Chapter 15 POWERS Ameen Baker * Jason Chandler * Kim Cox * Mike Davis * Sharon Goldberg

Introduction

Constitutional Engineering: Policy solutions that entail reforming a decision-making process

Flawed decision-making process?

We need a better PROCESS…

Process Reforms New processes will produce better policies: Just Efficient Consistent Safe

Restructure authority in order to solve problems: WHOSE VOICE COUNTS?

Historically American Impulse Our deep faith in the possibility of creating decision-making structures that will render good decisions

Who Makes the Decision?

A call to restructure is always a bid to reallocate power…

Logic & Mechanisms Change of arena New structure New design Produces decisions in the “public interest” Reallocates power

Two Perspectives on Choices 1.Does it “work” to solve the problem? 2. What authority structure will be in place to make decisions?

Variations of Constitutional Engineering Change the membership of the decision-making body Change the size of the decision- making body Shift the locus of decision-making among federal, state, & local governments

Changing the Membership

Qualities/interests shape people’s decisions How can we change the membership? Voters Officeholders All democracies impose voting restrictions

“Voter qualifications” Justified in terms of competence US: exclude children < Supreme Court struck down VA “poll tax” Argument – voting restrictions lead to improved outcomes Do you agree? Changing the Membership

The court says … “like race, color, and creed, wealth is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process….capricious…irrelevant.” Changing the Membership

Voting rights is an ongoing topic in policy conflict Homeless Armed Forces Immigrants Should these groups be allowed to vote? Changing the Membership

Officeholder qualifications Should represent interests of constituents Altering the identity of representatives or constituents’ control over them should change decisions Space Shuttle Commission Example Healthcare Changing the Membership

Representation Descriptive Share important demographic characteristics “think, feel, reason” the same Substantive Share important policy beliefs and goals Accountable Changing the Membership

Race-based Districting Controversy Electing liberal Democrats vs. majority black voting districts Interests are always multi-dimensional Changing the Membership

Solution to representing excluded interests Creation of alternative, parallel institutions to represent weak interests “community action agencies” Changing the Membership

Changing the Size

Wait, size matters? Sure does Changing the Size

Reviewing the size of representative decision making-units Two different viewpoints Bigger is better – One large governing body Smaller is better – Provide chance for more smaller units

Why does this matter? Want to prevent tyranny by groups of like- minded citizens who have interests “adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” – James Madison How do we pick our officials – an important decision! Changing the Size

James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10 A large republic will be more effective because: More “fit characters” Harder for “unworthy candidates” to win over a larger number of people The larger the community, the greater the variety of parties and interests it will contain (less likely a majority of officers will have a “motive to invade the rights of other citizens”) Bigger is better!

Bigger is better!! Are we sure about this? Condo example Changing the Size

Small units: Produce better substantive policy decision Provide greater opportunity for individual involvement More participation = More dialogue and deliberation Smaller is better!

It all just depends ideology Both big or small should not be thought of as purely good in all situations Big is better for national defense Small is better for police protection Middle of the Road

Not whether small or big is a fit-all situation Who is the player in a given circumstance Becomes a contest between particular interests The will of the majority can be adverse to community interests Madison may have made his Constitutional argument that power would be spread to the majority with big government, but it could be said that it kept the power in the hands of a particular minority The Real Issue

Changing Federalism

Federalism involves a division of power Central authority and constituent political units Federal and State government Should the American system be centralized or decentralized? Changing Federalism

Pros of decentralization “Power with the people” Diversity with decision-making “Practice” before policies are implemented nationally Autonomy

Cons of decentralization Authority is granted to local elites Policies maintain status quo Prejudices Little or no redistribution of power or wealth Changing Federalism

Pros of centralization “Power with the unbiased” Technical decision-making Standardization of policies Promotes equality Changing Federalism

The case of welfare Centralization vs. Decentralization

Welfare Entitlement program Centralized Authority rests with federal government States can request permission to deviate from protocols Block grant program Decentralized Authority rests with state governments States have freedom to spend the grants, with limited federal intervention

By examining its decentralized nature, it is easy to understand that federalism is a matter of power. Changing Federalism

The federal government can more easily undertake redistribution State governments have more boundaries The federal government has more money Efficiency? Justice? Public interest? Consider This...

Many advocates for change in federalism seek a change in the balance of power Really Consider This...

Healthcare Applications

Medicare vs. Medicaid Not-For-Profit vs. For-Profit Unions AARP and Part D Medicaid and SCHIP Hospital Systems Electing Legislatures Healthcare Applications