風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
想結束黨派政治嗎？ 以下是行不通的方法和行之有效的方法
https://www.aei.org/articles/want-to-end-partisan-politics-heres-what-wont-work-and-what-will/
作者：諾曼·J·奧恩斯坦 托馬斯·E·曼 (Thomas E. Mann) 華盛頓郵報 2012 年 5 月 17 日
政治功能失調。 黨派之爭達到創紀錄水平。 攻擊政治猖獗。 公眾對國會的認可度也下降了個位數（參議員約翰·麥凱恩喜歡說這取決於血親和受薪員工）。
我們都聽過這樣的哀歎——其中一些是我們自己發出的——華盛頓已經崩潰，我們的政治製度無法解決國家的重大長期問題。 那麽對此可以做什麽呢？ 不幸的是，被拋棄的治療方法常常被誤導，有時甚至比疾病本身更糟糕。 以下是我們應該避免的五種廣受好評的解決方案，接下來是四種有機會產生有意義的變化的解決方案。
1 第三方救援
啊，如果我們有第三種力量，一個獨立的運動，可以向公眾說出簡單的真相，並點燃沉默的中間派多數人圍繞常識性解決方案。
聽起來有點熟？ 近幾十年來，羅斯·佩羅、約翰·安德森和喬治·華萊士都在認真地走第三方路線，盡管隻有華萊士贏得了選舉人票。 但這並沒有阻止《紐約時報》的湯姆·弗裏德曼和《華盛頓郵報》的馬特·米勒等知名專欄作家，以及共和黨克裏斯蒂娜·托德·惠特曼、民主黨人大衛·博倫等前民選官員唱這首海妖之歌。 。 大肆宣傳的美國選舉團——旨在利用互聯網的民主精神為 2012 年競選尋找中間派第三方總統候選人——就是這種方法的一個典型例子。
問題之一是：盡管美國人厭惡我們的政治，但我們中大約 90% 的人認同——或者至少傾向於——兩大政黨之一。 在自稱獨立的美國人中，三分之二的人傾向於某一政黨，並且在投票中的表現就像遊擊隊一樣。 因此，第三方的核心受眾可能是選民的 10%。 所謂的獨立人士是典型的公投選民。 當形勢不好時，他們想把流浪漢趕出去，而不是仔細地歸咎責任或分析替代方案。
第三方的幻想是一位勇敢的政治領導人能夠說服美國人支持開明的碳稅政策； 改革權利； 對教育、能源和基礎設施進行重要投資； 消除稅收漏洞以籌集所需的收入。 但根本沒有證據表明選民會湧向一位直言不諱、獨立、中間派的第三方候選人，他擁護大多數第三方愛好者所青睞的想法。 圍繞這些問題達成共識並不容易，價值觀和利益的差異也不會在無黨派、中間派的陰霾中簡單消失。
問問美國選舉人就知道，盡管花費了 3500 萬美元，但仍無法團結在一個候選人周圍。
2 任期限製將拯救我們
這是治愈美國民主的典型溴化物。 這個例子似乎是不言而喻的：坐在安全席位上的職業政客與選民失去了聯係，變得對華盛頓建製派負有責任，並不再為公共利益行事。 我們被告知，任期限製將讓公民立法者取代他們，他們不太關心連任，而更關心代表同胞行事，從而使國會恢複其作為協商民主堡壘的預期角色。
有效嗎？ 自 1990 年以來，已有 21 個州實施了某種形式的任期限製（其中 6 個州最終推翻了限製），這些經驗給了學者們時間和機會來評估這些限製。 但任期限製並沒有將野心引向正確的、公共利益的方向，反而會產生相反的效果：新立法者立即開始計劃如何達到下一個級別，或者在任期受限時尋找利潤豐厚的遊說工作。 他們沒有動力做長期的事情，也沒有考慮維持自己的機構。 隨著高級立法者專業知識的喪失，權力轉移到長期工作人員和遊說者手中。
“選民應該尋找與常規秩序有利害關係、了解妥協必要性、願意在重要政策領域積累專業知識以及願意傾聽選民意見的候選人。”
如果有的話，選民應該關注那些與常規秩序有利害關係、了解妥協必要性、願意在重要政策領域積累專業知識以及願意傾聽選民意見的候選人——所有這些特征在政客中更有可能出現 擁有更長遠的視野。
3 平衡預算修正案可以修複經濟
另一個頑固的觀點是，要求平衡預算的憲法修正案將結束華盛頓的貪婪習慣，並迫使政客們
做出艱難的財政決策。 畢竟49個州的憲法都有這樣的修正案，為什麽華盛頓沒有呢？
事實上，各州的平衡預算是避免聯邦一級預算的最佳理由。 當經濟衰退發生時，基本經濟理論告訴我們，我們需要“反周期”政策，為疲憊的經濟注入腎上腺素——這意味著更多的政府支出和/或更低的稅收。 各州則相反：經濟衰退意味著收入減少，失業居民的需求增加，因此他們削減支出並提高稅收以保持預算平衡。 在最近的大衰退中，各州的財政拖累高達 8000 億美元，奧巴馬政府的刺激計劃幾乎無法抵消這一影響。 聯邦平衡預算修正案隻會加劇經濟衰退——這在經濟上相當於給貧血病人放血。
眾議院共和黨最新提出的平衡預算修正案將把支出限製在國內生產總值(GDP)的19.9%，並且任何增稅都取決於國會兩院的三分之二多數票。 由於聯邦收入目前僅占 GDP 的 15% 以上，支出占 GDP 的 24%，因此在這種情況下平衡預算將基本上消除除社會保障和醫療保險等大型福利計劃之外的所有政府，或者需要削減預算 這些計劃嚴重。
保持財政靈活性對於美國政治體係至關重要，尤其是在我們的命運越來越不受我們控製的全球化經濟中。 20 世紀 90 年代的經驗表明，白宮和國會可以共同采取必要措施，根據現有規則平衡預算。
4 公共資助選舉將抑製特殊利益
當然，在後公民聯合世界中，政治運動的融資是一場噩夢——秘密大筆資金的狂野西部和特殊利益集團兜售影響力的新鍍金時代。
