Solve American Gridlock

04/17/2024

AUSTIN, TX, UNITED STATES, April 17, 2024 /EINPesswire.com/ -- Publisher Solve American Gridlock, LLC of Austin, Texas. Combative Congress, Your Power! Your Voice! is now on Amazon https://a.co/d/jj0KUOc . This book investigates the root causes of Congress’s difficulty in working in an efficacious way to solve the challenging problems facing the United States.

Combative Congress takes the position that care must be taken in complex matters to identify the problem accurately followed by exposing its root causes. By taking this approach, the common mistake of trying to solve a symptom rather than the root cause is avoided.

The book concludes with three root causes: closed party primaries, single-member (safe) districts for the House of Representatives, and non-proportional voting methods. It suggests the improvements needed.

These impediments are shown to be the primary reasons why it is extremely difficult for new parties to form and prosper. They are diagnosed to be electoral methods embedded into state and federal laws and party rules. The book argues that an important one is the mandate written into federal law in 1967 requiring every state to have single-member districts for the House of Representatives; this law has led to aggressive gerrymandering and thereby safe districts that return over 80% of Representatives back to Congress every two years.

This book analyzes why Congress has only two parties and proposes needed changes in our electoral systems that will open competition to more parties and a much more civil and productive Congress. Other important countries have an average of 3.9 parties.

Combative Congress addresses a serious and complex topic in ways that make reading it pleasant. This nonpartisan book is unique in that its appeal stretches from a high school student to a professor, from a young housewife to a retired chemical engineer, and more. It was written to be concise and readable in less than three hours with some humor; it has 33 color graphs and photographs to implant images of concepts in the reader’s mind; and it has short chapters and good references.

11/03/2023

New book released!

Learn the reasons how and why we got our Combative Congress - right down to the root causes. Understand the pivotal changes badly needed. All in less than three hours with 37 color illustrations. Ages 16-90 and now on Amazon. Click

COMBATIVE CONGRESS: Your Power! Your Voice!

02/23/2023

It seems very evident that a Congressional Commission is perfectly suited to the task of moving America on the Conundrum of Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction from Rancor to Victory!

https://www.solveamericangridlock.com/post/greenhouse-gas-conundrum-do-we-choose-rancor-or-victory

01/20/2023

Congress’s Electoral Methods
Our elections machinery is a huge cause of our lack of competition in Congress. The two parties have succeeded in restricting new and small parties from participating fairly.
Tom Mast, founder Solve American Gridlock
January 2023

This post to the Solve American Gridlock website blog and our page begins with analysis and findings from the excellent book The Politics Industry by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, published in 2020. Ms. Gehl is a former business owner and executive who turned her efforts some years ago to political innovation. Mr. Porter is a famous author of over twenty management books and a professor at the Harvard Business School. Together, they have clearly analyzed the fundamental issues with Congress and laid out badly needed reforms.

The authors see the Problem as Congress’s duopoly (Merriam-Webster: control by two political parties) whose purpose is to “protect and perpetuate the politics industry itself and grow its power, not to produce results.” They see the root cause as the Politics Industry, not certain parties, policies, or people. Their Objective is to create more “choice” – more competition. They want to stimulate action among us citizens, not merely analysis – although analysis is always necessary to ensure one is working on the real problem and coming up with the right answers.

The book places much emphasis on the importance of competition, not surprisingly since Michael Porter has a career of teaching, writing, and consulting in America’s competitive business industries. One might say that we observe severe competition between the only two significant political parties in America. Yes, they do fight, but it is primarily competition for power, not problem solving. The duopoly colludes in designing and perpetuating the rules for elections and in writing legislation in ways that don’t work well for the populace. We have antitrust laws to prevent practices that stifle competition in business, but alas, the Politics Industry has no such brakes on its practices. Later, we will see that most important countries have more than two parties, an average of 3.9.

