Needed: An Administration of National Unity

Given the close results of the 2016 presidential election, in which the president-elect won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, We the People desperately need an “Administration of National Unity.”

President-elect Trump should appoint an administration that reflects a range of views and is dedicated to finding common ground and unifying the country.

The administration should coalesce around the reasons people voted for the president-elect. It should also address the reasons the popular majority voted against him.

Those who voted against him did so primarily because of his public personality, statements and behavior and because of his unpredictability, seeming instability and blatant disregard for the truth.

Others ignored the president-elect's personal weaknesses and voted FOR him primarily because of his pledge to strengthen the economy — an economy that has left them desperate for change.

It should be noted that the Democratic Party’s candidates throughout the primaries all sought the same goal of economic growth and job creation. Rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure was one of the few areas of agreement between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Trump and both parties also agree on the urgent need for unity and tranquility following this bitter election.

Trump himself is already backing away from several of his divisive, broad-brush positions. (It is amazing what Trump's 90-minute, "reality check" with President Obama did!)

Now Trump should appoint (and even pair off) leaders from both parties and elsewhere. He should demand consensus from them all.

He should give the entire nation reason for hope.

The president-elect should demonstrate not just bi-partisanship but non-partisanship. That is evidenced in his own political history. He should demonstrate magnanimity and inclusion.

We know Donald Trump is a striver who yearns to succeed. He should be fully aware that the failure to unite this country will doom the Trump presidency and result in personal failure for one Donald Trump.

America's inequitable Constitution

One of our Oregon Senators, Jeff Merkley, has been trying to put a stop to Senate filibusters that block up or down votes on key legislation.

I signed his on-line petition, but we have a much bigger problem with the Senate. It's well outlined in Robert A. Dahl's book "How Democratic is the American Constitution?"

The short answer is— not very.

And the U.S. Senate is about as undemocratic as can be. The book uses the 2000 census, but nothing has changed since then in terms of the inequity in how the Senate is composed and operates.

Civic's 101 tells us that each of the 50 states, regardless of population, gets two senators.

How inequitable is that and how hard would it be to change the Constitution to rectify matters?

I'll let Dahl, who teaches at Yale, explain using the extremes of Wyoming, the least populous state, and California, the most populous. Their populations differ by a factor of 70. Each has two senators, which means that if you live in Wyoming your vote has the power of 70 California votes in a senatorial elections and deliberations.

Among all federal systems found in 12 countries, only Brazil and Argentina have greater unequal representation, Dahl reports.

Because it would take Senate approval to amend the Constitution, reform can't happen, writes Dahl. The system is inherently rigged against reforming itself. It's a closed system.

Thirty-four Senators from the 17 smallest states — with a mere 7.28 percent of the population — could block an amendment to reform the Constitution.

So Senator Merkley is fighting a tough skirmish in a larger, hopeless battle.

Dahl's book is as fascinating as it is depressing. For more about it go HERE.

One small ray of hope is that he believes moderate changes to make our government at least somewhat more democratic can start at the local and state levels.

An example are two states, Maine and Nebraska, which have voted to apportion their electoral college delegations by the same proportions as the voting results, not winner-take-all. If all states did that, we'd be a lot closer to avoiding debacles like the 2000 election in which the majority of voters elected Al Gore but the electoral college gave the White House to George W. Bush.

If we did that, candidates would campaign in all the states, and so democratize the campaigns.More voters might choose to participate.

The results of these constitutional failings is shameful. Among the world's 22 well-established democracies, the US is in the bottom third in women's parliamentary representation, in the ratio of rich to poor inequity, in energy efficiency, in welfare, in social expenditures, in voter turnout (we are next to the bottom), in incarceration rate (ours is the highest) and in foreign aid (in which we are dead last).

And just think, this is the Constitution we are asked to pledge our support to. It's enough to give one pause — and then some.

Debate a 'People's Choice' pledge

Here’s something that should be a topic during the final two presidential debates but won’t.

Call it “The pledge to abide by the will of the people.”

It doesn’t matter which candidate makes the proposal. I’ll leave it to you to decide who might be most likely to make it and what the effect might be on his strategy.

Imagine Mitt Romney or Barack Obama saying the following: “I challenge my opponent to join me in serving the best interests of this nation and the will of the people by agreeing that the only candidate to assume the office of the presidency should be the one winning the plurality of votes cast nationally.

“In short, the winner would not be chosen by the electoral college, but by the American people.”

“We each recognize that individually we could ‘lose’ under this pledge, but we also know the people would win.”

“So I am willing to pledge that unless I win the plurality of the votes, I will not accept the presidency. Accordingly, I will direct ‘my’ Electoral College electors to vote for you.”

“Will you do likewise?”

I’m certain this would produce a collective gasp and send media analysts scurrying to their computers and calculators.

The best authority on the impact of such a proposal is master poll aggregator and data cruncher, Nate Silver of the web site five thirty eight. If you go to the site, you will see his projections for the likelihood of the electoral college being at odds with the popular vote.

Here’s where we are at this point in the campaign, according to Silver’s “now-cast”:

Electoral College tie (269 electoral votes for each candidate) 1.8%
Recount (one or more decisive states within 0.5 percentage points) 14.1%
Obama wins popular vote but loses electoral college 4.9%
Romney wins popular vote but loses electoral college 4.6%

The last two percentages are directly relevant although the other two are a concern. Just think: "hanging chad."

If Silver is correct, there  is a 9.5 percent chance (or one chance in 10.5) that the majority of the electoral college will be bound to vote for the candidate with fewer votes than his opponent.

Silver’s forecast for election day is that there is a 7 percent chance of a the electoral college voting into office the loser of the national vote.

That, of course, is what happened in the 2000 election. Under this proposal, George W. Bush would have forfeited the presidency to Al Gore.

If, by some remote chance, Romney or Obama does propose the “people’s choice” pledge and the other accepts, the campaigns suddenly would be forced to engage every single registered voter in the country, not just those in so-called swing states.

Would it be more expensive? Yes, but campaign financing and cost is already an issue.

Would it be the right thing to do? Absolutely!