The “Minimal Overlap” Solution to Gerrymandered Injustice

...Another generative idea that could not find a home in any media...

Gerrymandering has reached a point of such outrageous blatancy that it seems likely the US Supreme Court will have another look, soon. This NewYorker article dissects the problem, describing some new insights from logic and mathematics that might help the Court better to understand a foul practice that has warped and partly-stolen American democracy. A lot has changed since Justice Kennedy provided the deciding “we can’t see a way to do anything about it” vote, roughly a decade ago.

As I describe elsewhere, voters in many “blue states” have rebelled against their own Democratic politicians, ending gerrymandering via ballot measures.  Hence, with a few dismal exceptions - like Maryland and Illinois - this cheat has become ever-more associated with the Republican Party.

Ideally, solutions should come from negotiated legislation. When power abuse is generated by legislatures themselves, courts must step in. Hence, aware that losing this battle may end their lock on power, attorneys of the right argue that no alternative is intrinsically fair – including “impartial commissions.” Moreover courts are reluctant to interfere with state sovereignty.

Why did Justice Kennedy opt for the status quo, last time? Even in the face of blatant injustice, judges like to have two things:

* A simple, unambiguous metric that proves actionable harm. 

* At least one clean and simple remedy they can point to as an example.

The first requirement has been provided recently by an elegant standard of “voter efficiency.”  

But for the Court to articulate a workable remedy limiting gerrymandering, what’s needed is a fallback solution that is inarguably better than the present state of affairs - one that can be ordered if a state proves unable to devise a fair and impartial redistricting process on its own. To resolve Justice Kennedy’s dilemma, I will propose a solution so simple that it can be expressed in three sentences.

Here are those three sentences:

THE MINIMAL OVERLAP PLAN

1. With allowances for contorted state borders, like Maryland’s panhandle, the districts that are drawn for State Assembly, State Senate and Congress shall meet a basic compactness standard, not falling below a reasonably generous area-to-perimeter ratio limit set by the court.

2. On advice from a non-partisan and unbiased commission, the State Legislature may assign boundaries to the districts of the State Assembly however they see fit.

3. Once those State Assembly boundaries are set, the drawing of boundaries for State Senate and Congressional districts will be computer-generated with the core provision that they must have MINIMAL OVERLAP with each other and with the State Assembly districts, sharing as few voters as practically possible.

There you have it. Three sentences. I’ve offered this suggestion for a decade and I promise that (alas) you’ll find it nowhere else. But what does it mean?

It means that the State Legislature may, if they choose, ignore the ‘neutral commission’ and connive, jigger or gerrymander districts for one house — the State Assembly — limited by some basic rule of compactness. But provision #3 ensures that the districts for State Senate and Congress will be utterly different. The more carefully the legislature’s majority partisans gerry-rig one house, the less effective will be their efforts in the other two.

The chief aim of gerrymander-cheating — to achieve government dominance by the most rabid of hyper-partisans — will be devastated and then grow weaker, over time.

 ==  Illustrating the Minimal Overlap concept ==

For some reason, the notion of minimal overlap seems obvious to some people, while others find it difficult to grasp. So let’s try using illustrations.

Sentence/provision #1 takes care of the worst, egregious cases, illustrated in our first figure.

As Figure 1 shows, a large fraction of gerrymander travesties would be eliminated by a compactness rule, setting upper limits to perimeter-area ratios. This limit can be fairly generous, since the rest of the solution happens through minimal overlap.

In Figure 2 we present a strawman set of six State Assembly districts that are (for the sake of simplicity) highly compact.

Let’s assume that the state legislature has, under rule #2, but limited by the compactness rule #1, arranged these assembly districts to maximize gerrymander benefits for the majority party.

Now, in our third illustration, let’s overlay districts for State Senate. These are required – under the court-ordered remedy of MINIMAL OVERLAP to be computer-optimized so that each senate district shares as little territory and as few voters as possible with any one assembly district.