但為競選活動提供全麵的公共資助並不是答案。 我們理解這一上訴，但如果沒有不太可能的憲法修正案或重組的最高法院對政治競選活動中的私人資金進行限製，公共資金根本無法為候選人提供足夠的資源來克服超級政治行動委員會針對他們的昂貴的“獨立”競選活動。 即便如此，美國步槍協會、美國退休人員協會、商會和美國勞工聯合會-產業工會聯合會等組織的影響力並不僅僅取決於他們在競選活動上花費的資金。 他們還動員強大的一心一意的成員和追隨者向立法者施加壓力； 他們聘請前議員或國會工作人員來獲得權力並提高關鍵問題上的政策專業知識。 競選捐款隻占他們為影響政府而投入的資源中相對較小的一部分。
無論競選資金是否是關鍵，限製私人資金在政治中的流動已被證明是極其困難的，而羅伯茨最高法院和不負責任的聯邦選舉委員會的行動使這幾乎成為不可能。
5 保持冷靜——事情最終會恢複正常
最後，有些分析人士認為我們的時代並不特別特殊，在經濟壓力下，先進的民主國家正在努力解決功能障礙問題，隨著生活平靜下來，我們的政治也會平靜下來。 他們還指出，第 111 屆國會（最後一屆）非常富有成效，通過了醫療改革、金融監管和經濟刺激計劃。
耶魯大學政治學家戴維·R·梅休 (David R. Mayhew) 是這一觀點的傑出擁護者，也是《我們治理的分歧》和《黨派平衡》等書的作者。 他認為，我們這個時代的大多數政治失衡“並不是重大的、永久性的係統性問題”。 “更準確地說，至少在最近幾代人中，許多所謂的問題已被證明是不存在的、短期的、有限的、可以容忍的或可以糾正的。”
毫無疑問，尖刻和僵局是我們政治製度的固有特征，我們確實經曆過幾個充滿壓力和兩極分化的時代，包括內戰前夕和20世紀之交的時期。
然而，將現在發生的事情與內戰前幾年進行比較並不完全令人欣慰。 對奧巴馬總統任期的審視表明，我們所經曆的政治既不是一如往常，也不是一個奇怪的現象。 我們正在目睹前所未有的、不平衡的兩黨兩極分化，共和黨人像議會少數黨一樣反對民主黨提出的幾乎所有建議； 國會的正常秩序幾近消失； 濫用阻撓議事作為阻撓而非異議的武器； 以及無情地剝奪總統的合法性和頒布法律的政策。
鑒於參議員理查德·G·盧格（Richard G. Lugar）（印第安納州共和黨人）等問題解決者的失敗以及
對於理查德·莫多克（Richard Mourdock）這樣的無囚犯黨派來說，沒有理由認為這個體係會很快自我糾正。
那麽，如果這些解決方案不起作用，什麽可以呢？ 有一個更明智、更有希望的改革議程，更側重於修複政黨製度並解決政治黨派之爭的根源和武器。
1 現實的競選財務改革
那麽，如果這些解決方案不起作用，什麽可以呢？ 有一個更明智、更有希望的改革議程，更側重於修複政黨製度並解決政治黨派之爭的根源和武器。
如果沒有一個不同的最高法院，政治中金錢的嚴重問題將會持續下去。 但除了選舉的公共資助之外，還有富有成效的改革可能性。 也就是說，恢複法院在公民聯合案中確認的兩項法律條款的有效性：披露信息以及將獨立支出團體（例如超級政治行動委員會）與其支持的候選人和競選活動分開。
通過直接披露立法，要求及時識別獨立競選廣告的所有重要捐助者（例如，5,000 美元或更多）將是一大進步。 結合國稅局的實際努力，簡單地對非營利 501(c)4 實體執行自己的法規，以防止虛假組織利用法律隱藏政治捐助者，我們將走上真正披露的道路。
國會還可以通過一項措施，大幅收緊反協調條款，要求無限捐款完全獨立於候選人及其競選活動。 即使沒有這樣的立法，司法部也可以在無恥行為最明顯的情況下起訴那些違反協調禁令的人。 （福斯特·弗裏斯為支持裏克·桑托勒姆總統競選的“獨立”努力提供資金，在他的競選飛機上坐在桑托勒姆旁邊，並在競選集會上站在他身後，這表明這種做法已經變得多麽滑稽。）正義不需要 等待聯邦選舉委員會采取行動——這將等待很長時間。
2 將選票轉換為席位
隨著國會選區界線的黨派重新劃分扭曲了美國政治，我們支持重新劃分選區的進程——就像幾個州所做的那樣——利用獨立委員會在尊重社區邊界和真正政治競爭力的基礎上劃定界線。 它不是萬靈藥（這些解決方案都不是），但這樣的努力可以遏製並可能減少我們不斷升級的黨派之爭。
另一種有助於讓選票更準確地反映選民真實感受的選擇是即時決選投票，選民可以對他們的候選人偏好進行排名。 這樣的製度產生了多數獲勝者，消除了攪局者的作用，並減少了小黨候選人的“浪費選票”計算，使他們能夠更充分地參與選舉過程。 以這種方式建立更多合法多數可以擴大主要政黨的選舉範圍，從而減少兩極分化。
3 恢複參議院多數統治
恢複阻撓議事的傳統作用，即允許少數派暫時阻止在具有重大國家意義的問題上采取行動，並不再將其用作阻礙的常規武器，這應該是當務之急。 參議院規則應該隻允許對任何法案進行一項阻撓（現在可以有兩項或更多）。 目前，多數派有責任提供 60 票來打破阻撓議事； 相反，少數黨應該通過辯論來發言並舉行會議，並提供維持阻撓議事所需的 41 票。
參議院的規則應保證對相關委員會報告的行政和司法提名進行讚成或反對投票，並規定保留提名的時間限製。
為了讓真正的多數派最終獲勝，找到一種方法讓少數派對大多數法案提出相當數量的相關修正案，這是一個合理的權衡。
4 擴大選民範圍
考慮一下澳大利亞強製參加投票的製度，不出席投票將被處以 15 美元左右的罰款。 自 1925 年改革以來，這種適度的處罰激勵了 90% 以上的人參與。 澳大利亞政客可以指望他們的支持者會投票，因此他們把重點放在有說服力的中間選民身上。 他們不是圍繞邊緣問題進行競選活動，而是談論經濟、就業、教育——並且他們尋求吸引全體公民中的大多數。
