We can increase the public’s control.
Why Not Proportionate Representation?
The first version of this amendment added proportionate representation.
But after we sent it out to 7,000 Americans during a period of public comment,
we ended up removing it. Why?
Countries with proportionate representation have been having the same accountability problems we've been having. It hasn't safeguarded them against corruption any better. It hasn't maintained public oversight of government any better.
It hasn't reduced the problem of partisanship in government.
It hasn't led to any closer attention to the public's needs.
It couldn't hold government officers to the Constitution any better.
Switching to proportionate representation would be about as effective
as changing deckchairs on the Titanic.
Political parties have managed to accrue a great deal of power in government function
without ever being granted any in the Constitution.
This has unbalanced legislative power.
Partisanship’s damaging effects on government function has become a critical concern in our era.
Amendment XXVIII, (proposed), Section 2:
"The United States will guarantee to each State fairly contested and impartially conducted elections, […]. No private person, organization or entity will govern granting, apportionment, districting, or the holding, tallying, monitoring, or auditing of elections."
Sections 1 and 2 work with the Access clause (see Accountability and the Public Elections Clauseand Ending Private, Foreign and Partisan Electoral Control). Nothing in the Constitution allows private entities to control public electoral functions. Privatization of public political functions is dangerous. Parties, which are private organizations, have taken on a number of public political functions. This amendment limits them.