美國選舉制度改革
此條目可參照英語維基百科相應條目來擴充。 (2020年7月28日) |
美國選舉改革是指改變美國選舉和美國現行選舉制度的一系列努力。
美國大多數選舉只選一個人;由比例代表制選出的多名候選人的選舉相對較少。典型的例子包括眾議院,其成員由單一選區的多數票選舉產生。在最近的十年一度的人口普查中,每個州的代表人數是按各州人口的比例確定的。地區界線通常在每次人口普查後重新劃定。這一過程經常產生諸如傑利蠑螈這樣的選區邊界,目的是增加和確保執政黨的多數席位,有時是為反對黨成員提供穩得議席。這是增加在職者尋求連任優勢的許多制度特徵之一。參議院和總統也是通過簡單多數選舉產生的。然而,這些選舉不受傑利蠑螈的影響(緬因州和內布拉斯加州的總統選舉可能是個例外,因為這兩個州的選舉人票部分由國會選區分配)。
選舉改革的建議包括推翻最高法院的決定在聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會,公共和公民選舉資金、資金、限制和透明度的即時決選投票、廢除選舉人制度或註銷影響全國普選州際契約,並改善投票獲得第三方等等。美國憲法賦予各州廣泛的自由來決定如何進行選舉,儘管一些細節(如禁止徵收人頭稅)是聯邦一級的強制規定。
現行體系的成本
選舉的成本一直在上升,尤其是在美國的任何國家職位上。聯邦選舉委員會估計,2012年,「候選人、政黨、政治行動委員會、超級政治行動委員會和政治上活躍的非營利組織」總共花費了70億美元。《瓊斯夫人》雜誌表示,這筆錢被用來「左右選票上的種族」,並進一步指出,選舉成本持續上升。[1] 2010年的國會選舉花費了大約40億美元。[2]
在四年的總統選舉周期中,平均每年的開支不到30億美元。
相對於主要的競選捐款人,也就是裙帶資本家(不管他們被指是「自由派」還是「保守派」),這一數字是很小的。[3]加圖研究所發現,2012年美國聯邦預算中,企業福利總額為1000億美元。這只包括該研究所研究中明確指出的直接補貼。它不包括間接補貼,如稅收減免[4]、貿易壁壘、在「有限時間」之外扭曲的版權法以及美國憲法中提到的其他限制,也不包括其他扭曲美國外交和國防政策以造福美國以外的大公司和擁有大量經濟利益的人。[5]
其他研究估計,大型企業和超級富豪在遊說和政治活動中每投入1美元,就能獲得6至220美元的回報。[6]
這種回報率提高了選舉成本。為了獲得下次競選所需的資金,現任政客們花費大量時間向大型捐款人募集資金,而這些捐款人通常會向其競爭對手捐款,從而實現風險對沖。[7][8]
每年30億美元相當於美國3.16億人每人10美元,相當於2012年1.3億選民每人23美元。
選舉制度改革的建議
喬希·西爾弗的《治癒政治腐敗》將選舉改革分為競選資金、遊說和選舉管理三部分。[9]
大多數提議的改革至少可以部分通過立法來實現,不過有些改革需要修改美國憲法。美國最高法院對「聯合公民」案及相關裁決的裁決將需要一項憲法修正案來永久改變,已經有人提出了幾項修正案。同樣,一些擬議的競選資金和/或競選捐款限制制度已被宣布違憲;實施這些變化可能需要修改憲法。
然而,許多其他的改革似乎可以在不修改憲法的情況下實現。這些措施包括各種形式的政治競選公共資金、信息披露要求和即時決勝投票。《美國反腐敗法》是一系列似乎與美國最高法院現有裁決相符的改革措施之一,該法案由共和黨人特雷弗·波特提出,波特曾在民主黨總統比爾·柯林頓任內擔任聯邦選舉委員會主席。
2021年3月22日,自由之家發布特別報告指出,美國的選舉制度使得兩大黨以外的任何第三勢力難以成為可行的替代選擇,從而為美國越來越嚴重的政治極化奠定基礎。報告提出三項改進建議:
注釋
- ^ Kroll, Andy, The 2012 Election's Price Tag: $7 Billion, Mother Jones, February 1, 2013 [June 15, 2013], (原始內容存檔於2017-05-17)
- ^ Kurtzleben, Danielle, $4 Billion in Election Spending a Drop in the Bucket, US News and World Report, November 9, 2010 [June 16, 2013], (原始內容存檔於2020-12-05) Levinthal, Dave, Bad News for Incumbents, Self-Financing Candidates in Most Expensive Midterm Election in U.S. History, OpenSecretsblog (Center for Responsive Politics), November 4, 2010 [June 16, 2013], (原始內容存檔於2020-12-02)
- ^ DeHaven, Tad, Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget, Policy Analysis (703), Cato Institute, 2014-07-01 [2014-09-01], (原始內容存檔於2020-11-11)
- ^ c.f. Double Irish arrangement
- ^ In any nation, the primary constituency for foreign policy are those with financial interests outside the country. The former Speaker of the U.S. House Tip O'Neill said that, all politics is local. Foreign policy is in essence "local" to people with financial interests outside the country but is not local to many others. Part of this is the Military–industrial complex, mentioned by then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The "Blowback" series by Chalmers Johnson documents some of this. Much higher dollar figures for the cost of crony capitalism can be obtained by looking at the increase in income inequality in recent decades. The average annual income (Gross Domestic Product per person or family) doubled between 1970 and 2010 (adjusted for inflation), but the typical (median) family income increased only 23 percent. The difference, 87 percent amounts to roughly $39,000 per year or $100 per day. This is discussed in more detail in Documenting crony capitalism and Cost of crony capitalism in the United States, based especially on data from the US Census Bureau Table F-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families (All Races): 1947 to 2010, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements, United States Census Bureau, [2012-01-24], (原始內容存檔於2016-01-31) and Piketty, Thomas; Saez, Emmanuel, Atkinson, A. B.; Piketty, Thomas , 編, Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-2002, [2012-02-08], (原始內容存檔於2012-01-07)
|booktitle=
被忽略 (幫助) These data are combined in the "incomeInequality" data in the Ecdat package available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN; see r-project.org). For this $100 per day to be meaningful, we must assume that the rate of economic growth during that period would have been the same as it was if the U.S. political economy had been managed to benefit all equally, as it had been from the end of World War II to 1970, during which period the rate of economic growth was slightly higher than it has been more recently. - ^ Lessig (2011, p. 117)
- ^ Tom Ashbrook, Lawrence Lessig on Money, Corruption and Politics, 90.9 wbur (Boston's NPR), January 2, 2012 [2012-01-23], (原始內容存檔於2016-06-09)
- ^ Herrnson and Facheaux (2000) surveyed almost 2,000 candidates for office in the late 1990s. They found that the time devoted to fundraising tended to increase with the amount of funds raised and the level of the office. They estimated that 23.3 percent of candidates for statewide office spend over half their time fundraising and 55 percent spend over a quarter of their time. Local and judicial candidates need less money, and less than 6 percent of them spend over half their time asking for campaign contributions. Facheaux, Ronald A.; Herrnson, Paul S., Candidates devote substantial time and effort to fundraising, July 7, 2000 [2015-02-25], (原始內容存檔於January 19, 2014)
- ^ Silver, Josh. Discovered: A Cure for Political Corruption. Huffington Post. March 19, 2013 [June 25, 2013]. (原始內容存檔於2017-09-10).
- ^ 方冰. 自由之家呼吁改善美国民主 “别让专制政权借此妄称他们的制度更优越”. 美國之音中文網. 2021-03-26 [2021-05-30]. (原始內容存檔於2021-06-02).