Our elections machinery is a huge cause of our lack of competition in government. The two parties have succeeded in restricting new and small parties from participating fairly. The party primaries, cited in the book as the “eye of the needle”, have evolved through efforts of the two parties at the state level to send a candidate from each of the major parties to the general election. These party primaries decide the winners, exacerbated by a 1967 federal statute and rules that have led to over 80% of House seats being “safe seats”. These party primaries generally are poorly attended. In many states, candidates can win with less than a majority vote. It is difficult for a new party to obtain the right to participate. If a third-party candidate with a new perspective does enter the competition, he or she is usually viewed as a “spoiler”, one who is more likely to draw votes from one of the leading candidates than the other. The result in the general election is that we all too often find ourselves holding our noses and voting for the lesser of two evils.

The constitution is very brief on the topic of election machinery for Congress. It says that the state legislatures have this job, then goes on to say that “Congress may at any time by law make or alter such Regulations.” The state legislatures are populated overwhelmingly by the same two major parties.

The book quotes President John Adams saying “There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to the other.”

Gehl and Porter propose New Rules for election machinery. Final-Five voting would have open, single-ballot, non-partisan primaries in which the top-five candidates qualify for the general election (called top-five primaries) and ranked-choice voting (RCV) in general elections.” These are hugely important changes that are way overdue!

The other topic is legislative machinery, the processes Congress uses to create laws. The book says that the elections and legislative machineries are interdependent and that fixing both is much more powerful than fixing only one. However, it makes the point that the elections machinery changes must come first.

There are many important examples cited in the book of the abuses of an effective legislative process. Budgeting is late, poorly done, and often ignored. Brinksmanship in budgeting, approval of debt ceilings, and important bills is now common. All too often, many issues are rolled into a giant piece of legislation including some that would never have passed into law if considered on their own. Members often aren’t given adequate time to study or even read the bill. The unwritten Hastert Rule dictates that the Speaker will not allow a floor vote unless a majority of the majority party supports it. Beginning about 50 years ago, regular order began fading away. Previously, strong committees debated bills and amendments and selected the bills to go to the floor for a vote. Committee chairs were selected by length of service, not as now by party leadership. In the mid-90’s, the Speaker began appointing all committee members. Both parties participated at various times in instituting these changes. Senior leaders decide which bills move to the floor for discussion, amending, and voting. The party in power controls what happens on the floor. Today, conference committees to work out the differences between House and Senate bills are nearly extinct. If both houses are controlled by one party, its leadership meets behind closed doors and announces the outcome.

This list is just a few of the legislative abuses in Congress. Gehl and Porter say “It is accepted as normal when the Mitch McConnells and Nancy Pelosis of America – currently our most powerful members of Congress – announce publicly and proudly that their top priorities are either resisting the current president or electing more members of their own party.”

Consequences: “The health of our democracy, our long-term economic competitiveness, and our shared prosperity and social progress…” has been badly damaged”. Lack of problem solving is a result of dysfunction. Both parties keep a topic unsolved as a tool to get reelected and gain power. There is a tendency of our election and legislative weaknesses to increase the power of members with extreme views, reducing the percentage of moderates; a graph in the book shows moderates in congress in 1951 to have been by party 44 and 41% Vs 11 and 6% in 2018. There is “declining bipartisan support of landmark legislation (1935-2017)”. There is “No Action without a Time-Sensitive Crisis…”. Trust in the federal government had dropped from 73% in 1964 to 17% in 2018.

The percentage of Independents in the U.S. has risen between 2004 and 2019 from 31% to 41%. This shows that people are unhappy with our two powerful parties. While Independents in 2019 stood at 41%, Democrats and Republicans respectively were at 30% and 28% per Gallup. With both major parties now having under 31% popularity, but still winning almost all seats, it is crystal clear that the flawed election machinery is to blame. People know pivotal changes are needed.

How to Effect Change. Gehl and Porter speak of “Laboratories”, meaning the states. Already some states have been experimenting with various forms of open primaries and ranked choice voting. Our country is unusual in the autonomy of its states and their flexibility to try new ideas on a smaller-than-national scale.

To make pivotal change happen, grassroots efforts are needed to push their state legislatures to action.

