I don’t think our Founding Fathers would be happy at all with the spectacle of our country today. Ben Franklin probably might not be surprised, but still disappointed. Of course, when serving in national office at the time (let’s use 1789 as a baseline), this was a country of under 4 million people and mostly agrarian in nature (more like a large state in area by comparison today but with a small population). Serving in Congress then, you could personally know your member, and there’s a good chance you would’ve either taken a meal or sat down to drinks with them, either at a local tavern or at their home. Now ? It’s largely impossible when a single House member has to represent what is coming up on a million people (look at Montana). Senators, it’s even worse.
Even the legislature. Back then, you would’ve personally known virtually every person in your constituency, and in some cases, you’d cast your vote for a candidate right out in the open (and there’s a good chance if you were respected enough, you’d have been drafted to run and expected to serve). Now ? Some state legislative members represent more people now than entire members of Congress did 200 years ago. Even my member on a city council represents at or around 15,000 people (and that’s with a 40-member body !). You’re lucky to make contact with a fraction of that number, nevermind there’s no way to personally know all those voters.
Of course, what’s the alternative ? If we go Constitutionally on the number of federal legislators as it specified, it would swell to, what, over 10,000 members ? Forgive me, I recall calculating the exact figure, which escapes me. Sure, you’d have members closer to their constituents, but such a body would be a nightmare in action. Of course, one would say nothing could get done (and that might be a positive), but it would be too unwieldly in organization.
Of course, it might be interesting to see what it would look like in action, if only from an academic standpoint. It might turn out to be better, so long as in electing all those people we eliminated the bureaucratic army in DC that has been out of control for so long (btw, I actually favor eliminating civil service and return to the old standard of patronage. This is simply because that aforementioned army is a permanent political liberal Democrat class that remains with administration after administration, and when Republicans get in, they work mightily to undermine them and they’re almost impossible to remove. A return to patronage means that you bring all your people in, all the way down to janitor, they’re in for 2 years or 4 years or 6 or 8 (tops) and then everybody’s out and replaced by the succeeding party or candidate. Not without its downsides, but after more than about 130 years of it, we can see what a mess it has become).
Your primary idea is interesting. I think mine was revolving groups of states, with the most Republican ones going first and the least GOP last (DC & Hawaii, of which both should have zero impact on the GOP choice — the latter I favor cutting loose as a state, so long as we secure permanent access to our bases. DC should be retroceded to Maryland, which is already a cesspool).
Closed primaries, yes absolutely. Having Democrats come in and choose nominees in close races (be it President or on down) has got to stop. I’ll add in another controversial notion I make no apologies for — raising the voting age back up to 21. Brainwashed schoolchildren in college have no business casting votes, and most of those do so where they go to school (where they have no vested long-term interest in that given community), and that has to stop. The sole exception to that is 18-21 military. You’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to vote (and drink — lower the age back to 18. I’d rather college students get drunk than vote, anyhow). ;-)
Our disagreements about the whole Romney = Obama thing aside, that was a great post.