Every two years, the entire United States House of Representatives is up for re-election. This seemingly sets up the chamber to be composed of different members every cycle; however, without term limits, limits on fundraising, and having only one alternative candidate districts turn into reliably red or decisively blue districts, electing the same member or a different member from the same party year after year, cycle after cycle. This creates a multitude of problems such as members not representing the values of their constituents, rather the fringe voters who elect them in the primaries, members becoming corrupt and complacent in the process, and members not serving, but being served by the system. The only way to combat these difficulties is by reforming our electoral system to reconstruct the stagnant body of politicians into a progress-filled chamber.

Initially, The United States House of Representatives was set up to be the people’s house — a place where constituents could easily influence policy and make sure their interests were being heard. Members, unlike the Senate and Presidency, were, and are still up for re-election every two years, so they need to please their constituents or they will be voted out. At least that is how President Washington and the founding fathers envisioned it. Today, we find ourselves with a divided congress, reluctant to make change, along with an American populace who is disgruntled with the process. This explains why on November 9, 2016, according to Real Clear Politics, only 14.9% of Americans approved of the job congress was doing, however contrary to this information, 97% of House members were re-elected (Jarvis).

Precisely where the problem lies is in our electoral system. Every American who voted on November 9, 2016, voted for their House member or their opponent. Whichever received more votes, whether it be by a landslide or by a single vote, would represent the district for two years. This is because we elect our members using a system widely regarded as the First Past the Post system, or FPP (King). In this system, a majority is not needed, but rather a simple plurality. Proponents argue that this is the fairest way to determine winners and losers, because it simply awards the person who received the most votes. I disagree. The First Past the Post system is what has caused us to have unfair, one sided elections and invincible members of the House.

The two-party system is not a problem, yet how the two parties constructed their primaries is. Far-left democrats choose their ideal candidate in their primary, and extreme-right Republicans choose their ideal candidate in their primary for the two to face off. This leaves a multitude of people who identify as centrists, a completely different political ideology, without a candidate. The Centrist Project, while having a different approach to the same goal, describes the utter importance and need of more ideologies within our politics today. “Our political system is at a crossroads. Our two parties are producing zero results for the American people, as they are more focused on running to the extremes to win elections than coming to center to solve problems. The political pendulum swings back and forth, but very little is getting done. It’s time to change the equation (Wheelan).”

Easily, activists turn to a third party, and yet the valiant call for a third party is uniquely unattainable in America because of the monopoly the Republican and Democratic parties have on the system and the difference between federal government and state government. My goal of reforming how US House members are elected, will not affect how Senators, Governors, or the President are elected, nor should it. Having a third party in the House but nowhere else in our government would be odd at best and working as obstructionists at worst. Asking for a third party and desiring more diversity of opinion within our two parties are unalike.

Nevertheless, while third parties are unattainable, electoral reform isn’t. By keeping the districts the same single-member districts they are today, we keep the benefits of our system today, such as having a single member representing the district and being grouped with like minded individuals in the district. The only change that would be noticeably different would be at the polls when we switch to a Ranked Choice Voting System, or RCV.

In fact, according to fairvote.org, this system would not necessarily change who wins but how they win. Former President Barack Obama (D-IL) and his rival, Senator and Former Presidential Nominee John McCain (R-AZ), both agree, RCV is the fairest way to have a representative democracy. For this reason, we find ourselves progressed past the possible issue of RCV helping one party or the other and into the reason of why we would benefit.

To illustrate, RCV ballots look similar to FPP ballots but with a few differences. Imagine for a moment a fierce feline, Mr. Tiger, a moderate feline, Mrs. Cat, and a courageous canine, Mr. Coyote, are running for a House district. They each have some support within their constituency, and no one can predict who will win. In a FPP system, either Mr. Tiger or Mrs. Cat would drop out, or their supporters would consolidate around one or the other because, at the end of the day, a feline is better than a canine. If they split their votes between the felines, the Coyote will surely win. This is, essentially, the problem with the FPP House districts.