Comments

Final-Five open primaries is an idea long overdue. It can greatly reduce the overwhelming control of the two main parties to choose the candidates who move on to the general election. It would foster the strength and growth of new parties and perspectives. It would put moderates more in control. It is something that can be rolled out and tested in the fifty states.

Ranked Choice voting also is used more and more in various states and in other countries. It too fosters more candidates and parties. In a primary, it always sends a candidate to the general election who has won a majority vote, not only a plurality.

Both important changes in election machinery (often called electoral systems or electoral methods) will promote much better participation in primaries and foster the evolution of new parties, coalitions, innovation, and cooperation. Coalitions can be different for each piece of legislation, replacing extreme viewpoints with ones more nuanced and thoughtful.

The United States is very much an outlier in having only two effective parties, effective meaning having a high enough percentage of members in Congress to influence process, votes, and legislation. “The height of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” Having more parties would cause coalitions to form, require negotiating, and promote the prospering of more moderate approaches. Other important countries have an average of 3.9 parties.

Single-member districts are a root cause of Congress’s Dysfunctionality. Congress created them in 1967, using its power given in the Constitution, Article I, Section 4 as “…but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…” Since single member districts are federal law, the states cannot change back to multi-member districts. Congress’s ability to do its job well began its decline just about the time this law was passed – not a coincidence. Why should we expect members of Congress to pay attention to their constituents if over 80% of them hold “safe seats”? Congress must fix what it broke!

01/13/2023

Surgery for Congress
“The dangerous condition is chronic electoral systems disease.”

Tom Mast, founder Solve American Gridlock
January 2023

PROBLEM
• Congress is quite ill, dating from about 1967
• Various ineffective medications have been tried
• This disease has caused a long list of symptoms that are resulting in great anguish to people dependent on the patient
• The symptoms include:
- Failure to solve our immigration issues
- Failure in fiscal matters including budgeting, deficit spending, timely attention to money matters, and high
percentages of overall spending on autopilot
- Failure to provide for the fiscal viability of major programs including Social Security and Medicare
- Failure to develop a professional, comprehensive, and long-range plan for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, the
largest project America and the world have ever faced
- Failure to use regular order and procedures that worked well in the past
- Failure to allow fair competition from more than two parties
• The dangerous condition is chronic electoral systems disease
• It is time for surgical intervention

OBJECTIVE
• To correct by surgery the electoral systems that have caused the major symptoms and many more. This will lead to a recovery in legislative procedures, resulting in a Congress whose existence and total focus is on solving problems for the country and its people

THE SURGERY
• Clear the obstructions to having more than two effective parties. These obstructions have been systematically created by the two parties in power, many at the state level. Twenty-one other important countries have an average of 3.9 parties. They benefit from forming coalitions around each piece of legislation, enjoying more civility and a wider range of viewpoints.
- Outlaw closed party primaries
- Institute open primaries from which a fixed number of candidates advance to the general election, perhaps five.
- Use ranked choice voting where practicable to ensure winning candidates have a majority vote
- Return to multi-member districts, eliminating the single-member districts created by Congress in 1967 that have
made over 80% of House seats “safe” for reelection
- Consider four-year terms for members of the House so they aren’t constantly running for election
- After the electoral systems surgery, have rules in Congress focused on effective and timely, legislation.

01/06/2023

Speaker of the House Election
The trend in the past few years for the Speaker to have almost dictatorial powers seems long overdue for reversal. Let’s open the door for more parties.

Tom Mast, founder Solve American Gridlock
January 3, 2023

I decided to jot down some thoughts today, January 3, after watching some of the voting in the U.S. House of Representatives for its Speaker position. This is one of the most powerful positions in our country, being second in line to assume the presidency among other matters.

Of course, you know that Rep. Kevin McCarthy lost the first three ballots, and as of this moment, we don’t know what the coming ballots will bring.

The Washington office of the Russian News Agency Tass reports along with other news sources that it has been 100 years since the Speaker was not elected on the first ballot. I, for one, am not pleased that power politics are so powerful in Washington that an election of this importance has been cut and dried for 100 years, so perhaps Tass was delivering good news rather than bad. We need an overhaul of Congress’s legislative machinery!

