever.) We want a President to work hard, during their first term – so that we can reward them with a 2nd term! That’s a carrot we dangle in front of them. Why would they “invest” in their “personal brand” – if it will all be taken away from them, regardless?
2. Politicians gain experience over time. Their “first week on the job”, they will make many mistakes – (as we all would, on our first week, of any job). But –as time goes on– their skills will improve. They will get better and better! Wouldn’t it be better to preserve all this experience?

I have a solution to both problems.

But first, let’s acknowledge the main benefit of term limits…which is…

…that it is very intimidating to disagree with The President. About anything! Especially on the question: “so, little underling, I seem to be doing a great job as President – do you think I should run again?”. At such times, the temptation to conceal the truth will be enormous – and overwhelming.

This self-nomination is a vector of corruption. On one hand, we hope that the Ruling Party nominates the best person they can find – (if they don’t, then the Opposition will also nominate a shitty candidate, and we will have Douche vs Turd). However, on the other hand, we have placed the President in charge of the country. Not only are they the leader of the Ruling Party – they are the leader of the whole government. That’s a lot of power! Would a sitting president take a critical attitude, towards themselves, for essentially no reason? Probably not.

And – is it really your job, to criticize yourself? No. Plus, in this system – we reward the President (with the nomination) if they do a bad job [picking themselves, when they are not the optimal candidate]? What a terrible idea! It would be irrational for any President to turn down the nomination – which is why Biden-2024 tried to keep it. You’d have to be crazy to throw it away – what could anyone possibly offer you, in exchange, that would be worth as much as the Presidency of the United States?

The solution is to ban consecutive nominations. In other words, if Regan wins in 1980, then he can NOT run in 1984. However, he can run in 1988 [and 1996… and 2004…]. In theory, we could have 40 consecutive years, of just two Republican presidents [George HW Bush and Ronald Regan], as long as they alternate. They could pass the nomination back-and-forth forever (as long as the Red team keeps winning the general election).

This solves our two problems. Regan will still be invited back (if he did a good job) – but first, we citizens have four years [under HW Bush] to (slowly) think it over. Meanwhile, Regan can become trusted advisor to president HW Bush. Regan can wait around, “in the room”, [the Oval Office], telling HW Bush what he would do in such-and-such situation. That is a matter for Reagan and HW to arrange, amongst themselves. In this way, a large percentage of experience would still be preserved. If they make a good team, they will keep winning elections – they can pass the nomination back and forth, sharing power. One failed election, will doom them both – so each will be the other’s harshest critic [in private], and most dedicated advisor and supporter.

It also solves the self-nomination problem. And, it let’s everyone “off the hook” for not re-nominating the president. And, it preserves the president’s role as “leader of the Ruling Party”, while also preserving the “baseball player vs baseball scout” distinction.

Note: Congress has no term limits. The results are pretty grim: almost no one is fired – especially in the House of Representatives. Are we to believe that our Congresspeople are doing such a good job, that it justifies a 95% re-election rate? Certainly not.

vii. Fired from Within

A slightly different question is this: if the President had pre-agreed to step down, under certain conditions, should he be held to that agreement? And the answer is: yes.

Part of the Constitution – the 25th Amendment – allows the Vice President to replace the President.

First, this can happen voluntarily. The President can resign – as Nixon did. Or, the President can “go under” (temporarily) – as in 1985 when Regan underwent colon cancer surgery, and 2002/2007 when Bush had a colonoscopy.

Sections 1-3 deals with those – and frankly, no one cares.

The interesting part is Section 4. Which basically asks: what if the President has clearly lost his mind. Can the VP take over?

This happened with Biden-2024.

It also happened in the hit TV Show “Game of Thrones”…

Robert:  What did the Mad King say,
         when you stabbed him in the back?
         Did he call you a traitor?
 
 Jamie:  He said the same thing he'd been
          saying for hours...
          "Burn them all."

…in which the King, had secretly placed flammable oil beneath his own capital city, and ordered his pyromancer to kill everyone (for basically no reason).

Jamie elaborates:

I -- drove my sword into his back.
  "Burn them all", he kept saying.
  "Burn them all".
I don't think he expected to die.
  He... meant -- to burn with the
  rest of us, and... rise again!
  Reborn! as a dragon -- to turn
  his enemies, to ash.
I slit his throat, to make sure 
 that didn't happen.

Anyway, the problem with the 25th Amendment is how convoluted it is.

To override the President, you need: [1] a majority of cabinet members, and [2] 2/3-rds of both the House and Senate. And even then – it isn’t permanent! The VP would rule as “Acting President” (ie, not real President). This is a probably because, legally, they cannot yet appoint a new VP (since they still are the VP). And, the VP must step back down – when the President (?) gains the upper hand again (in the voting).

What a mess!

