Fixing the Government.

It’s widely recognized the government could use some fixin’. As I’ve said before, the problem with a lot of the solutions is that they depend upon already having a broad enough supermajority to implement the fixes. They are fine solutions, at least as a starting point (any solutions will require tweaks and fixes of their own). But they don’t get you that supermajority, they are only available once you have a supermajority.

That begs the question of how you get a supermajority. The answer is that you build one. But the key question is on what do you build it (dear Liza, dear Liza)?

With broadly-agreed-upon-policies, dear Henry, dear Henry. The holes in the bucket we need to fix are, broadly:

1. Supreme Court Reforms.
2. Legislative Reforms.
3. Executive Reforms.
4. Other Reforms.

Key here is that the reforms sought need to be specific to attract a coalition of voters, but not particularly partisan. Things like abortion don’t fit here. There are plenty of worthy reforms that won’t fit, and the push for a broad reform mandate to fix the system needs to draw that line while allowing people to advocate outside of the reform push for the issues they still want addressed.

So, taking the Supreme Court as an example, a solution that would guarantee each president exactly one seat per term would clearly be party-agnostic, and leave the future to the choices of the people whom they elect president and what the Senate looks like. Or for the House, abolishing gerrymandering entirely or even a move to proportional representation with multi-member districts doesn’t favor any party. Same with expanding the House.

But speaking of the legislature, it’s worth noting that improvements don’t have to be structural (how many members, how they get chosen) rather than requiring them to do things with their internal organizations. While the way that the Senate and House organize and operate cannot really be codified in the law (they’re always free to do their own thing under the Constitution), pushing to elect people who will do a better job isn’t a problem.

Back to the Supreme Court, there is room to legislate how they operate. How they hire clerks, for example, can be codified. Other than the original jurisdiction set by the Constitution, their area of activity can be modified. Tweaking those settings may be useful as part of building a better court, though many may not.

As for the executive, a lot must change. Now that the court has dissolved independent agencies, for example, there are laws that must be rewritten to account for that lack of independence. The executive will more often need permission from the legislature for agency actions. And the executive will need to publish more information on the activities of agencies.

But at the same time, the Senate will need to see reforms in how it treats nominations from the executive, and possibly require a better process from the executive on how it transmits its nominees. While you cannot bind the Senate’s confirmation process, you can advocate for it, and through legislation the executive’s side of the process can be bound, including nominee requirements and processes that effectively (albeit indirectly) bind the Senate.

Finally, there are other reforms that aren’t attached to a branch, and that aren’t a particular party’s domain. Things like a partial reform of immigration (including ICE and TPS) that focus on basic practices rather than immigration policy. There should be a definite timeline for TPS recipients for the benefit of all. Indefinite TPS subject to the whims of a fool like Donald John Trump is a terrible idea. Take the keys away from fools. The same goes for how ICE operates: the recruitment scandal, the general abuses it has perpetrated. Take away the ability to run our government unprofessionally, whatever the policy being sought.

Under the same, there are changes to how voting registration works that can be improved. There are ways to encourage more qualified and diverse candidates to run, and to ensure the public knows which candidates are qualified (by offering grants to fund debates and forums, among other things).

There’s a lot to all of this. How do you keep it short? How do you get buy-in from the average voter?

Outside of a few key positions like proportional representation or abolishing gerrymandering, the answer is by describing what’s broken and what it looks like when it’s fixed, without having go belabor the voters on the actual fixes.

The Supreme Court needs more regularity in its appointments. “A seat per term!” becomes the cry.

More House seats and proportional representation? “650 or bust!” and “Teach them how to cut a cake!”

The executive? “Presidents Must Get Permission!”

The key of all of this isn’t in any of the particulars I’ve mentioned. The key remains that Democratic candidates and state parties, along with whatever Republicans give a damn, and outside civics organizations, should all be organizing around and calling for these broad reforms in a package. Media should be calling for it, too. The First Amendment protects their rights, but it relies on maintaining and fixing the broader civic and legal system.