I researched the reasons the group of Republicans who oppose McCarthy gave for doing so. These reasons given were: no good-faith response for months to change the status quo, “failure to demonstrate any desire to meaningfully change the status quo in Washington”, refusal to consider any names suggested for committees, and refusal to commit to holding votes on policies concerning a balanced budget, the Fair Tax Act, the Texas Border Plan, Congressional Term Limits, individual earmarks requiring a two-thirds majority to pass, and a commitment to have all amendments that would cut spending be considered on the House floor.

Requesting open and democratic consideration of important matters by voting on them is quite reasonable. The trend of the past few years for the Speaker to have almost dictatorial powers seems long overdue for reversal, and McCarthy’s refusal to head in that direction is and should be a problem for him or any party leader.

Given this background, let’s explore how having more parties might produce different results. In the present House, the Republicans have 222 of the seats to the Democrats having 212, or 51% Vs 49%. Our divided government seems always to have one or the other of the two warring parties with a slight majority. This is called a duopoly, per Miriam Webster: preponderant influence or control by two political powers. It isn’t working well for us.

I am an advocate of our country having more than two effective parties, effective meaning a party that has a high enough percentage of the elected members of Congress to influence legislation, policy, and procedures. Sometimes one hears that this means 5% or more. Why have more than two parties? Well, for starters, twenty-one other important countries have more than 2 effective parties with their average being 3.9.

When a political body has 3 or 4 effective parties, it becomes much less likely that any one party has a majority and dominates. The parties must negotiate and be more civil with one another. They form coalitions to consider and pass legislation, and the coalitions may differ from one piece of legislation to the next. Parties and members must be more civil to each other because party A might find itself partnering with party C this week and with party B next week. More parties will reduce the tendency of our present Congress to throw bills on many topics into one omnibus piece of legislation, thereby preventing careful consideration and transparent votes on each bill.

Let’s ponder a couple of scenarios that might result from America making some pivotal changes in its electoral systems, ones that would foster the evolution of additional parties. Right now, the two parties have created electoral systems that virtually ensure that no other parties can evolve and prosper. Let’s look at the U.S. House and the election of its Speaker.

Scenario A - today
Republican 51%
Democrat 49

Scenario B
Republican 45%
Democrat 44
Party X 4
Party Y 7

Scenario C
Republican 35%
Democrat 33
Party X 20
Party Y 12

We are seeing today what happens in scenario A: One side seems sure to win, even with a very slight majority. It will provide the Speaker. The Speaker is so powerful that members of his or her own party have been afraid to contest the election for 100 years.

Let’s look at scenario B. No matter how the coalitions are formed, neither the Republican nor the Democrat party has a lock on receiving a majority vote. All parties must respect the viewpoints of the others. Conceivably, even an outstanding member of party X or Y could win. The four parties almost surely would demand much fairer methods of appointing committee chairs and members. A return to regular order with competent committees and chairs is very likely. Committees would decide which bills move to the floor for discussion and a vote. The making of all rules of both houses of congress would quickly become much less autocratic. The Speaker would be much less powerful.

Scenario C presents an even more dramatic picture. A majority is needed to elect the Speaker, but what is important is that the Speaker will more to the peoples’ liking. The Speaker could come from any of the parties. It should be or embarrassment that negotiation and several votes might be needed to choose a Speaker. After all, this is just how a government is supposed to work. The four parties surely would have different philosophies and priorities; negotiation among them to set the direction of the government will be a very positive process. Resulting legislation will be less extreme.

What is required to foster the evolving of additional parties?

• Eliminate closed party primaries. Substitute open primaries from which a fixed number of candidates, around five, earn the right to be in the general election.
• Used ranked choice voting where appropriate to ensure that candidates must have a majority vote to win
• Use multi-member districts to get rid of the single-member districts mandated by Congress in 1967, a law that has made over 80% of the House districts “safe”.

