No Confidence: Taking Government Back From the Political Class

"Freedom is participation in power" ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

In the early days of the United States the framers of the Constitution, having just recently thrown off the shackles of monarchy, feared the concentration of power into an organized political class.

In his farewell address, President George Washington, warned of the rise of political factions in a popularly elected government. He feared that "[t]he alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

Indeed, we have two consecutive Presidents that have made comments, to laughter and applause, about abolishing Congress and establishing a Presidential dictatorship. While these comments were tongue in check and made to friendly audiences to dream of a brave new future, there is no doubt that no one takes seriously the rule of the people. The United States is tightly under the control of an established political class, represented by the Democratic and Republican parties. These factions, alternately fighting and compromising, have divided the country up into slices (Red-States and Blue-States) and worked together to gerrymander us into "safe seats".

Incumbency rate in the United States, that is the rate at which incumbents are reelected, is well above 80%. This is not because the people are pleased with their incumbents. Virtually everyone considers an election, the selection of the lesser of two evils. Those who lean-left will crowd into the Democratic Party and those who lean-right will vote for Republicans. Then these groups will proceed to complain about the state of affairs and how "both parties are to blame". This is done because, despite the growing numbers of independents, we are run by a duopoly entrenched in its place. Our choices are akin to so many Middle Eastern tyrannies, sure the dictators in charge are bad but if we get rid of them the terrorists will take over!

This mentality leads to unpopular incumbents winning election after election not because people support them but because they fear and oppose the alternate party. Many liberals are displeased with the Presidency of Barack Obama and are calling for someone like Hillary Clinton to take his place as the Democratic candidate.

This, of course, will not happen. Ultimately, many on the left, despite their displeasure for the incumbent, will vote for him because the alternative is unacceptable. The right does the same thing. Indeed, many are trying to stem the tied of a possible third candidate running, for fear of "splitting the anti-Obama vote". Despite dissatisfaction with many Republican policies, the center-right will vote for them in droves because they cannot accept Democratic rule.

And so, the system persists and we must continuously elect politicians who have climbed the appropriate political ladder within their respective party, selling us out to please the most potent special interests. We must vote for person we dislike the least in order to prevent someone we truly fear/despise from attaining power. Apathy and indifference has consumed the electorate because there is nothing we can do about it.

But what if there was? What if we had a mechanism that would free us from having to vote for the incumbent of the party that most closely almost kind of encapsulates our ideals? What if incumbents had to first face a vote of "No Confidence" in which the people, with a simple "yes" or "no" vote, determined if the incumbent could run of reelection? I believe this would go a long way towards restoring the people's power.

A motion of no confidence is a mechanism used in parliamentary systems which is utilized to remove the current government. This measure does not dictate how a new government must be formed, what specific changes must be made, but it demands change. This concept should be introduced to American elections in order for people to determine if incumbents will be allowed to seek reelection.

In most cases, as stated above, the incumbent will win. So, once they are in office it is basically up to them when their time in that office is done (with the exception of term-limited offices, of course). It is only natural that many incumbents will begin to feel entitled to their office and take certain privileges with their power. Again, this occurs because the incumbent is elected by a group who largely cannot stand the opposition party and, therefore, will grudgingly vote for them every election cycle.

The introduction of a "No Confidence" vote prior to every election cycle would allow partisans and left and right-wing hardliners to oust incumbents with which they are dissatisfied without fearing they have abandoned power to their ideological opponents.

This "No Confidence" vote would take place some arbitrary time prior to the final day upon which a candidate can officially declare their candidacy.

The question on the ballot would be a simple one: "Should POLITICAN XYZ be allowed to seek reelection for the office of WHATEVER?"

If a majority votes "Yes" then that incumbent may file their paperwork to seek reelection if they so choose. If a majority votes "No" then they are disqualified from seeking reelection to that particular office in that particular election.

This would force the party of the incumbent to produce a candidate which more thoroughly appeals to the constituency. In this way staunchly Democratic districts could oust incumbents they felt didn't truly represent them without fearing an automatic loss to Republicans and vice versa.

In today's terms, the filing date to be on the ballot in the "First-in-the-Nation" Primary in New Hampshire is ten days prior to the primary date. So, conceivably the No Confidence vote for the President could be held six months prior to this date (to give candidates of the incumbent party ample time to campaign and fund raise prior to the election). Since the primary is generally held in early January let's make the No Confidence vote fall on July 4th (a little more than 6 months prior).

If it had taken place this year, and President Barack Obama had lost, we would have a slate of Democrats competing for our time just as Republicans are now. Perhaps, Hillary Clinton would indeed run along with candidates such as Mike Gravel (who is already considering a primary challenge), Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, Howard Dean, Al Franken, or a plethora of others. Alternatively, if he had won he could opt to not run and again open up the ticket.

Installing a vote of No Confidence prior to elections would take time to get used to and probably wouldn't make much of a difference at first. But with time, as people grew more comfortable with the concept, incumbents would suddenly find themselves on the job market. Many districts probably wouldn't even flip parties. But ideas that would otherwise be totally ignored by the party elites would suddenly surge; politicians would be forced to be much more in tune with their constituency than with special interests.

The people would have a much louder voice in elections. They could finally oust incompetent and out of touch career politicians in favor of public servants seeking to make a difference. It would be a periodic reminder to the parties and politicians that holding public office is a privilege not a right.

A vote of No Confidence would weaken the grip of the Republican and Democratic parties. As "safe" seats evaporated they would be forced to spread their resources more widely. This would open up avenues for party insurgents, third parties, and independents. The will of the people would be much more likely to be heeded by those so recently among them and far outside the tentacles of the Washington establishment.

No matter the ultimate outcome of such a system it would certainly rattle the cages of the political class and remind them this is our country.