Month: February 2018

For political junkies, Monday’s release of a new map for Pennsylvania’s Congressional Districts was one of the biggest news events of the 2018 midterm elections. The State Supreme Court imposed new District boundaries for every single district in the state and created more opportunities for Democrats.

The impact of this ruling has national implications. Prior to the new Pennsylvania map, the projections at ScottRasmussen.com showed that even with a decent midterm turnout for the Democrats, the GOP might cling to a narrow 219-216 majority in the House of Representatives. With the new map, the same projections show the Democrats picking up three more seats and winning control of Congress.

Of course, there’s a long way to go until November and the battle for control of Congress may not end up as close as it appears today. But the fact that a court ruling in a single state could alter control of Congress reveals a much deeper problem with American politics. Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote has spent years stating the uncomfortable truth that “American voters don’t select their Representatives, the Representatives select the voters.”

More precisely, both Republicans and Democrats draw district boundaries to select groups of voters who will vote for their team. While there will be elections in all 435 House Districts this year, the way the boundaries were drawn pre-ordained the winner in at least 390 of them.  In November, over 90% of voters will have no meaningful choice and no say as to who represents them in Washington. That’s why Members of Congress typically have more job security than a tenured college professor.

This wretched dynamic contributes mightily to the dysfunction of Congress and to the nation’s toxic political environment. It is time to seriously explore and experiment with other mechanisms for electing Members of Congress.

It’s worth pointing out that the Constitution does not mandate our current system of electing representatives by District. Originally, the states were allowed to select their Representatives in whatever manner worked for them. It would be great to once again allow and encourage states to experiment with new approaches to empowering voters.

One experiment might be to use some form of proportional representation. If 60% of the voters in a state voted for a Republican, 60% of the Representatives would be Republican. That has a certain intrinsic appeal and insures that every vote would truly count. It would also provide an opening for third parties to gain traction because they could attract enough support to win a seat or two in Congress. That can’t really happen in the winner-take-all district approach.

There are other approaches worthy of consideration as well. Check out FairVote.org to learn about Ranked Choice voting and additional alternatives. It would be wonderful for our nation to have state and local governments experiment and see which approaches give voters the greatest power to hold politicians accountable.

The 90% of Congress that the status quo protects from electoral competition won’t like these changes. But, it’s way past time to end the practice of representatives picking their voters.

Writing for The Week, Ryan Cooper made his case that “America’s Constitution is terrible. Let’s throw it out and start over.”

While most Americans revere the document that created our government, Cooper is not alone in his disdain for it. Law professors Adrian Vermeule and Eric Posner expressed their opposition in a book that dreamed of doing away with checks and balances and Constitutional limits on the president. The opposition even includes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has stated that the U.S. Constitution is not a good model for other nations to follow.

Why do they oppose the Constitution? Cooper says “the major problem… is that it creates a system in which elections generally do not produce functioning governments.” He worries that even when one party is completely in charge, only “one big law per year” can get passed. Others express similar concerns about the difficulty political leaders face trying to implement their agenda and guide the nation.

Such comments reveal more about the critics than they do about the flaws of the Constitution. An underlying assumption seems to be that politicians and government must be free to act quickly and efficiently to lead the nation forward. If writing lots of new laws each year—and changing them after every election—was really what the country needed, the Constitution would indeed be a problem.

However, the Constitution recognizes that politicians aren’t nearly as important as they think they are. Positive change in America almost always begins far from the halls of power in official Washington. Two guys who dropped out of college in the 1970s have played a bigger role in shaping the world that we live in today than all 8 presidents who have served since then. Those two dropouts were named Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Their achievements reflect the fact that the culture leads while politics lag behind. In the culture, shared experiences and new technologies empower communities to solve society’s problems. Every day, countless individuals and organizations find ways to make the world a little bit better.

In this model, the best political leaders don’t force their agenda on the public. They don’t pretend that their policies and legislation will determine the fate of the nation. Instead, they recognize that government is supposed to follow the people, not rule over them. Politicians are to perform a modest role of giving voice to the decisions that have already been made by the American people.

Given the ambitions of politicians, it’s easy to understand why they would chafe at this more modest role. For those who live and breathe politics, it’s hard to admit that political fixes cannot solve our nation’s health care and education systems or other problems. Those solutions will come from young men and women working in obscurity today to change the world. They will build upon the accomplishments of Jobs and Gates and create next-generation solutions for this generation’s community needs.

All Americans should be thankful for the fact that the Constitution makes it harder for politicians to block such progress. Even more, we should be thankful that American culture remains deeply committed to our nation’s founding ideals of freedom, equality, and self-governance.

Republicans are understandably nervous about the parallels between the 2010 midterm elections that brought them to power and the 2018 midterms where Democrats envision a return to power.