12/07/2022

Congressional Commission
Blueprint for Attainable Control of U.S. Greenhouse Gases

This paper advocates creating an independent Congressional Commission of experts in climate science, economics, and other necessary fields to craft a U.S. Blueprint based on emissions pricing to gain control over its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It includes brief background reviews of several topics one must grasp in order to see the necessity for a Commission.

Read more here: https://www.solveamericangridlock.com/post/congressional-commission-blueprint-for-attainable-control-of-u-s-greenhouse-gases

12/03/2022

Let’s Establish a Functional Congress
Tom Mast, founder of Solve American Gridlock

Let me point out at the outset that this paper focuses solely on electoral methods for the U.S. House and Senate, not any other offices.

Professor Edward “Ned” Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Ohio State University and heads its election law program. He was interviewed by Kevin Kosar of the American Enterprise Institute for an April 11, 2022 article.

Mr. Foley advocates that Congress require by law that U.S. Senators and Congresspersons be elected by majority vote – over 50%. Congress has this authority. The constitution deals with Congress in Article I whose Section 4, after saying that the state legislatures can regulate the holding of elections, says “…but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations…”

Continue reading here: www.solveamericangridlock.com/post/let-s-establish-a-functional-congress

11/10/2022

Price Carbon Emissions
The Only Path to Victory
Tom Mast, founder of Solve American Gridlock


It is obvious from the first graph above for the global emissions that all the talk, five-year conferences producing more promises than action, and the hand-wringing about climate change, one would think we were not serious about stopping global warming. The second graph shows a slight trend downward in emissions of CO2, the most damaging greenhouse gas (GHG). However, it is not nearly enough to get the job done, and it shows data only for the U.S. while GHGs in the world’s atmosphere is truly a global issue if there ever was one.

The graph below shows that the reduction in electrical generation by coal from 2005 to 2020 was 63%. Coal is the most CO2 intensive fuel, and it was replaced by natural gas and other sources that produce less or no CO2. This one-time event was responsible for a good part of the recent U.S. CO2 emissions reduction shown above.

Let’s focus on the U.S. alone for most of the rest of this note. Why? Because we Americans have more control, I think and hope, over what happens in our country than elsewhere. If we can get our act together and get control over GHG emissions, there are ways we can motivate the rest of the world to take similar measures.

Why shouldn’t we have a broad-based and fair way to motivate and support this mother of all projects – absolutely dwarfing the construction of the Panama Canal? Why shouldn’t everyone be included – have skin in the game? Why don’t we have a way to put ever-increasing disincentives on all consumption of substances that produce greenhouse gases (GHG) in proportion to the amount of damage they cause? Why do taxpayers have to support large federal subsidies and tax credits on some selected activities in hopes that those will somehow achieve adequate GHG emission reductions? Why shouldn’t market forces drive these decisions as they do for virtually all of our other purchases?

I remember hearing many years ago about the efforts of the Soviet Union to regulate the production of everything from Moscow and how wheat, tractors, and almost everything else were more often than not either in short supply or stacking up in warehouses. I visited China about three years ago and saw huge numbers of completed and partially finished empty apartment houses. The U.S. is using regulation of its oil production and refining industries to reduce their sizes prematurely, leading to shortages and high prices. Now it is trying to correct the imbalances with releases from our strategic reserves. Relying on central controls rather than market forces usually leads to unintended consequences. This applies to the need to reduce GHGs too, the majority of which result from energy sources.

Consider the example of an electrical energy generation company making a decision about an aging coal-fired power plant and considering whether to:
• Continue as-is
• Shut down the plant and don’t replace it
• Switch to natural gas
• Switch to wind, or solar
• Switch to nuclear
This company needs to know much more than it presently can about future demand, projections costs and prices, and the timing of coming changes. It knows how to make such estimates based on market trends, but it can’t predict sporadic centralized decisions.