Alternatively, in a RCV district, Mr. Tiger’s supporters would rank Mr. Tiger on their ballot as 1, Mrs. Cat as 2, and Mr. Coyote as 3. Mrs. Cat’s supporters would do the same, except with Mrs. Cat at the top. Mr. Coyote’s voters would put him at the top, and would mostly put Mrs. Cat as 2, because a moderate feline is much better than a fierce feline. If the district was 50%+ canine, the canine would win, as he has secured a majority of the votes, but if the district was 50%+ feline, Mrs. Cat would likely win as she is the number one choice of her own supporters, and the number two choice of both Mr. Coyote’s and Mr. Tiger’s supporters.

As a result, ranked choice voting takes out costly primaries and runoffs, as it is an immediate primary, general, and runoff election, all compiled into one election. It is frequently referred to as “instant-runoff voting” (Richie). It combats voter fatigue, but most importantly, it allows centrist candidates, such as Mrs. Cat, a shot at winning a congressional seat.

Thus, by simply reforming how members are elected, we completely alter the outlook on American politics today. Members will be more in line with all of their constituents, not just a select plurality, and will truly have to work for progress. RCV provides voters with more power, better representatives, and a congress working for everyone, not just the extremities.

Works Cited

Jarvis, Sonia R. “Reelection Rates Over the Years.” Open Secrets. N.p., 31 Dec. 2016. Web. 4 May 2017. <https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php>.

King, Charles. “Electoral Systems.” Electoral Systems. Georgetown, 2000. Web. 05 May 2017. <http://faculty.georgetown.edu/kingch/Electoral_Systems.htm>.

Richie, Rob. “Electoral Systems.” FairVote. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2017. <http://www.fairvote.org/electoral_systems#research_electoralsystemsus>.

Richie, Rob. “Ranked Choice Voting/Instant Runoff.” Fair Vote. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 May 2017.

Wheelan, Charles. “Bringing Innovation to Politics.” The Centrist Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 May 2017. <http://www.centristproject.org/mission>.

Illegal immigrants. Working migrants. Cuban boat people. Syrian refugees. American expatriates. The ignition of emotion these words incite relay exhaustive political opinions, yet rarely are these words used correctly. Some of these stimulate a positive reaction, while others, conveniently, are used, by inciting fear, to further a, usually, narrow minded ideology for immediate political gain.

Historically, there has been one group of immigrants that the American populace taunts. From the Irish and Chinese in the 19th and 20th centuries to the Hispanics and Middle Easterners of today, “ethnic” Americans continually feel the need to act superior. The fact is, 98.3% of the American population are immigrants, or descendants of immigrants (Yurth). Our ancestors came here because they knew what America meant. They knew it was the land of opportunity, one where your last name, or how much money your family had would not determine whether your dreams could come true or not. Unfortunately, it appears as if we have grown stagnant in that belief. Immigrants continually pray to be able to come here, some seeking political asylum, others waiting in line, and some, even risking their and their children’s lives by illegally crossing borders to have a chance at a better life in America. They understand what America means. They understand that the American Dream is only achievable in America.

An estimated 42.4 million people in the United States are immigrants (Zong). They have decided to call our country home, whether temporarily or permanently. Not a single immigrant has the same story as the other, yet they are given the same label.

A label that has turned derogatory.

So in lieu of using the blanket statement of “immigrant”, someone decided to create more specific labels. We have decided that all illegal immigrants are bad people, echoed by then candidate Donald Trump in his campaign launch speech, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” We’ve decided that refugees are members of ISIS, and legal working migrants are taking jobs that Americans would have. Oppositely, we have decided that American expatriates are wealthy people living an idealistic lifestyle in Europe or on a tropical island. Each of these labels has a distinct connotation in America, and every time one is used, it hurts America.

