This series of papers proposes solutions to American governmental problems that could be addressed by a Constitutional Convention. Please refer to American Rebirth Paper No. 0 to understand additional context of this paper and subsequent papers. American Rebirth Paper No. 1 addressed problems with and proposed solutions to Federal elections, American Rebirth Paper No. 2 addressed problems with and proposed solutions to State elections, and this paper addresses problems with and solutions to County elections.
Two problems identified for Federal and State elections are also problems at the County level. These include the following problems:
Two dominant political parties have emerged in American politics. Because it is often easier and more effective to demonize your opponent to gain and retain political power, political campaigns tend to steer away from honest policy debates. In particular, the Democrats, who know that they don’t have facts or history on their side to support their policy goals, resort to lying, name-calling and labeling, character assassination, and propaganda to demonize Republicans.
Politics is driven by money, generally to the benefit of large corporations and well-funded special interests, with the general public mostly ignored. Incumbency is rampant resulting in a feedback loop – money flows to the favored incumbents, they do the bidding of the well-heeled donors, and money flows once again to the incumbent. Going against this symbiotic relationship results in negative money flow for the candidate – the more you fight the system, the more money will be used against you.
The second problem has been of particular interest in less prominent elected county positions, such as County prosecutor or District Attorney, where rich donors can swing an election. For example, billionaire George Soros provided funding to Kim Foxx, who won the Cook County election for the State Attorney position. Just before taking office Foxx announced that her office would not charge shoplifters who stole goods worth less than $1,000. She followed through on her promise, resulting in a massive uptick in the theft of goods in the county.
In addition to the problems above, other problems at the County level include the following:
Politics in Counties with large urban populations relative to the overall population tend to be driven by the urban population. For example, the City of Seattle makes up 33 percent of the population of King County. Given the very liberal nature of Seattle, it is difficult for suburban and rural residents, who are more conservative, to be a factor in county elections.
Other than County Executive, elected positions in the County, such as County Assessor and County Council, receive little attention during the election. Voters often make their selections for these positions based on very little information about the candidate, with many resorting to simply voting for Democrat or Republican based on their usual affiliation. This problem tends to amplify the effect of large donations from individuals such as George Soros because it is difficult for candidates to raise donations for these lesser County positions.
As with American Rebirth Paper No. 1 and No. 2, the premise of this paper is that political parties have proven to be detrimental to government. Is there a way that political parties could be minimized? I believe they can be drastically reduced in power by changing the way we select the County Executive and other County positions.
American Rebirth Paper No. 1 described changes at the Federal level, and Paper No. 2 described changes at the State level. This will cover County elections, and Paper No. 4 will address a fundamental question – would randomly selected representatives do a better job of governing than our current system of elections?
Regarding the problem with large cities driving County elections, another American Rebirth Paper will cover a proposed approach to determining how to define boundaries for States, Counties, and potentially City-States (New York, for example may quality to be a City-State). As part of this future Paper, the concept of removing large cities from Counties will be addressed. For example, King County would no longer include the City of Seattle.
My proposed approach for County governments is to have two elected positions, County Executive and Sheriff. The County is divided into districts (based on both area and population), and a single County Council representative is selected by lottery to represent each district (an at-large position could also be included). All other positions would be either full-time hired positions or positions appointed by County or State-Level office holders.
The County Executive is elected in a manner that is similar to the proposed approach for Governor (See Position Paper No. 2). Each district in the county is allotted electoral votes by a ratio determined by percentage of eligible voters. For example, if the total number of electoral votes is 100 and a district has 20 percent of the eligible voters, they are allotted 20 electoral votes. The electoral votes are given to the candidate with the most votes in the district. This approach for elections will lessen the impact of districts that overwhelmingly vote for one candidate.
In some Counties, the Sheriff is an appointed position, usually by the County Executive with the consent of the County Council. My reasoning for including the Sheriff as an elected position is to provide a balancing feature regarding the approach to law enforcement in the County. It is my opinion that County Executives tend to be more lenient towards law-breakers versus Sheriffs that tend to be more aggressive in apprehending and charging law-breakers. Separating the two positions helps lower the possibility that a very liberal Executive appoints a similarly minded Sheriff, resulting in a reduced level of law enforcement and increasing crime. At the opposite end of the political spectrum, a very conservative Executive combined with very tough-on-crime Sheriff could result in more arrests than are necessarily needed to maintain an optimum level of a safe and civilized society. Communist cities tend to have very little crime, but this is only achieved by a police state that the average citizen is terrified of facing, either as an innocent person or a law-breaker. I’m sure most of you would agree we don’t want a police state.
Apart from County Council government and law enforcement, privatization of all other County activities, such as the Parks Department should be considered. I tend to believe that privatization, done with proper oversite, clearly defined metrics to gauge the performance of the private company, and routine, competitive proposal periods to either reinstate or replace the current company will result in services that are efficient and strive to satisfy the public. An important position in the County government is the role of Contracts Manager (essentially, the Business Manager for the County). The Contract Manager is responsible for overseeing competitive bidding, contracts management, and oversight (including performance reviews) of privatized services.
For example, consider a privatized approach to the Parks Department. The bidding process stipulates that the company shall provide park services that include, but are not limited to, the following:
Clean and sanitary facilities including restrooms.
Well-maintained facilities (such as basketball hoops that aren’t falling down and tennis courts with no cracks).
A safe environment for Park users of all ages.
Opportunities to utilize Park facilities for a rental fee, such as wedding venues and sports tournaments.
The primary metric for judging performance is public satisfaction. This metric can be gauged by requiring the company to provide an easily accessible feedback forum that tracks favorable and unfavorable comments and allows the public to rate performance (such as a one to five-star rating). The company’s profit margin is adjustable (in their contract) based on performance. A five-star rating could result in an incentive bonus, for example. Given profit incentives, a well-run company will seek to pay close attention to complaints and strive to quickly address the complaints. A complaint that the lights at the basketball court were not working would likely be fixed the next day. In contrast, a publicly run Parks Department has less incentive to please the public. If they do a poor job, there is little recourse for the public other than trying to vote the County Executive out of office.
In addition to the Sherriff’s Department, the other key roles for maintaining a civilized and safe society are the County Prosecutor and the Judicial system. Proposed modifications to how judges are selected at the Federal, State, and Local level will be addressed in another American Rebirth Paper. The proposed change to how prosecutors (and similar positions such as District Attorney) are selected is as follows:
The Attorney General for the State is responsible for nominating prosecutors with consent of the state senate.
The Attorney General may, at his sole discretion, remove prosecutors from their position and nominate a replacement at any time.
A prosecutor that is being replaced will remain in office until such time that the senate confirms the replacement.
The senate shall have 30 days to either approve or disapprove the new nominee.
This approach will allow the Attorney General to drive prosecutorial policy across the state. Having the Senate confirmation process in place should provide a check against an Attorney General that is either too liberal or too conservative.