在美國，這種近乎全民投票可能會消除政黨減少對手支持者投票率和動員極端意識形態的動機。 提高總體投票率將有助於使平衡回到大多數美國人實際所處的位置：更接近中間派。
擴大選民範圍的其他有希望的途徑包括自動化登記
流程（這樣選民可以在線注冊，並在從一個州搬到另一個州時隨身攜帶文件），並向所有選民開放初選，就像加州所做的那樣。 隨著時間的推移，公開初選可能會產生更加溫和的民選官員。
最後，如果我們不能以罰款威脅說服更多美國人投票，那麽承諾數不清的財富又如何呢？ 數百萬人排隊等待三月份的超級百萬彩票，有時甚至浪費整個晚上。 另一種彩票怎麽樣，你的選票存根就是一張彩票，獎品是從那些沒有投票的人身上收取的罰款？ 中大獎的幾率約為 1.76 億分之一——我們願意相信，修複美國政治的機會比這要好一些。
托馬斯·E·曼 (Thomas E. Mann) 是布魯金斯學會的高級研究員。 諾曼·J·奧恩斯坦 (Norman J. Ornstein) 是美國企業研究所的常駐學者。 本文改編自他們的書《它比看起來更糟糕：美國憲法製度如何與極端主義新政治發生衝突》。
Want to End Partisan Politics? Here's What Won’t Work — and What Will
https://www.aei.org/articles/want-to-end-partisan-politics-heres-what-wont-work-and-what-will/
By Norman J. Ornstein | Thomas E. Mann The Washington Post May 17, 2012
We’ve all heard the laments — we’ve made some of them ourselves — that Washington is broken, that our political system can’t grapple with the nation’s big, long-term problems. So what can be done about it? Unfortunately, the cures that get tossed around are often misguided, sometimes even worse than the disease. Here are five much-praised solutions we should avoid, followed by four that have a chance to make a meaningful difference.
1 A third party to the rescue
Ah, if only we had a third force, an independent movement that could speak plain truths to the public and ignite the silent, centrist majority around common-sense solutions.
Sound familiar? In recent decades, Ross Perot, John Anderson and George Wallace have pursued a serious third-party route, although only Wallace managed to win any electoral votes. But that hasn’t stopped high-profile columnists such as Tom Friedman of the New York Times and Matt Miller of The Washington Post from singing this siren song, along with former elected officials such as Republican Christine Todd Whitman, Democrat David Boren and many others. The much-hyped Americans Elect group — which was to harness the democratic spirit of the Internet to find a centrist third-party presidential candidate for the 2012 race — is a prime example of this approach.