Assuming the compactness rule is enforced, and that Senate districts are truly drawn according to provision #3, then Minimal Overlap – also called “anti-nesting” -- means that the political character of the Senate will not be warped by gerrymandering. Citizens who were disenfranchised before will likely get attention and an effective vote, in at least one chamber.

The districts for Congress, presumably larger, will nevertheless be kept off-kilter from the gerried State Assembly districts. The party in power will thus only get to have one chamber warped by self-serving, partisan political cheating.

Moreover, even if this method has flaws, it is a clear limiting case that deprives the courts of any “we see no clear remedy” excuse. For all its faults, Minimal Overlap is palliative, equitable and enforceable. It also gives a nod to state sovereignty and legislature privilege, by allowing the legislature to continue complete, discretionary control over one chamber, while the other two are set by a neutral computer reacting to their assembly boundaries.

== Arguments against Minimal Overlap ==

One objection that opponents to such a solution will assert is that voters should be represented by “communities of interest.” For example, one of the commonly used excuses for gerrymandering is that contorted arrangements are necessary in order to ensure that minority populations get some representatives who are of their ethnic persuasion.

There are two, decisive answers:

(a) The “communities of interest” argument is served by having one of three chambers divided that way. So long as those communities of interest are firmly ensconced and represented in one chamber, there is no inherent need for duplication. This is an original merit of bicameral legislatures.

In fact, there are strong arguments in favor of voters facing different coalition needs, in different houses.  Why should their Assembly, State Senate and Congressional delegates be clones of each other?  Apportioned one way — say in the Assembly — the community of interest might map onto national political parties, or else be optimized for ethnic representation. But mapped orthogonally in another house, entirely different matters of community interest — based on geography, markets, or some other basis — might come to the fore. State Senators will discuss different priorities at their town hall meetings than Assembly members, to the benefit of political problem-solving.

Anyway, a state senator who must negotiate among multiple constituencies and interests will be a busier one, and possibly one who achieves a lot more to break down our divisions.

(b) This method is a fallback, intended to persuade the Supreme Court that gerrymandering can be solved intrinsically, in a simple fashion that is inherently more fair than the present, biased-partisan cheating. And what could be simpler than three sentences?

Under the Minimal Overlap method, voters who now feel completely disenfranchised in all ways and in all chambers will thereupon very likely see their position improved. They will gain a chance that at least one of their three representatives will be someone who heeds their concerns. That is an improvement and a palliation of harm, and one that is far from arbitrary.

Voters thus would be guaranteed some relief from a conspiratorial injustice, in a fashion that is simple to execute. States may opt for some other method to eliminate the injustice. Many already have. But this method provides a backstop ensuring that the worst, most pervasive effects of gerrymandering will end.

== Implications of Minimal Overlap ==

Notice one “judo” aspect of this approach — that it allows hyper-partisans to have their way - somewhat - for a while, in one house. This might lessen resistance to reform by the most fundamentally powerful entities in American political life, state assembly members. It also splits away the self-interest of State Senators, reducing their motivation for hyper-partisanship - which is a desirable outcome in its own right.  Why should Assembly members and Senators connive together? Vive la difference!

Moreover, as State Senate and Congressional delegations become more moderate and less partisan, they will then tend to pressure the State Assembly to damp down its own cheating and partisanship.

The Court should also be made aware of the effect that impartial redistricting has had in many blue states and a few purples. While California remains dominated by the Democratic Party, impartial redistricting and other reforms (e.g. non-party primaries) have resulted in less bitterness between parties, not more. Less acrimony. Even in districts that wind up heavily Democratic or Republican, voters who are members of the minority party now feel more listened-to than before.

Earlier I mentioned that Illinois and Maryland and few other Democrat-dominated holdouts still outrageously gerrymander. Former President Barack Obama and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder have specifically targeted these states, arm-twisting state legislators to end gerrymandering. When those Democratic Party holdouts comply, this horrifically blatant cheat and crime will be seen as an odious offense perpetrated primarily by just one party against the citizens of this great nation.

