Do we even need a Speaker of the House?
The position reflects the over-centralization of power that undermines our entire system of governance.
The recent furor surrounding the ousting of Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy ignores a far more fundamental question:
Do we even need a Speaker of the House as it currently exists?
I would argue that the position of Speaker of the House as it is currently established is very bad for American governance. The position effectively centralizes power in the majority of the majority party. Speaker McCarthy did not just represent the Republican majority. He represented only a portion of that majority. And the vast majority of those Republicans came from deep Red districts who faced no real opposition in their most recent general election. They were actually elected by the Republican primary voters who composed less than 10% of adults in their district. The general election in their district was a mere formality.
And it was no different under Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi did not just represent the Democratic majority. She represented only a portion of that majority. And virtually all those Democrats came from deep Blue districts where they faced no real opposition in the general election. They were actually elected by the Democratic primary voters who composed less than 10% of adults in their district. The general election in their district was a mere formality.
If we really drill down into the data, the Speaker of the House at any one time represents the views of a small minority within a minority of the most unrepresentative districts in the nation. The only thing that changes is which small minority is in charge. And we wonder why American politics seems to be dysfunctional!
The following is an excerpt from my second book Promoting Progress: A Radical New Agenda to Create Abundance for All. You can order e-books at a discounted price at my website, or you can purchase full-price ebooks, paperback, or hardcovers on Amazon.
Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
Primary Problem
With the general election being meaningless in more than 80% of the House races and the majority of Senate seats, this shifts the center of electoral competition to the primaries of the dominant party. In the 40% of the House seats with virtually guaranteed Democratic victory, the Democratic primary becomes the “real” election. And the same is true of the Republican districts.
In itself, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The main problem is that primary voters are highly unrepresentative of the American public. Primaries have extremely low turnout. In 2020, for example, only 8% of voting-age citizens participated in Congressional primaries. Part of the problem is that a full 129 dominant party primaries were uncontested (Unite America).
Worse, this small number of primary voters is highly unrepresentative of citizens overall, as they are dominated by ideologues. Very liberal voters dominate the Democratic primary, while very conservative voters dominate the Republican primary. The vast majority of voters who tend more toward the center have very little influence within party primaries.
Our partisan primary system, along with single-member districts, unintentionally gives power to a very unrepresentative group of voters:
Voters within uncompetitive districts are already more ideological than the rest of America. By ideological, I mean either more liberal or more conservative depending upon the district or state. For example, voters in San Francisco are far more liberal than the rest of America, while voters from Wyoming are far more conservative than the rest of America.
Voters registered to the dominant party are already more ideological than other voters in the district. For example, registered Democrats in San Francisco are more liberal than San Francisco voters in general.
Primary voters are even more ideological than other voters within their party. For example, Republican primary voters in Wyoming elections are far more conservative than other Wyoming Republicans.
When there is no incumbent in the dominant party in that district, there tends to be a large number of candidates scrambling for the opportunity to win a safe seat that gives them a long political career. This means that the winner often earns well under 50% of the vote.
By the time voters have been filtered four times by the factors listed above, 80% of House seats are effectively elected by a tiny number of unrepresentative primary voters. And it is this group of unrepresentative voters that candidates must win the support of to maintain a career in Congress.
Typical primary voters are far more representative of the most ideological 15% of voters on each side than of the American people overall. This gives a very small proportion of a small number of voters virtual veto power over Congressional legislation.
Extremely unrepresentative primary elections put 80% of Congress under tremendous pressure to maintain the party line on every single issue. One small transgression, for instance, voting for a reasonable bipartisan compromise, can lead to a more committed activist challenging them in the party primaries in the next election. Because turnout in primaries is so low, it is relatively easy for a challenger to mount a grassroots campaign against the incumbent.
For this reason, most Congresspersons do not care what typical voters in their district think. Nor do they care what the American people think. Their biggest concern is what party activists within their district think. Those are the voters who will dominate the party primaries.
It is difficult for a Republican Congressperson elected from an uncompetitive district to be too conservative for their primary voters. It is simple, however, for a single instance of support for moderate legislation to end their political career. The same goes for Democratic Congresspersons in uncompetitive districts.
Thirty years ago it was very rare for an incumbent to lose a primary election, but now it has become much more common. It has been common enough that the word “primaried” has entered the political lexicon.
It is important to note that actual incumbent losses in the primaries are still relatively rare, but even just a few instances send a powerful message: toe the party line or else. Since 80% of incumbents face no real competition in the general election, they have every incentive to avoid offending primary voters and not to care about the rest of the voting spectrum.
Partisan Leadership in Congress
Ideologues are also empowered by partisan leadership in Congress. Until the 1970s, power within Congress was highly decentralized. Power was spread across a large number of committee chairmen. Because this decentralized power structure obstructed much legislation, particularly in the domain of civil rights, Democratic reformers gradually shifted power from the committee chairs to partisan leadership. Then Newt Gingrich in the 1990s further centralized power within partisan leadership to forward the official Republican party platform: the “Contract With America.”
Currently, virtually all substantive legislative business must be approved by the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leaders, and their Whips. Nor can alternative legislation come up for a vote without the support of the House Minority Leader or the Senate Majority Leader and their Whips. Not surprisingly, given the need to accrue seniority to achieve such positions, these leadership roles are monopolized by Congresspersons from non-competitive districts.
Party leadership ensures that the majority within the majority party dominates Congress. By tradition, partisan leadership is determined exclusively by members of their party, so any moderates that have appeal to the other party are placed at an extreme competitive disadvantage. Even when the partisan balance is extremely close, as in 2021-22, Congressional leadership reflects majority support within the majority party, not Congress overall. And the 40% of incumbents from non-competitive districts always make up a majority within their Congressional party.
To the extent that committees still make policy decisions, party leaders control that as well. Party leaders control who gets on key committees, and going against them guarantees you will have far less influence. Individual Congresspersons do have an important influence over legislation based on their committee assignments, but it will be extremely difficult for them to get a vote on their legislation without support from partisan leadership.
Stay tuned for more excerpts!
The above was an excerpt from my second book Promoting Progress: A Radical New Agenda to Create Abundance for All. You can order e-books at a discounted price at my website, or you can purchase full-price ebooks, paperback, or hardcovers on Amazon.
Other books in my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
Would you agree with the idea that most modern democracies are little more than elected oligarchy's?