One problem: Despite Americans’ disgust with our politics, about 90 percent of us identify with — or at least lean toward — one of the two major parties. Among Americans who call themselves independent, two-thirds lean to one of the parties, and behave at the polls just like the partisans. So the core audience for a third party is perhaps 10 percent of the electorate. So-called independents are classic referendum voters; when times are bad, they want to throw the bums out rather than carefully attribute responsibility or parse alternatives.
The third-party fantasy is of a courageous political leader who could persuade Americans to support enlightened policies to tax carbon; reform entitlements; make critical investments in education, energy and infrastructure; and eliminate tax loopholes to raise needed revenue. But there is simply no evidence that voters would flock to a straight-talking, independent, centrist third-party candidate espousing the ideas favored by most third-party enthusiasts. Consensus is not easily built around such issues, and differences in values and interests would not simply disappear in a nonpartisan, centrist haze.
Just ask Americans Elect, was unable to coalesce around a single candidate, despite spending $35 million.
2 Term limits will save us
This is the quintessential bromide for curing American democracy. The case seems self-evident: Career politicians in safe seats lose touch with their constituents, become beholden to the Washington establishment and stop acting in the public interest. Term limits, we’re told, would replace them with citizen-lawmakers who cared less about reelection and more about acting on behalf of their fellow citizens — thus restoring Congress to its intended role as the citadel of deliberative democracy.
Does it work? Term limits of some sort have been implemented in 21 states since 1990 (in six of them, the limits were ultimately overturned), and the experience has given scholars time and opportunity to evaluate them. But instead of channeling ambition in the right, public-interest direction, term limits have the opposite effect: New lawmakers immediately begin planning for ways to reach the next level, or to find lucrative lobbying jobs when they are term-limited out. They have no incentive to do things for the long-term and no regard for maintaining their own institutions. With the loss of expertise among senior lawmakers, power devolves to permanent staff members and to lobbyists.