Instead, each candidate should sign a written agreement (back when they are campaigning), detailing the conditions under which they (in the future) could be compelled to resign. If a Candidate signs this, of his own free will – and he campaigns on it (and the people know about it, when they vote to elect the candidate), then it should be binding. This agreement can be any shape or size – it can be complex, or simple – it can cover temporary resignations (such as if “put under” for surgery), as well as permanent incapacitation. And – of course – a presidential candidate is free to sign no such agreement at all – this is a decision that they must explain and defend to the voters.

Now – the final section (E).

E. The Real Separation of Powers

i. Parties

It is NOT the “Branches” (or “Departments”) that keep each other in line. It is the two Parties.

A Party is a big, powerful, scary, ugly, efficient, ruthless, vindictive, greedy, deceitful, intimidating, coordinated, frightening thing. The Ruling Party, will make mincemeat out of any Department of Agriculture (or whatever) who dares to oppose them. The Party will run the government as it likes, and the “branches” may well be their slaves – for all anyone knows, or cares.

The only force powerful enough to stop a Party, is a second political Party. (Yet again: this is why two is the optimal number of parties.)

If a Democrat ever mistreats you, then Fox News has your back! They’ll put you on TV! And you can vent into that microphone, for as long as you want. They will get the word out. And vice-versa if a Republican ever screws up – you can write to the New York Times, to Noam Chomsky (or whatever), and people are going to hear about it.

ii. Hamilton and Madison

This is the true realization of the…

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

…line, from Hamilton and Madison (the American champions of separation-of-powers).

The full text of Federalist Paper 51, is pure brilliance. All of the reasoning is bold, brilliant, and correct – but one detail is wrong. It is the use of the word “branches” instead of “parties”.

For example, this part:

the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The
remedy [is] to divide the legislature into different
branches; and to render them [maximally dis]connected 
with each other

…is not feasible, because a party can (and will) be coordinating everyone behind the scenes.

And this part:

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is
submitted to ... a single government; and the usurpations are
guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and
separate [branches]. ... The different governments will control
each other.

…is far-fetched for the same reason.

In contrast, the phrase: “The different parties will [check] each other” – is perfectly correct.

And so: it is the two-party system, that is the true separation of powers.

iii. Adolf Hitler’s Union of Powers

Adolf Hitler rose to power via his “Night of the Long Knives”, when roughly 100 political opponents were arrested (pulled out of their beds) – and killed days later (or even the same day). Hitler kept these plans secret, and revealed them to the public only after his opponents were all dead [at which point they… could not be reached for comment].

That is exactly what we should avoid (obviously).

The “separation of powers” crowd, is correct in three ways:

First, Monopoly is bad; competition is good. We don’t want rulers who are lazy or complacent. Instead we want them to be pro-actively self-critical, and always on their toes.

Second, transparency is good; cover-ups are bad. The rule of law thrives – when more people are involved; and when the process is slower; and leaves plenty of evidence behind. With more politicians involved, it is harder for them [as a group] to coordinate arbitrary tyrannical rule (and the associated cover-ups, suppression of liberty, etc). Eventually there are whistle-blowers, deathbed confessions, etc. As the saying goes: two people can keep a secret, if one is dead. A slow process gives the opposition time to react to what is happening – they can curate their list (focusing on only the most egregious violation(s)), sound the alarm, and present their case. The public can therefore be warned [ie, that a politician’s behavior doesn’t match a law], and have time to think it over. All this makes misbehavior more vulnerable to detection, (and punishment more likely).

Third, specialization is good. We want government workers to stay focused on their “narrow glory” – (for example, the glory of: “becoming the greatest supreme court justice”). This pursuit will distract them from learning (and refining) the science of dictatorship. As time passes, American politicians will forget how to operate the USA as a dictatorship – no one will have the knowledge. (Unlike in Russia, for example, where politicians have been practicing the science-of-dictatorship for hundreds of years.) We want our politicians obsessed with other things.

iv. Conclusion of Part 6

The ideal government is not a leviathan – but more like a horse. We [the people] are the rider. We do not want to give the horse conflicting instruction (ie, separation of powers). We do not want it hobbled or uncoordinated (ie “checks and balances”). We do not want numb, or cancerous limbs (“independence”). We want our horse to be strong and healthy.

On the other hand – our horse needs a bit and blinkers (even on the racetrack). We must keep the horse under our control (ie, Fair Elections, two-party system, and a Shadow Government). After all, Crest and Colgate cannot hire thugs, to follow you in CVS, and force you –at gunpoint– to purchase Crest. That is “unfair competition”.

But, Crest should not be forced (by “independent” outsiders) to add ingredients into their toothpaste. Most of all, Crest should not allow Colgate to force it to do anything. The only people affecting the end-product, should be people associated with a brand recognized by the consumer. If it came in the Crest box, then it came from Crest employees.

Now… what would a perfect democracy look like?

Continue Reading: Part 7: The Ideal Democracy

Footnotes