Okay, this is fantasy, I know. But Americans have been screaming about the electoral system for decades. Four things we've heard (justifiable) screaming about are:
1 The Electoral College
2 Gerrymandering
3 Campaign contribution manipulation
4 The disenfranchisement of whole classes of American voters by states.
These are all, I believe, real problems for our democracy. They are designed to increase the power of the few and decrease the voter power of the normal American.
So what do we do?
Well, as I say, there have been many suggestions over the years, and a lot of them are good. They will go nowhere because those in power don't want to change things. The way things are, they stay in power.
With that reality in mind, let me add another suggestion which could address all four of the above-mention problems.
Ready?
Don't have an election.
Or to be precise, don't have an election pitting candidates against each other, at least not at first.
What if we instead had an up-or-down election? That is, when election time comes up, IF the incumbent wants to stay in his/her position, he/she puts in his/her name. People then vote up or down whether or not to keep them in office. If 50% of the people want to keep them, then it's done. They are re-elected. No need to go further.
If, however, 51% or more say that they do not want that person to stay in office, a new election takes place six months later. The incumbent is not allowed to participate.
Why is this a good idea?
The first reason this is a good idea is because it eliminates unnecessary campaigning. If half the people want the person - it requires no campaign to find out. In fact, no advertisements would be allowed. Just a straight up vote. If people are generally okay with the direction the office is taking, we can quickly move on.
Second, the incumbent is then NOT campaigning against another person. They are only running on their record. That helps reduce the negative campaigning that so typifies American politics at virtually every level. There's only one question: is Joe Counsel Member doing an acceptable job?
Third, of course, it's cheaper. Sure, if you throw someone out, there's a second election, but any costs associated with that would be offset by the number of elections that would NOT take place. No prolonged campaigns with millions of dollars in advertising, no placards littering every lawn in town, no obnoxious and deceptive TV commercials, and a lot fewer fundraisers which only make politicians dependent upon big donors.
Fourth, even if there is a second election (with all new candidates), the shortened campaign season reduces the influence of big donors and forces a focus on issues. Or at the very least, it reduces the amount of time we have to endure the agony of the campaign.
Fifth, it increases the independence of incumbents. Instead of constantly raising money, they could actually govern. They would not be fundraising because if they receive less than 50% approval, they would be banned from running.
You don't have to tell me that this scheme would run into all sorts of constitutional and technical problems. The howls from advertisers alone, not to mention the corporations and billionaires who currently own Congress, would make you deaf.
Nevertheless, it is a system that allows people to have a voice in government. It allows politicians to actually focus on their job instead of year-round running. It reduces the influence of big money in politics. It might even reduce the impact on elections that we see in the rampant gerrymandering of our elections.
It has zero chance of becoming reality, this big idea of mine, but it's when we think boldly, when we plan with the interests of voters rather than big money at the forefront, then new and wonderful things just might happen.
Comments
Post a Comment