“Voters should look to candidates with a stake in the regular order, an understanding of the need to compromise, a willingness to build expertise in important policy areas, and an incentive to listen to constituents.”
If anything, voters should look to candidates with a stake in the regular order, an understanding of the need to compromise, a willingness to build expertise in important policy areas, and an incentive to listen to constituents — all features that are more likely among politicians with longer horizons.
3 A balanced-budget amendment can fix the economy
Another hardy perennial is the notion that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget would end Washington’s rapacious habits and force politicians to make tough fiscal decisions. After all, 49 states have such an amendment in their constitutions, so why not Washington?
In fact, the states’ balanced budgets are the best reason to avoid one at the federal level. When a downturn occurs, basic economic theory tells us that we need “counter-cyclical” policies to inject adrenaline into a fatigued economy — meaning more government spending and/or lower taxes. States do the opposite: A downturn means less revenue and more demands from unemployed residents, so they cut spending and raise taxes to preserve their balanced budgets. The fiscal drag from states in the recent Great Recession amounted to $800 billion, which the Obama administration’s stimulus plan barely offset. A federal balanced-budget amendment would only have aggravated the downturn — the economic equivalent of bleeding an anemic patient.
The latest House Republican proposals for a balanced-budget amendment would limit spending to 19.9 percent of gross domestic product and make any tax increases contingent on a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress. Because federal revenue is now at barely more than 15 percent of GDP and spending is at 24 percent, balancing the budget under these conditions would essentially eliminate all of the government other than the big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare — or would require cutting those programs severely.
Maintaining fiscal flexibility is critical in the American political system, particularly in a globalized economy where less and less of our destiny is under our control. And the experience of the 1990s demonstrates that the White House and Congress together can take the steps needed to balance the budget under existing rules.
4 Public financing of elections will restrain special interests
Certainly, post-Citizens United world, the financing of political campaigns is a nightmare — a Wild West of secret big money and a new Gilded Age of influence peddling by special interests.
But full public financing of campaigns is not the answer. We understand the appeal, but short of an unlikely constitutional amendment or a reconstituted Supreme Court placing limits on private money in political campaigns, public funding simply cannot provide candidates enough resources to overcome hugely expensive “independent” campaigns against them by super PACs. Even then, the influence of organizations such as the National Rifle Association, AARP, the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO is not defined simply by the money they spend on campaigns. They also mobilize powerful collections of single-minded members and followers to pressure lawmakers; and they hire former lawmakers or congressional staff members to gain access to power and boost policy expertise on key issues. Campaign donations are a relatively small part of the resources they invest in influencing government.
Whether or not campaign money is the key, restricting the flow of private money in politics has proven devilishly difficult, and the actions of the Roberts Supreme Court and the feckless Federal Election Commission have made it virtually impossible.
5 Stay calm — things will get back to normal eventually
Finally, there are some analysts who do not think that our times are particularly exceptional, that under economic stress, advanced democracies grapple with dysfunction, and that as life calms down, so will our politics. They also point out that the 111th Congress (the last one) was extremely productive, passing health-care reform, financial regulation and an economic stimulus package.
David R. Mayhew, a political scientist at Yale and the author of books such as “Divided We Govern” and “Partisan Balance,” is a prominent adherent of this view. Most of the political imbalances of our era “have not been major, permanent systemic problems,” he argues. “More precisely, at least during recent generations, many alleged problems have proven to be nonexistent, short term, limited, tolerable, or correctable.”
No doubt, acrimony and gridlock are built-in features of our political system, and it is true that we have had several eras of intense stress and polarization, including the period right before the Civil War and around the turn of the 20th century.
Yet, it is not exactly comforting to compare what’s going on now to the years leading up to the Civil War. And an examination of the Obama presidency suggests that we are experiencing neither politics as usual nor an odd blip. We are witnessing unprecedented and unbalanced polarization of the parties, with Republicans acting like a parliamentary minority party opposing almost everything put forward by the Democrats; the near-disappearance of the regular order in Congress; the misuse of the filibuster as a weapon not of dissent but of obstruction; and the relentless delegitimization of the president and policies enacted into law.
Given the defeat of problem-solvers such as Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and the emergence of take-no-prisoners partisans such as Richard Mourdock, there is no reason to think the system will correct itself anytime soon.
