If I were Running Things, Pt. 1

I'm inspired by the bald Italian gangster guy in "Miller's Crossing": "Running things; it's not all it's cracked up to be." A periodic series.

Soccer
I was watching an English Premier League game on TV last night (Everton vs. Newcastle). Something happened that often does--first one team had a guy red-carded (sent off for repeated or severe violation--you can't replace him), then the other team did. The resulting 10 vs. 10 style of play was improved, as it almost always is.

So, my first radical change would be to cut down the number of players on each side by one. The result should be a little less crowding in the box, and generally a little more open play.

Ah, you say, but the players would get too tired this way! Arguable, but you've merely identified the other major improvement I would make: allow two substitutions per half (a third in the first half in case of emergency) instead of three for the whole game. Two more additional substitutions when games go beyond their regular time in cup competitions. The real problem is that there's too much standing around.

Electoral College
Personally, I would junk the whole thing: I can't figure out why we would ever want to have a President that couldn't get more votes than his/her opponent(s). I accept that a runoff might help ensure a clearer decision in the cases (probably quite frequent) that no one gets more than 50% of the votes.

The gimmick passed by the California state legislature--that California would give its electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who got the greatest national popular vote--is too clever and a clear sign of desperation. The idea is that other states would join on the bandwagon; the more that joined in, the greater the probability the popular vote winner would inevitably get the electoral vote nod. I don't think that too many other states share California's particular frustration, and most would correctly calculate that their leverage would be maximized in the short-run by staying out until others go in. So nothing more would happen, and once in a great while (like in 2004) California's electoral votes would defy their voters' choice.

If, though, we can never get rid of the ancient monstrosity, I would make some reform to it. Principally, I would make universal the rule that applies to Nebraska and Maine, that of Congressional district-level selection of electors. Each district would through its vote determine one elector, and two would be determined by the statewide count. The resulting campaigns would be less a high-stakes set of statewide win/loss gambles in a few swing states; the effort would be more diffused, but also focused on areas within states that never got any attention before.

This also would reduce the inequity--each voter would be contributing to the determination of exactly three electors. Finally, it would also throw a complicating factor into the politics of redistricting, one that would quickly lead toward needed national guidelines.

Statehood

It's been about 50 years since we last added any states to the Union (Alaska and Hawaii). It's time for three more.

First, of course, would be the District of Columbia. It's been taxation without representation there since the entity was established; the three Electoral votes DC gets hardly count, as they are a given for the Democrats, not worth a campaign event for either party.

There are no good arguments for denying DC Congressional representation (I mean, representatives that can vote!), only bad ones. The notion that DC representatives are all federal employees and thus shouldn't get involved in state politics is a stupid one; nowadays more of the fed workers live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs, and you don't hear any suggestion they should be disenfranchised. The old argument that DC can not govern itself, as evidenced by the quality of its governmental leadership, has now been substantially addressed.

The only real arguments against DC are pragmatic and partisan ones. First, that it may take a Constitutional amendment to make DC a state, and that's a lot of trouble. Second, that DC senators and representative would almost surely be Democratic, and thus would contribute to the Republicans' imminent loss of control in Congress.

The second additional state would be Puerto Rico. It's time to put up or shut up with all this "commonwealth", "territory", or "domain" stuff. The weird thing is that the US Democratic party is aligned with the status-quo party, while the Republicans are aligned with the Statehood party. This is a formula for stalemate; as with DC, the Republicans would surely not want statehood to become a reality for partisan reasons. PR gets a pretty good deal under the current associate membership arrangement--citizenship without taxation, and the heavy military enrollment level probably counts as a net plus for the residents. The absence of representation or Electoral College votes rankles, though, and it's about time that we recognize that it's the fact of the Hispanic majority there that prevents PR becoming a state, and do something about it.

The third state I would add is one I've never heard mentioned: I believe that Americans Abroad should have direct representation. They are numerous enough, for one thing. The second point is that they are effectively disenfranchised. I know; when I was living abroad, I tried several times but couldn't get New York (my previous residence) to send me an absentee ballot; they couldn't be bothered. Of course, NYS was more than happy to receive my state taxes (and to penalize me when they sent notices I never received to addresses I had departed years before, and yes, they had been informed of the changes). Third, AA would represent a distinctive and important additional perspective (let's call it "influenced by global thinking") to debates on both domestic and foreign issues. Fourth, their partisan leanings are not at all certain, and thus this proposal could be advanced on a bipartisan basis.

I was thinking that perhaps we should consolidate a couple of states--the Dakotas would be the ones. They were originally one territory, and now that North Dakota has depopulated beyond the point where its population would earn it a single representative, and South Dakota's down to one, also, it would make some sense. The problem is that I can not think of a single reason why the residents of those states would accept consolidation. Yes, I know the title here was "If I Were Running Things", but still, I don't need to run things down their throats. It would also make sense to separate Northern and Southern California, as they have different issues, different cultures, and are often broadly opposed to one another; on that one, I'll let them take the initiative. If they have a referendum to split, and it passes, I'd endorse the idea.

I was a little concerned about having a nice pattern of stars for the revised flag with 53 stars, but actually it works pretty well. Seven rows, having a sequence alternating eight and seven stars per row, with eight stars for both the top and bottom rows. Do the math, or draw a picture. It looks nice.