Election Reform
by
David Andronikus
How long can America hope to elect the best candidate for the Presidency with a deteriorating election system? Our current Presidential election system has some serious flaws that could be preventing us from putting the best candidate for the job into office. There are several points to bear in mind when considering the current system. The purpose of this article is to propose a change that will eliminate some of the drawbacks described below, and open a discussion that may move us in the direction of devising a better system.
During any campaign, there is a great waste of time by incumbents and their team, who need to be away a long time from the job in order to campaign. The campaign itself can be prohibitively expensive, creating an inability for a poor person, or even one with modest finances to candidate. Additionally, campaign financing and fund raising often results in obligations, and therefore dependency on the financial supporters.
As every American is aware, there is inevitably a lack of accountability for promises made to voters during the campaign. The present format favors the use by some candidates of propaganda and demagogical tools over the substance of the issues.
Posturing and blustering by candidates during campaigning, primaries and the final election does nothing to help or promote America’s status or prestige around the world, nor does it encourage the efficiency of the President in future international relationships. Even more than that, foreign powers are able to influence the elections by responding and reacting in favorable ways for their favorite candidates and often subtly causing hardships to the one that they feel may not act in their best interest.
We elect a new president, senator, or representative, and put them in a job that, at best, has some similarity with their previous training and experience. About six months is needed to form their team and get the reins of their positions. Their term in office then proceeds with an eye on the future reelection. This seldom parallels the needs of the country. The attention and focus of the President (or other serving official) is no longer given 100% to the job of serving the constituents or the country, but it is focused instead on collecting potential future votes. After 2-3 years in office, at least in the case of the President, he/she needs to spend a great deal of time away from their elected position and responsibilities to insure four more years of what has become a part time job! If the incumbent is somehow re-elected, we have a repeat of the above scenario. If not, we end up with a new person, trying to gain the necessary training and skills to lead our country for 4 or 8 more years.
Is this the best we can do? Does this system reflect what should be in the best interest of our people and our country? We have to ask these important questions and decide whether we have the courage and flexibility to seek better ways of conducting the election process without the drawbacks described above. Do we have the courage to lead the world by devising a better election process, or will we continue to do what we have always done?
All the hoopla of the present election process needs to be replaced with a less costly system, a thoughtful system, which includes remedies for both exhausted personal financial resources and for wasted time. A revised system of election process would allow a qualified candidate of modest means to run, and will make the leaders of the country less dependent on financial supporters. At the same time it will bring more dignity to our system of choosing our leaders.
Perhaps an entirely new and different system of reaching voters needs to be put into place. Each candidate would write a concise description of what and how he/she would do if elected, in clear, tangible, observable terms. The incumbents would present the old brochure, plus a new one showing which points of the old promises were fulfilled and why others were not. In the first year of applying the system, the old brochure would be replaced by a thorough report answering voter-submitted questions. These brochures would be distributed to each registered voter, in the written form, or audio for people having difficulty with reading, and will also be available in public libraries. Public discussions would be organized with representatives of each party to clarify the content of brochures. Media will also participate in this process with the obligation to use respectful language toward the candidates eliminating the embarrassing spectacle of a nation throwing mud and demeaning its future leaders in the eyes of the world. While hard questions might be raised, there is no justification for lack of civility. To allow the people to see the candidates in action, three debates would be organized. They would involve the candidates asking questions of each other, replacing today’s interview format in which the “moderator” has the power to influence the public perception of the outcome by choosing the questions and by the way in which they are formulated. Again, civility would be required from the participants. The audience would even be advised to consider this aspect in their individual rating of candidates.
To maintain the States’ independence, the present Electoral College system would probably have to be maintained, possibly in a modified form.
In order to avoid the enlisting of a myriad of candidates, a selection, similar to the present system of primaries, would be used yet, instead of campaigning, the potential candidates will publish mini-platforms on the Internet and other media, and the public would vote for the acceptance or non-acceptance of the would-be candidates. Of course, the collective wisdom of the American people will improve upon this proposal, hopefully maintaining the main goals: give the chance for qualified but poorer people to candidate, bring dignity to the election process, insure responsibility and accountability of the candidates, reduce as much as possible the power of demagogy and propaganda to promote the election of a candidate, and help each voter to clearly understand what a candidate stands for and keep them accountable for what they promised. The ability to say to varying groups what the candidate thinks they want to hear should become a fossil of the past.