So, if these solutions won’t work, what will? There is a more sensible and promising reform agenda, one more focused on fixing the party system and addressing the roots and the weapons of political partisanship.
1 Realistic campaign finance reform
So, if these solutions won’t work, what will? There is a more sensible and promising reform agenda, one more focused on fixing the party system and addressing the roots and the weapons of political partisanship.
Without a different Supreme Court, serious problems with money in politics will endure. But there are fruitful reform possibilities outside the public financing of elections; namely, restoring the effectiveness of two provisions of the law the court affirmed in Citizens United: disclosure and the separation of independent spending groups (such as super PACs) from the candidates and campaigns they support.
Passage of straightforward disclosure legislation requiring the timely identification of all significant donors to independent campaign ads (say, of $5,000 or more) would be a big step. Combine that with real efforts by the Internal Revenue Service to simply enforce its own regulations on nonprofit 501(c)4 entities to keep sham organizations from exploiting the law to hide political donors, and we would be on a path to real disclosure.
Congress could also pass a measure to sharply tighten the anti-coordination provisions that require unlimited donations to be totally independent of candidates and their campaigns. Even absent such legislation, the Justice Department could prosecute those who violate the coordination bans in cases where the brazen behavior has been most evident. (The fact that Foster Friess, who bankrolled the “independent” effort to back Rick Santorum’s presidential candidacy, sat next to Santorum on his campaign plane and stood behind him at campaign rallies shows how farcical the practice has become.) Justice does not need to wait for the Federal Election Commission to act — it would be waiting a long time.
2 Converting votes into seats
With the partisan redrawing of congressional district lines skewing American politics, we support a redistricting process that — like several states have done — uses independent commissions to draw the lines based on respect for communities’ boundaries and for real political competitiveness. It is no cure-all (none of these solutions is), but such an effort could contain and possibly reduce our escalating partisanship.
Another option that would help make votes more accurately reflect the electorate’s real feelings is instant runoff voting, where voters can rank their candidate preferences. Such a system produces majority winners, eliminates the spoiler role and reduces the “wasted vote” calculation for minor-party candidates, allowing them to participate more fully in the election process. Building more legitimate majorities in this fashion could extend the electoral reach of the major parties and thereby reduce their polarization.
3 Restoring majority rule in the Senate
Restoring the filibuster to its traditional role of allowing an intense minority to temporarily hold up action on issues of great national import — and away from its new use as a regular weapon for obstruction — should be a top priority. Senate rules should allow only one filibuster on any bill (now there can be two or more). Currently, the burden is on the majority to provide the 60 votes to break a filibuster; instead, the minority party should have to take the floor and hold it via debate, and provide the 41 votes needed to maintain the filibuster.
Senate rules should guarantee an up-or-down vote on executive and judicial nominations reported out of the relevant committees, with a time limit for holds on the nominations.
In return for allowing true majorities to ultimately prevail, finding a way to allow a minority to offer a respectable number of relevant amendments on most bills is a reasonable trade-off.
4 Expanding the electorate
Consider the Australian system of mandatory attendance at the polls, where not showing up results in a fine of $15 or so. This modest penalty has spurred participation of more than 90 percent since the 1925 reform. Australian politicians can count on their bases turning out, so they focus on persuadable voters in the middle. Instead of campaigning on marginal wedge issues, they talk about the economy, jobs, education — and they seek to attract a majority from the entire citizenry.
In the United States, such near-universal voting could eliminate the parties’ incentive to diminish the turnout of their opponents’ supporters and to mobilize the ideological extremes. Boosting overall turnout would help tilt the balance back toward where most Americans actually are: closer to the middle.
Other promising avenues to expand the electorate include automating the registration process (so voters can register online and carry their documentation with them when they move from one state to another) and to open up the primaries, as California has done, to all voters. Over time, open primaries could produce more moderate elected officials.
Finally, if we can’t persuade more Americans to vote with the threat of a fine, how about the promise of untold riches? Millions lined up — sometimes wasting all night — for a shot at the Mega Millions lottery in March. How about another lottery, where your vote stub is a ticket, and where the prize is the money collected from the fines of those who didn’t vote? The odds of the mega-jackpot were about 1 in 176 million — we’d like to believe that the chances of fixing American politics are a bit better than that.
Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”