Nevertheless, the best solution will come from the Supreme Court, whose past reluctance must be met with a web of logic that allows no escape or wriggle room for Justices Roberts, Alito and especially Kennedy, erasing their earlier excuses for inaction. Minimal Overlap can serve as a example of a backstop remedy that’s simple, fair, and undeniably better than the outrageous status quo.

======

                     Cross-posted on Medium. 

======

David Brin is a scientist, tech speaker/consultant, and author.  His novel about our survival in the near future is Existence.   A film by Kevin Costner was based on The Postman.  His 16 novels, including NY Times Bestsellers and Hugo Award winners, have been translated into more than twenty languages.   Earth, foreshadowed global warming, cyberwarfare and the world wide web.

Dr. Brin serves on the external advisory board of NASA's Innovative and Advanced Concepts program (NIAC). David appears frequently on shows such as Nova and The Universe and Life After People, speaking about science and future trends. He has keynoted scores of major events hosted by the likes of IBM, GE, Google and the Institute for Ethics in Emerging Technologies.

His non-fiction book -- The Transparent Society: Will Technology Make Us Choose Between Freedom and Privacy? -- won the Freedom of Speech Award of the American Library Association.    (Website:  http://www.davidbrin.com/ )

References:

A Summer School for Mathematicians Fed Up with Gerrymandering, By Dawn Chan, New Yorker 8/2017.    

Gerrymandering American Democracy: More Fragile Than We Think, by David Brin, Ph.D., 2006.  

The Supreme Court case that could shift how Americans vote rests on a simple math equation, Lola Fadulu, Quartz. 2017       

FINAL NOTE: I tried taking this article every media outfit I could find. It's blatantly original and interesting and potentially of real value. When even the "good" outlets are rigidly exclusive, saving all slots for pals, nepotism and established old-farts, we are crippled as an imaginative, problem-solving society.

Electoral votes, gerrymandering and politics redux... what you can do

== Citizens can fight back without waiting for courts or politicians ==

Yes I am talking about you.  And you don't have to agitate or march or petition or write your Congress-critter.

Here's my one final point about gerrymandering and all of that. As I have said repeatedly, there is a way that citizens can rebel against the foul crime committed by both parties against our right to vote. Sure, try all the methods I described last time. Push for other blues states to follow California and Washington by going to neutral (and sane) districting.  Push ballot initiatives. Make a major issue out of the fact that all red states adamantly refuse to stop blatantly cheating. Take it to court... 

...but while all of that is simmering, there is something each of us can do, as individuals. A simple but effective measure.

Re-register to be a member of whatever party rules your district.

Think.  Except in a few blessed states where citizens rebelled, the politicians have rigged electoral maps so you're in district that's overwhelmingly either democratic or republican. This is why especially GOP office holders only care about primaries and their radical base, not the average citizen. But this scheme will fall apart if all the democrats in a republican-gerried district simply re-register as republicans!  (Or vice versa in Dem-gerried districts.)

What will you lose?  Nothing. In fact, you may get a giggle out of shocking your friends with your official party ID!

It does not commit you to that party's agenda.  In merely allows you to vote in the only contest that matters, the primary.

And suddenly, you gain clout! You might make a difference between (say) two republicans, one of them a screeching dogma-harpy and the other a somewhat reasonable Goldwater-type who believes in science and pragmatism, along with a creative free market.  Even if you disagree with the latter candidate over a million matters, she or he is more likely to negotiate.  And possibly even listen to folks like you. Heck, if enough folks follow your lead and re-register, that might encourage the Goldwater types to step up.

This assertion was proved absolutely true when California switched to non-partisan elections, and suddenly two dems were fighting it out in liberal leaning districts. (Gerrymandering as it declines: Surprising results!) And lo... both dems suddenly discovered: "We got a lot of republicans here. If I talk to them, they might help me win." Suddenly, in lefty Santa Monica, long time conservatives who thought their vote would never count woke up to find candidates eager to shake their hands.

