Ok, this is one of those random, what-if posts that’s intended to make you think and possibly even encourage debate. I’m not saying I think this is a water-tight solution. Rather it’s just something I brainstormed the other day. I haven’t been blogging much lately, and definitely not much of any substance so I thought I’d throw this out there.
Here’s the ‘problem’: Today elections in the U.S. are influenced by huge advertising campaigns. I think it’s safe to say that while a portion of voters vote due to causes they believe in, researching the candidates and picking someone they think will best support them, a huge portion vote because of the campaigns. They recognize the name or face, they saw the person in an ad that sounded good, etc. The backing required for such a campaign means that the higher level the campaign (local->state->federal), typically the wealthier the candidate is. Plus, it typically means backing of a major political party. The political party, IMHO, much like organized religion (not to get too off topic here) is much of what is wrong with this country today. Gathering with other like minded people is great. But homogenizing your beliefs and attacking those counter to your own to the point of zealotry does little to progress our society. The partisan politics of Washington epitomize this point.
So what do you do to resolve this?
- Take away the $$ factor. Make advertising/campaigning equal for the candidates. No one can pay any more or less for ads, campaign trips, etc. Everyone tours together across the country/state/district for a fixed period of time, making appearances of equal intervals at the same location. All this is paid for by the government. Anyone can potentially fill a position in a democracy if elected by their peers.
- Make being associated with a party a factor, but not a deciding one.
How do you possibly accomplish this? I’ve always seen this as the “fair” way to have campaigns run. The problem is you get a scene much like in the recent Pirates of the Carribean 3. The pirates must elect a ‘king’. The reason they never do is they all nominate and vote each for themselves. If anyone can run, won’t we have everyone run? So, you end up having to create some sort of criteria. In a way, this is how the system works today, where the criteria is party support and money. For example, at most ‘debates’ (I put this in quotes as the debates televised today are nothing like a true debate but rather just short stump speeches filled with sugary sound bites), the people allowed to appear must be backed by a major party or have a certain amount of $ in the war chest (typically financed by lobbies, major corporations, wealthy Americans, or themselves…what the hell kind of democratic criteria is that?).
So, we need some other criteria. We need to be careful to protect democracy. Remember, we do not live in a meritocracy, but rather a democracy (technically a representative federalist republic with democratic ideals, but you get the idea). So while we might want to say that having talent or education *should* be a criteria, it cannot. Or at least, it cannot be the only or dominating one.
I propose a series of criteria:
- Government (elected and/or appointed) experience, weighted appropriately.
- Major party (defined as having X number of registered members/supporters as a % of the constituency population) backing
- OR, a number of people’s signatures on a petition.
- Score on a test administered by an independent organization on current and historical facts relevant to the position.
Obviously the relative weighting would have to be worked out. The question of an unbiased testing authority would no doubt be controversial. FYI for the experience what I meant by weight is something like this: past terms appointed or elected at the local, state or federal level would be worth 1 point each for each term. If the position was for the same level as the desired position, it is worth an additional point (experience in the U.S. Senate is likely more useful to a potential president than being a School board member).
What types of candidates does this give you? Candidates who a large number of people back, have experience, and have knowledge about the position. Now doesn’t that sound better than having a bunch of old rich white men fight over a position (oh, yeah, and one woman and a minority male!).
The top X candidates when total scores are determined are the official candidates who can run, are in ads equally, attend all debates, etc.
This is all highly theoretical, completely unlikely to ever happen, and probably full of ethical and logistical holes. Feel free to point them out. For example, it makes it difficult for a new person to enter the fray.
The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor roman. discuss.
I think there is a simpler solution, which is public financing. Of course, most people would shout out “not with *my* money”, so that presents the first problem (everyone wants to believe they participate in the US democracy, but want very little to do with - financially). The solution to this would be two fold: capping the amount that could be spent on campaigns, and making it a requirement that a candidate received a particular percentage of the vote (either primary, or general) before they qualify for reimbursement.
One method for funding this (apart from the token presidential election contribution you can make on each tax return), would be linked to taxation. Make voting your responsibility by linking it to your tax refund. If you vote, you can get your money back, if you don’t then your tax refund is deposited into an elections fund … radical, and loads of room for improvement (naturally). The one major positive element of this method could be an increase in voter participation
One of the problems I see with the model you present is the reliance (in part) to a major party. This would only reinforce the strength of the two party system in place in the US.
While I think the notion of having prior experience may provide a good foundation, in many cases it only solidifies the problems that exist within the political system. Sometimes someone with a new idea, that never ran for office before, could be the best candidate (think Senator Jim Webb in Virginia).
Your third criteria already exists, in Texas at least. There are two ways to get on the federal ballot for state and federal elected positions: you pay, or you get signatures. Most new people (i.e. those that want to challenge the establishment), get signatures. Incumbents pay
I do agree that a great deal of change is needed in the way that elections are conducted, and - more importantly - how people run in them. I do think that the solution is simpler than we all think, but the powers that be have no interest in making it happen, primarily as it would challenge the way they get elected.
July 19, 2007 @ 5:04 amThat’s a pretty well-thought out proposal. I think it has merit. Something has to change because the “system” is clearly broken. More money will be spent on just the presidential campaigns than will be spent on feeding the hungry for a year. And that’s just shameful.
July 20, 2007 @ 10:48 pm