Eight years ago, a polarizing new president was facing his first midterm election. Progressives and conservatives offered wildly different interpretations of his every word. Despite polls showing his major legislative dream was unpopular, that president relentlessly pursued it. His efforts inspired a resistance known as the Tea Party.

On top of that, unnerving interim elections rattled the president’s party. A Republican won the Governorship in New Jersey which was about as unusual as a Democrat winning a 2017 Senate race in Alabama. And, of course, there was the real shock of Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts. If a Republican could win Ted Kennedy’s old seat in a wave year, it’s certainly easy to imagine Democrats winning 2018 Senate races in states like Missouri, Indiana, and West Virginia.

Adding to Republican nightmares, the general trend goes back a lot further. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all came into power with their party in control of the White House. All three lost Congress during their tenure. Never before in American history have we witnessed such a three-peat. Voters have fundamentally rejected both political parties and are constantly in a mood to throw the bums out.

As we head into the 2018 midterms, there is a reasonable chance that President Trump could become the fourth straight president to lose control of Congress. To win a majority in the House, Democrats need to gain 24 seats. In four of the last ten midterm elections, the party out of power has picked up more than 24 seats and the political environment currently seems strong for the Democrats. It’s easy to identify where the Democrats could make their gains. At ScottRasmussen.com, we currently rate 45 House races as potentially competitive. Thirty-eight of them are currently held by Republicans.

For all the similarities, however, there is one huge difference between 2010 and 2018. It’s the difference between Obamacare and the Republican tax cut.

After it passed, Obamacare never gained ground in the court of public opinion. There were no short-term benefits for voters but many unpleasant surprises. Millions were unable to keep their doctor, buying insurance didn’t mean you could find a doctor who would take it, and the prices went up rather than down. Over time, the reality of Obamacare proved to be such a drag on Democrats that Republicans now hold more political power than at any point since the 1920s.

In contrast, the tax cut has already seen a big jump in public approval because the results have pleasantly surprised voters. When the bill was being debated, nearly half expected their own taxes would go up. Now, 90% are finding more money in their paychecks because their taxes have gone down. Not only that, millions of voters have received cash bonuses and pay raises while the news is filled with stories of companies expanding and hiring more workers. Once again, reality is more powerful than rhetoric.

Republicans undoubtedly face a difficult midterm election this year, but the tax cut legislation may enable them to minimize their losses. It might even be enough for the GOP to retain control of Congress.

Last week, I noted that President Trump won the shutdown because he instinctively understood the strategic situation far better than Senate Democrats, establishment Republicans, and his other beltway critics. He knew he had a stronger position than the Democrats and used that understanding to his advantage.

This week, in his State-of-the-Union Address, the president showed that he intends to press that advantage in ways that will help Republicans on Election Day. That was especially clear in his most memorable line, “Americans are Dreamers, too.”

In just four words, a president not known for his eloquence turned years of Democratic branding and messaging against them. Trump brazenly and succinctly re-defined the public imagery surrounding the term Dreamers in a way that infuriated the political left. Topher Spiro of the liberal Center for American Progress, called it “intentionally divisive.” CNN reported that others thought the line “marginalized immigrants.”

A more accurate description is that the president has effectively marginalized progressives in the immigration debate.

He did so in a couple of ways. First, as Newt Gingrich noted, the president’s phrase “shifted the focus from a small group to the entire nation.” Politically, that’s a very astute move.

Second, and more importantly, the president tapped into the nation’s deeply held belief in America as the land of opportunity. We see ourselves as a country where people are free to pursue their own dreams and make their own life choices. Most believe that Americans have the opportunity to work hard and create a better life for their children and grandchildren.

We know it’s not perfect, but we want to make it better by creating more opportunities for everyone.

In fact, it is this deeply held belief that makes us sympathetic towards those who were brought here illegally by their parents. We understand why parents would want to give their children the chance to live the American Dream and grow up in the land of opportunity. Many of us, myself included, are proud of the fact that so many millions of people from all around the world think our country is the place to pursue their dreams.

But for that to work, we need to insure that our nation is truly a land of opportunity for all.

Seen in this context, the issue is not a technical question of how to address the legal status of the so-called Dreamers. The real question is how can we insure that the American Dream is alive and well for all?

For that question, border security must be part of the answer. Many Americans find it inconceivable that we don’t have better border security to protect our nation against terrorists and criminals. They can’t understand a political class that refuses to acknowledge the importance of such a basic value.

This is the reality that President Trump grasped and acknowledged with his “Americans Are Dreamers, Too” line. He may not present the details as well as the wonks who pore over position papers all day, but he gets the big picture. In that, he’s behaving like a real estate developer who understands that the most important value of any property is the location. And, on the issue of immigration, the location of his position is squarely in line with the American people.