Seriously. This is the short term solution.  If the pols rig things so that one party owns a district, then join that party! All you will do is expand the power of your vote and undermine their vile scheme. You'll throw all the connivers' calculations into a cocked hat.  It's called jiu jitsu. We need to become good at it.

And now...

...I had allowed a fair number of political matters to pile up.  So let me follow that last posting with a potpourri of items.

== A sober assessment of 2030 ==

According to a new report, Global Trends 2030, prepared by the National Intelligence Council, comprising the 17 U.S. government intelligence agencies. "We are at a critical juncture in human history, which could lead to widely contrasting futures."

Much of the 2030 report highlights potentially positive developments, anticipating a healthier, more educated and more prosperous global population and a trend toward greater democracy. The report also warns about resource conflicts, the danger of nuclear war and global political gridlock. But its writers have nevertheless faced some criticism for an overly "optimistic" perspective….

On the other hand, as I forecast a decade ago in a report to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (http://www.slideshare.net/davidbrin/war21brin-part1 ), the intelligence community is coming awake to non-state and non-terrorist dangers.  "With more access to lethal and disruptive technologies, individuals who are experts in such areas as cybersystems might sell their services to the highest bidder." The emphasis on individual empowerment was not highlighted in earlier NIC reports. The geopolitical shift from West to East did get attention previously, but one author said in hindsight it could have been given greater emphasis.

Should no group of countries prove capable of that cooperative leadership, the world could suffer, according to one author of the report. "You probably don't want to live in [that world]."

== CALLS FOR SECESSION! ==

Lest we forget: there's an America that hates the rising nerdish era. It isn't taxes but the growing influence of scientists and all manner of geeks, that is behind Culture War, as stoked by certain media chains. One surface manifestation? You've all heard of the petition drive by some mostly southern-red malcontents to secede from the union. Now now... the numbers are small and bearable.... Still, I would love to ask their neighbors for pictures of these folks just a few years back, waving U.S. flags with fevered patriotic gusto while shouting "Yew-Ess-Hay!"

They are the "summer soldiers" Thomas Paine wrote about. They are Jefferson Davis, who led the cadets at West point in swearing undying oaths to their nation "right or wrong," then scampered off in indignation when his "grievances" amounted to whining that his side lost an election for the first time in 30 years. Schoolyard whining whenever the other team gets its turn at-bat. I am not afraid.

A side note. The American Christian communities and seminaries weren't always so doctrinaire on abortion.

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community: This interesting commentary comes from Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan aid and Heritage fellow, now a contributor to the American Conservative. Other dissident conservatives such as David Frum and Andrew Sullivan have joined Bartlett in condemning "epistemic closure" or the fact that today's American right is all about telling itself incantations and stories, with no remaining points of contact with science, pragmatism or reality-based thinking.  I have long predicted the rise of The Adults on the right -- the Buckley and Goldwater types -- finally angry enough to try taking back the conservative movement.

Ah but frankly, though I welcome Bartlett's migration toward the light... and admitting that President Obama is center-right by any rational view of things... I can't help feeling a bit cold.  His missive, while interesting,  comes across as self-referential and you must skim a dozen paragraphs listing his past conservative credentials before getting to the meat, including his concession that Paul Krugman has been right far more often than anyone else on the national scene.

== Will the next Bubble/Crash come from "stuff"? ==

Mark Anderson of the Strategic News Service warns: Because of staggering levels of excess inventory: Like a global tsunami, world markets are about to be hit with a supply of any-price goods in almost every category, from commodities to high-end electronics. Personal computers from champion Lenovo, today, are generating about .5% margins, with Dell and HP reeling. Lenovo doesn't care. Telecoms equipment is going for half price already, and likely will drop from there, via ZTE (whose profit fell 48.5% over the last half-year, and 85% YTY in the last quarter) and Huawei (with only a 22% drop).

Container ships that leased for over $100,000 a day on the world market four years ago, today – thanks to a huge over-buildout by China – are going for $2,000.  Watch out.  This could be the next big bruise.

