General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The "extreme left" didn't give us Trump. The path to hell was paved by [View all]Achieving big things, like revamping constitutional institutions that no longer serve us, does not necessarily require a step-by-step 50-year plan (or any specified length plan). If we find ways to confront the electorate with questions that promote clarity and consensus on some of the basic principles that define us as a nation, the momentum to reform institutions that are antithetical to those basic principles can build very quickly.
Currently our policy debates are driven by questions like: "Can a proposal to raise taxes by X pass? Do we have the votes to apply those dollars to Y?" (where Y is some modest program that completely fails to address a massive underlying problem).
Those types of questions are all well and good, but they MUST NOT be the ONLY questions. We need to pull debates on policy out of swamp of "this is where we are and the only thing that that is remotely possible is making this little tweak." Of course "practicalities" must be considered, be we are so lost in the swap of practicality that we have completely lost our bearings on fundamental principles.
The types of questions we must be confronting the electorate with are things like: "As a nation, are we committed to the principle of X? In what ways are we failing to manifest our commitment to X?"
It's off the topic of constitutional reform, but my post on the need to put universal health care front and center provides an example.
Re: NPV. I agree it's a longshot and flawed, but working within our states to pass the legislation has value. It provides a context for a "rubber meets the road" decision. To take a position -- whether to support or oppose signing onto the compact -- elected officials and members of the public must answer the question "Should every eligible voter in the nation be given an equal voice, regardless of which state they live in?"
If one answers that question Yes, one is making a commitment to a vital basic principle. And commitment to that principle necessarily has implications beyond solving the "electoral college" problem. The electoral college is an outgrowth of inequities that pervade the system. There are undoubtedly other concrete proposals we could be working to implement that would drive the public discussion in the right direction. NPV is just something that is already 'in the works' and therefore can be capitalized on.