The Cure for Our Broken Political Process: How We Can Get Our Politicians to Resolve the Issues Tearing Our Country Apart

by Lawrence E. Susskind and Sol Erdman

Record numbers of Americans fear that our political process is broken--for good reason. Our nation faces unprecedented challenges, yet our politicians spend most of their energy attacking one another.... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 159797269X
• ISBN13: 9781597972697
• Release Date: October 2008
• Publisher: Potomac Books
• Length: 216 Pages
• Weight: 1.05 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 6.1" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Ideas we urgently need now

If you're worried about the future of this country, you need to read this book. The authors give the most convincing explanation I've ever read for why our politicians behave so perversely. The authors then offer a practical solution for our broken political system. After reading The Cure, I believe that we could make enormous headway on our most pressing problems - and in ways that Americans across the spectrum could support. To top it off, The Cure is a pleasure to read. Imagine a book on politics that's a page-turner.

Compelling analysis and recommendations

Erdman and Susskind have identified, analyzed and described an undeniable problem in today's American political system. But unlike many analysts, and based on their real-world mediation experiences, they have proposed what is likely a workable solution. A further word about the analysis: The effect of today's exquisitely gerrymandered congressional districts is to put many congressional seats up for grabs every two years. Thus immediately after figuring out how things actually work, virtually the next step for each Representative is to begin worrying about and planning for his or her next campaign. Is Personally Accountable Representation (PAR) the only solution possible? Of course not, but it is a start, certainly will be an improvement over the current system, and ought to begin a vital debate on the problems with the current political system. One just has to turn on the TV to watch demagoguery, half-truths, and pure balderdash in the name of defending the country against, or providing the country with, health-care reform [November 2009]. I thought the use of the fictionalized - or perhaps composite - congressman was very effective. It was very useful for me to sit in the Representative's shoes and deal with decisions and objectives from the inside out. It helped me to comprehend some of the inexplicable behavior that goes on in that organization. I hope that PAR can get a trial in the near future - the current system certainly is broken.

Well worth the read and highly intriguing

The country may be as divided as it could be without erupting into another civil war. "The Cure for Our Broken Political Process: How We Can Get Our Politicians to Resolve the Issues Tearing Our Country Apart" is a political essay coming to American readers with much advice on how to push the country forward and mend the fierce divide that lies between opposing factions. Calling for practicality and an end to no-compromise politics, authors Sol Erdman and Lawrence Susskind believe the future of the United States does not lie on the road that the country has been headed, and offer a level headed solution. "The Cure for Our Broken Political Process" is well worth the read and highly intriguing.

A New Approach for the Politically Disenchanted

The full title of this book is The Cure for Our Broken Political Process: How We Can Get Our Politicians to Resolve the Issues Tearing Our Country Apart by Sol Erdman and Lawrence Susskind. Despite the overly long title, it's actually a fairly quick read and written in a style accessible to the average reader. The premise of the book is that Americans are uninvolved in the political process because they feel their votes don't matter, their perspectives aren't represented in Congress and the current system results in such gridlock that nothing ever gets done. To remedy this, the authors have a number of ideas, but the centerpiece of the book is Personally Accountable Representation. Personally Accountable Representation (PAR) consists of a few elements, the major ones being as follows: - Preferential ballots. Rather than "winner takes all," we would rank our preferred candidates and there would be a handful of winners, likely broken into a third liberals, a third moderates and a third conservatives. - Expanded districts with more representatives. Three representatives per district would likely be ideal to improve the chances of one representative being close to your perspective. - Self-selected constituents. After an election, each voter gets a card listing the winners. The voter then has the option of returning that card to the representative who best represents them. They would then receive regular updates from that representative and hold that individual accountable. There are many other elements, but those stand out. Presumably, implementation of PAR at the House level (Constitutional roadblocks prevent its use for Senate elections) would result in an electorate that is more involved in the political process, a greater sense of citizens being represented, increased accountability in government, and less legislative gridlock. These objectives are lofty--and the authors admit as much--but their hope is that these principles will take root at the grassroots level. In time, once people have seen the effectiveness in the local school councils, board rooms, city government, etc., it is hoped that they will demand change at the state and national levels. So would it work? Tough to say. They make a compelling argument. I'll admit I was a bit skeptical about this book before reading it. Last year's election was long on style but short on substance, and I was tempted to lump this in with the other "change for the sake of change" notions floating around. PAR has some merit, though, and the authors have gone to great lengths to discuss the pros and cons and look at ways of mitigating many of the cons. I think the bottom line is that PAR probably couldn't hurt. Increased voting for its own sake is of little value. Frankly, I'd like fewer people voting if those who did would educate themselves. If PAR succeeded in increasing people's knowledge about candidates and motivated them to stay informed and hold their elected officials accountable, it could