== Puerto Rican Statehood? ==

Another statehood referendum forPuerto Rico ... and this one passed. Other votes failed in 1967, 1993, and 1998. Though in fact it seems that while the State initiative won the most votes... only 46 percent of people voted in favor of it. A number left it blank. Thus they may require a second ballot initiative asking just if they want to become the 51st State in the Union. Then congress must pass a bill.

I let others list reasons why Puerto Rico won't be the 51st state. My own is the simplest of all and has no implications having to do with ethnicity or language or poverty or any of that.

It is simple. What if they later change their minds? Seriously, we fought a civil war over that and we do not need the kettle re-opened. (Despite occasional fantasies of spinning off Charleston SC as a new Hong Kong. Ah, if only.)  I am perfectly fine with Puerto Rican statehood.  But I want the word "irrevocable" to be on the ballot and it has to pass by 75% or more! Decide your plan: then commit your grandchildren to stick with it.  Make that 80%+.

== Political Potpourri ==

Might open source methods do a far better job of running smooth U.S. elections, rather than the deeply suspect voting machine companies now contracted in so many states?

Articles and speculations by David Brin about Taxes, economics and markets... especially pertinent as the House and Senate start negotiating the Big Budget Deals.

Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who previously had abortions.

For a variety of reasons, the best computer models suggest that - even if culture war ends and the dems and gops negotiate a sensible budget agreement, and many other good things happen -- the US unemployment rates will be stuck well above the Pre-Bush rates, for the foreseeable future.

Ah well.  Let's put politics aside for a while longer.

Who is credible to fix the mess? It's time for grownups.

I’ve been posting some of my better political essays on OpenSalon. Many of my offerings there are more formal. Less strident. Several are nonpartisan, unconventional win-win proposals that might help either major candidate to be successful and help us all. (Folks are welcome to drop by, offering comments, diggs and del.icio.us upticks.)

Another of my essays: “Why The Candidates Should Stipulate,” has been circulating in various forms for years. I know the most recent version was read by people in Obama’s campaign. Could this be what gave them the idea for the following?

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

It does sound like precisely what I recommended. And the latest version is re-posted here: Why Obama Asked McCain to "Stipulate" Common Ground.

Ah, but while those two essays were elevated, offering proposals that rise above partisan bickering...

...there is also a place for partisanship! And hence, the rest of this posting! Fasten seatbelts. My children are at stake. So are yours, whether you have any or not.

= POINT NUMBER ONE: Ask Warren Buffet to design the “bailout” - not those who made the mess =

I’ve long argued that we need to do, in politics and government and management, what medical science did long ago -- try to allocate credibility based upon outcomes, or how often you were right, in the past. I’ve offered some possible ways to do this. And I’m a member of the core group appraising progress in Prediction Markets.

Recall how the people who forecast Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait were not rewarded, but bullied and fired, for the crime of having been right. More recently: Freddie Mac's Chief Risk Officer expressed concerns in mid-2004, that the company was buying bad loans that "would likely pose an enormous financial and reputational risk to the company and the country...leading to his being fired in 2005."

Let me suggest that the current drive toward a $700 billion bailout is being handled all wrong. Some sort of major intervention may be necessary, but who should design it?

As Russ Daggatt points out: “It was McCain’s economic guru, Phil Gramm, who in 2000 successfully fought to exempt all derivatives from any and all regulation, through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

On the other hand, Obama is being advised by Warren Buffett who over five years ago warned against derivatives, which he called “financial weapons of mass destruction.”

Note Gramm’s handiwork: The total derivatives market worldwide is estimated at around $450 trillion – or almost HALF A QUADRILLION dollars. (Do you think a mere $700,000,000,000.00 bailout is going to solve the problems of our financial system? Or is it merely a sop and a prayer to get McCain past November.)

Meanhile, Warren Buffett is actually helping to solve the problem with a massive investment in Goldman.