Initially, we find people who wait their turn to come here, do so legally, pay taxes, and eventually, if they want, may become a citizen. This is the idealistic way, but is it even achievable? Pablo Pilco, currently living in Montgomery, Alabama, is from Peru. Pilco has met Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa, and in 2000, a Catholic TV network in Alabama asked Pilco to narrate their Spanish programming. Pilco felt called, so he immediately started his immigration process. He had a job lined up, spoke four languages, was well educated, and was called into America because of his expertise. Pilco was able to work, and did so diligently throughout his six years on a work visa (renewed once), was clean with the law, and so he applied for permanent status. He was rejected. After waiting 2 years, hiring a lawyer, spending 6 months getting all the documentation filled out, Pilco was able to re apply for permanent status, which he was granted, 11 years after his initial entrance into the country. He still must carry all of his papers with him everywhere he goes, according to federal law, because he is still deemed an immigrant. Pilco states, “I feel like this is home, but right now, I have to carry my papers, just in case”. Pilco has done things the legal way. It has taken him 11 years just to get permanent status, and that was on a fast track. The current wait, for just the work permit, stands at 23 years for the Philippines, 15 years for Mexico, and China and India are now at 11 years. This is difficult work, work that takes years, and money, for one single reason. Because the immigrant believes that America will work better for them than their home country ever could. But our country’s leaders continue to try to make it harder for hard working individuals to come to help our country. Because of a label.

Additionally, the word refugee stirs up unknown feelings. How do we vet them? Do we know where they are coming from? These are questions echoed by people in both political parties, and while somewhat valid, they do not provide constructive progress to help those such as Asmaa Albukaie, a Syrian refugee living in Idaho. She was married at 14 and had 2 kids by 15. She decided she wanted to study, so she signed up for University in Damascus, Syria. Her husband did not allow her to study, so she hid in the bathroom. Meanwhile, the war torn country of Syria was waging in their civil war, and her husband and two sons were kidnapped. She got her boys back, but never saw her husband again. She fled, first for Jordan, then Egypt. She, an educated woman, applied for refugee status, and after two years of interviews and background checks, she was on her way to the United States. Her and her sons were the first Syrian refugees in Idaho, yet Idahoans already had a preconceived notion of what Syrian refugees were. They knew what the media told them. A man has assaulted her 16 year old son because he was Muslim, and Albukaie is terrified of criticizing any American politician for the fear of being deported (legally, she cannot be deported). Albukaie should not be fearful but instead embraced. She went through years of screening, and years before that, hell, yet she comes to the land of opportunity and is working as a translator, and continues to be mistreated. Because of a label.

Furthermore, Nneka M. Okona, originally from Atlanta, Georgia, decided to travel abroad to Spain to teach English. She hated it, so she decided to return home. Upon her return a year later, she felt like an outsider, in her own country. Nobody cared about, what they thought, was her idealistic time abroad. She was an outsider, simply because she decided to travel and work for a year in a different country. Instead of embracing her upon her return, we have alienated a smart individual who will leave the United States for London. Because of a label.

Margaret Thatcher said, “Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” We are different. We have always been different. But we are quickly letting fear take over. We cannot, because

“Despite our many differences, we are more united than our politics would lead you to believe. We are all the descendants of immigrants and slaves who refused to accept the limits of the Old World. They were men and women who took great risks and paid a great price to earn a better life. This is who we come from. Their blood runs in our veins.” (Rubio)

To label an American anything but is a disservice to both parties. To unlock one’s full potential, they need to be treated as themselves. This provides America with a hard working populace, a unified front, and a citizenry that is proud to call this place home.

Works Cited

Rubio, Marco. “Restoring the American Dream.” Introduction. American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone. NY, NY: Sentinel, 2015. Xxiii. Print.

Yurth, Cindy. “Census: Native Count Jumps by 27 Percent.” Navajo Times. The Navajo Times Publishing Co, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Zong, Jie, and Jeanne Batalova. “Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States.” Migration Policy Institute. N.p., 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Works Consulted

Krogstad, Jens Manuel. “On Views of Immigrants, Americans Largely Split along Party Lines.” Pew Research Center. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Lyman, Brian. “Immigrants Find Legal Paths to U.S. Long, Difficult.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Margolis, Jason. “Idaho’s First Syrian Refugee Wants Americans to Understand Their Country’s Vetting Process.” Public Radio International. N.p., 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.

Okona, Nneka M. “Reverse Culture Shock: An Expat’s Trans-Atlantic Journey…to Herself.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 01 May 2015. Web. 20 Feb. 2017.