Consider a family pondering:
• Whether to replace its home heating system and with what and when
• Whether to replace some plastic food storage containers
• Whether to buy a foreign-made item made of synthetic cloth or an alternative
• Whether to cook Atlantic salmon, chicken, or something else tonight
• Whether to use different settings of the home thermostat
• Whether to replace its four-year-old car now or wait
• What large and small decisions to make on several hundreds of other issues

What is happening now?
• Consumer Joe drives a gas hog, has made no effort to control his home heating and air conditioning costs, flies on frequent vacations, and pays nothing extra for his GHG emissions of the tomatoes, shirts, packaging, and hundreds of other purchases he makes. He has no solid reason to change his habits – no pressure. He, along with most other consumers, is doing nothing to fight climate change. He has no skin in the game of global warming.

• Consumer Sally drives a hybrid and keeps her thermostat at energy-saving temperatures. But, she has no idea how the hydrocarbon intensity of fertilizers affects the costs of her vegetable purchases; in fact, it may not because there likely are not any GHG-emission fees imposed on the raw materials for these fertilizers. So, she has no incentive or even any knowledge that one vegetable generates more GHGs to arrive in her kitchen than does another – and it isn’t her fault.

• Consumer Mrs. Green owns no car, but uses public transportation. She tries hard to minimize her energy consumption in her home. She has no knowledge or control of how concrete, steel, shipping, and thousands of other substances and activities are affecting her life or her hydrocarbon consumption, and she couldn’t affect them if she did. Most of these fly below the radar, generating about the same amount of GHG emissions they did some years ago.

• Acme Steel Company is an integrated steel supplier, creating its products from raw materials. The processes consume huge amounts of both heat and electrical energy, both coming almost entirely from hydrocarbon (GHG-producing) fuels. The pricing structure of its energy sources has no direct incentives to reduce GHG emissions. So, the cheapest or most convenient source may well be a serious emitter of GHGs, the same one Acme has been using for many years.

Assume that we have in our state a sales tax system that lets consumers decide whether or not they want to be a part of this system. If they opt out, their credit card is given a special code that eliminates the sales tax from each purchase. Would that work? Would our state have good schools, police and fire departments, highways, and all the rest? I believe the answer is a clear “no”.

What is a carbon pricing system and how would it work? It would place at or near the source of the GHG-producing substance a fee or tax based on the GHG intensity of the substance. Most such substances are hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas generating CO2. This fee would increase annually at a published rate so consumers and industries would be able to plan on the rates and amounts of increasing costs. Supplier all down the supply chains would have to increase their prices regularly to stay in business. As this reduced demand for their products, they would make the appropriate business decisions, cutting back or making other changes. As the fee increased, the consumption of the GHG-producing substances would diminish, making the national total amount of the fees somewhat stable. The fees collected by the government would be returned to consumers, perhaps called a dividend. One might ask whether the consumer’s habits would change if the monies are returned. The answer is “yes”; as prices for something like a gasoline car rose, the consumer would likely spend the dividend on something else other than another similar car, perhaps replacing the car with one of a different technology and/or energy source or even something that would save even more.

Where does the money come from? It will come from the consumers – the source of all money in our economy. Realistically, getting control of global warming is likely to cost consumers some of their income. But, carbon pricing allows them to make their own decisions as to what that cost will be and what choices they want to make.

The recent Inflation Reduction Act included $369 billion in climate change laws, perhaps around $3,700 per family, spread over several years. Consumers will pay this amount ultimately in taxes to reduce this additional $369 billion in additional debt or in inflation making their purchases more expensive. Keep in mind that this Act doesn’t begin to be adequate to get control over GHG emissions; more costs will come if we don’t enact comprehensive Carbon Pricing instead. We are talking about replacing most of the energy systems – developed over 100-200 – years in a much shorter period of time; this is not a trivial task.

So, what are the steps to replacing the present regulatory and subsidy programs with a Carbon Pricing approach?

• Congress creates a Congressional Commission to draft a long-range Blueprint, based on carbon pricing with a dividend back to the consumers and a border adjustment fee to encourage other countries to control GHG emissions. The Commission will be staffed with experts in needed fields including science and economics. It will be given a completion deadline of several months. The final report will include a version understandable to the average citizen.

• Congress will enact legislation based on the Blueprint.