This must be our fundamental, no-compromise position: No “fix” unless the commission recommending solutions is run by people like Warren Buffet.

Keep this simple. Put Buffet in charge of this thing -- or it’s no deal.

= POINT NUMBER TWO: Connect this scam to others.

Yes, some are pointing to patterns that stretch back to the 80s S&L crisis. But it just occurred to me -- this new shell game is actually another version of "privatizing social security."

Think about it. Both endeavors aim to improve outcomes for those who already hold securities, by adding fresh purchasers and "greater fools" to buy up their bad wagers.

Unambiguously -- and even without deception -- the real winners of privatizing Social Security would have been the existing owners of stock. That’s even if there were no skulduggery, because when you expand the number of buyers, prices go up for those who already have. Duh. But at least the millions of new buyers would have been allowed to make some self-interested decisions. Some might win. A bit. Well, not really.

(Democrats must harp on this central Republican plank! How much would average folks have lost, if the GOP had its way and gambled Social Security in the stock market? Are you listening, Florida?)

Only now, the new scam is inherently far worse. Because - in the greatest act of socialism in US history - they want 300 million new buyers -- or greater fools -- to be forced to buy securities that are all dogs! Moreover, unlike the SocSec proposal, this one comes as a dire emergency measure like the trillion dollar no-bid contract festival called Iraq.

hm... fool me twice... shame on... who?
Is there a senator brave enough to say "filibuster"?

= POINT NUMBER THREE: More on “credibility to lead” =

In 2003, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powel said (in effect) "We are the same gang who coddled both Saddam and bin Laden for years and propped Saddam back into power, in 1991 -- hence trust us as experts how to get rid of him."

In 2008, Bush-Cheney-Paulson-Cox say (in effect) "We are the same gang who created this mess, ignoring every warning -- hence trust us as experts how to fix it.''

It is that “hence” that should win them the Chutzpah Prize of all time.

-- Then there’s this --
WISDOM FROM THE 2008 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM

"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself. We believe in the free market as the best tool to sustained prosperity and opportunity for all."

Ah, but... ABC News reports the bailout comes less than a year after Wall Street’s five biggest firms—Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley—paid a record $39 billion in bonuses to themselves - even though the shareholders in those firms last year collectively lost about $74 billion in stock declines

== Oh but... ==

Dang... when George F. Will abandons the Republicans, you know this ship is beyond worth saving. (Of course, true to habit, George Will spoils it by defending, of all people, SEC chairman Christopher Cox. Brrrr.)

== Fish, or cut bait ==

Okay, I’ve been saying, since 2004, that this crisis is not about political ideology. “Left-right” is pretty meaningless at this point, when small business, the budget and the stock market always do better under democrats and when the Republicans have proposed the biggest acts of pure socialism in US history. When the civil servants and Officer Corps have been beaten into the ground and our childrens’ security sold off.

Okay, time to get busy. And I am talking to you! That means actually offering up some time and money, for the survival of a civilization that’s been good to you. Yes, send $ to Obama, that’s good... though he needs it less than this bunch. These are the contributions that will partly go to changing Congress and statehouses (where the real action is.)

Of course, if you REALLY care... go to your local Congressional candidate. He or she is the focal point for community outreach and get out the vote in your area. (Or, better yet, go to a neighboring district that's actually contested.) You are actually likely to have some fun, meet people. Feel good.

Oh, and you republicans and nonpartisans, who know we need change, but can’t bring yourself to use the dems to do it? Well, your local nonpartisan pollwatching group, like the League of Women Voters or even the county elections board, can use volunteers. (A serious matter, with Diebold on the loose.) So can the Libertarians, who will get saner, trust me, if they get into double digits!

There are even some fun opportunities out there. For example...

“The Jewish Council for Education and Research -- a new pro-Obama political action committee -- is organizing "The Great Schlep," in which hundreds of Jews will make the Southern exodus on Columbus Day weekend, Oct. 10 13. They will travel to the Fort Lauderdale area, where they will visit their grandparents, organize political salons in their condos and eat incredibly bad food. The grandkids also will meet up at a bar one night, which -- if the psychological impact of spending a few days with frail, elderly, widowed relatives is taken fully into account -- may do more to repopulate the world's Jews than the creation of Israel.. More than hockey moms or gun-toting God lovers, old Floridian Jews are the most important demographic in this election. They make up about 5% of the voters in a swing state with 27 electoral college votes. They never miss so much as a condo board vote and are normally reliable Democrats. But...”

Know any Jewish college students back east? Tell em about this!

And find some way of your own to help.

Why The Candidates Should "Stipulate"

It's been said that a politician gets to be perfectly honest just once in a long career -- at its end. Refreshing candor sometimes pours after an old pol has faced the last campaign. No more fund raisers or need to flatter voters. One final chance, before the cameras, to tell the truth.

Frankly, though, we don't have time for that sort of thing today. Indeed, so many politicians hurry through the revolving door, into fat directorships and lobbying firms, that even this source of candor is becoming all-too rare.

Hence, I would like to offer here a suggestion that I've made every presidential election since well before the turn of the century. An unusual idea... perhaps one you'll call mad. And yet, an idea that could empower BOTH the Democratic and Republican nominees to do the nation a tremendous service before the campaign and the election even finish!

Yes, it calls for maturity, common sense and genuine patriotism... all in apparent short supply. Still, do hear me out.

As I've said, only a few officials spill their hearts when they retire, but when they do it can be colorful.

Take the day in 1991 when both Republican Senator Warren Rudman and Democrat Paul Tsongas withdrew from public life. They made headlines by jointly suggesting that everybody was at fault for the country's condition at the time, from then-President Bush to the then democrat controlled Congress, all the way to the American people. The pair castigated politicians of all parties for not telling citizens that burgeoning budget deficits threatened our economic well-being. Responsible economists agreed. A few even credit Rudman and Tsongas for spurring reforms that helped lead to the Clinton era surpluses.

A more recent example of post retirement candor came with ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's revelations about the second Bush Administration. It resulted in a fire storm of attacks from his own party. O'Neill's explanation for this candor? That he was "old and rich" and unafraid to speak his mind.

However one feels about those specific examples, we can all agree that they are rare. One of the chief flaws of our electoral system is that real candor is punished. Both sides may rail against each other, but they'll never aim bad news at us. Even if both nominees believe in their hearts that the public needs to face some hard truth, neither will dare be first to say it, lest the other side take advantage.

Think about it. Throughout the coming election we will learn how the candidates disagree on a myriad issues. We will also hear platitudes, as each tells voters what they want to hear. Logically, there must be a third category -- areas where these well-informed professionals agree with each other, but are afraid to speak out.

Alas, we will never hear whatever topics or beliefs occupy that logical box -- no matter how full or empty it may be -- because neither of them will dare speak first.

Now consider this. There is no political cost to telling voters what you really believe... if your opponent has agreed, in advance, to say the same thing.

Now at first, this statement sounds absurdly simpleminded.

After all, the metaphor for an election is a race. "Give 'em hell" combat, with no holds barred.

==The Third Option: Arguing Like Adults==

But wait. What's wrong with the idea of two leaders finding a patch of consensus amid a sea of discord? We cheer when this occurs among heads of state, overcoming differences between nations in order to sign a treaty that finds common ground. Then why not between candidates?

The process is called stipulation... as when the attorneys representing opposite sides in a trial agree to agree about a set of points. By stipulating these points, they help move the trial forward, focusing on areas where they disagree.

What does stipulation have to do with politics?

And, given the exceptional intensity of partisanship, in recent American political life, is it utterly dumb to even dream of mature behavior popping up, like a flower in the desert?

Bear with me for a little while, in a “what-if” thought experiment. Imagine, along with me, this weird, but possible scenario.

Suppose, amidst the 2008 campaign, Republican candidate John McCain and his Democratic opponent were to suspend their mutual attacks just long enough to get together and meet for an afternoon. First, they and their staffs would cover issues such as scheduling debates, and how to prevent spirals of mudslinging. The people would applaud any agreement on fair campaigning principles. Heck, just seeing them talk to each other like adults might be refreshing. Think how the image might affect the rancorous mood we see in politics today, independent of policy disagreements.

So far, so good.

Only then suppose the two nominees do something unprecedented. They go for a walk, alone. Unpressured by cameras and media flacks, they talk. During this quiet moment before the rough and tumble resumes, they seek just a few points of consensus.

Don’t dismiss this too readily! For all of his faults, McCain has done this sort of thing before. So have Senators Clinton and Obama. In fact, the only ones to object would be those at the extremes, i both parties. Those wanting nothing but take-no-prisoners political war. Of the sort that has come near ruining our country. So, let’s ponder this fantasy a bit longer.

Oh, neither candidate will change the other's mind concerning major divisions. But what about issues where they do agree? Here we have two knowledgeable public persons, presumably concerned about America's future. Surely there would be some areas of overlap? Things that both of them feel we, as a nation, should do.

Now imagine that this overlap this results in a joint statement. Though reiterating a myriad points of disagreement, they go on to make public, simultaneously, their shared belief that America should, for its own good, pass law "X", or repeal restriction "Y". Further, they agree that neither will attack the other for taking this stand.

No longer pandered to, a lot of folks might say -- "Gosh, if both of them agree that the country needs this strong medicine, let's give it some thought."

This would not free candidates completely from the stifling effects of mass-politics. But it could let them display something we've seen rarely... leadership. Even statesmanship. Setting aside self-interest in favor of hard truth, telling the people what they need to hear, whether they like it or not.

==Is This Wish Impossible and Unprecedented?==

Well, actually, it has happened before, during the Presidential campaign of 1940. When Franklin Roosevelt was running for a third term, he approached the Republican candidate, Wendell Wilkie, to negotiate just such a stipulated agreement in the area of foreign policy.

Britain badly needed escort vessels for the North Atlantic and the U.S. had over-age destroyers to spare. But Roosevelt feared political repercussions during a campaign in which he was already under attack for breaking neutrality. Wilkie agreed to FDR's request, and declared that lend-lease would be his policy too, if he were elected.

Everyone benefited -- Wilkie rose in stature. FDR got his policy implemented, and the world was better off because political advantage was briefly put aside for the common good. On other issues, Roosevelt and Wilkie battled as fiercely as ever. Yet, that historical act of stipulation shines as in memory.

How might today's politics differ if two adults -- each the standard bearer of a major party -- agreed to let it be known how, in a few ways, they agree? Might they take on some of our most politically impossible subjects? Perhaps a cow as sacred as the Social Security retirement age, a compromise on gun control, some campaign finance reform, or perhaps shifting strategy in the endless, brain-dead War on Drugs?

That would still leave plenty for us to fight over, don’t worry! But note, there are millions of Americans who deeply yearn for a more mature approach to politics. If a candidate offered this, and the other refused... well, there might be benefits there, as well.

Is this quixotic proposal too much to ask of today's opportunistic brand of politician? Perhaps. Indeed, I have little hope that it has a chance of happening during the 2008 election cycle, while partisanship towers foremost in the minds of the partisan attack dogs who have turned America into a silly place for more than a decade, overshadowing any national good.

Still, our politics can evolve. Only during the most recent generation has the tradition of Presidential debates became so entrenched that no front-runner can now duck them. Ancient hurdles of age, race, and gender are falling.

==So why not barriers against candor?==

Might the Candidates' Post-Convention Summit become traditional, like doldrums in July and mudslinging in October? Someday, the whole nation may look forward to the occasion, once every four years, with a sort of delicious, nervous anticipation -- awaiting the one day when two eminent politicians will say not what is politically wise, but what is simply wise.

David Brin

http://www.davidbrin.com

Twitter                Facebook