My Plan To Save Democracy

We are living in critical times where the country is divided and the administration has gone off the rails.  Billionaires pay less in taxes than secretaries or firefighters.  Politicians spend their entire terms campaigning and fundraising — and kowtowing to rich donors who shape their legislation so that THEY don’t have to pay the taxes we do.  

Many people are so disgusted that they have checked out — they no longer participate in the political process.

Which is exactly how we got a dysfunctional, corrupt administration putting our democracy at risk.

We need to save our democracy, and I have a plan for that.

But first let me say that I am not one of those people who says all politicians are bad, corrupt bums who should be thrown out on their ears.  I believe most go into politics for the right reasons — to serve their community and make it a better world.  

Unfortunately, they work in a system that forces them to compromise their values.  They HAVE to raise lots of money or they won’t be elected.  Once elected, they HAVE to continuously campaign and paint the other side as unAmerican radicals bent on destroying everything we hold dear.  They HAVE to listen to the rich and accept their influence.  

Because if they don’t, the next guy will — and that guy will win.

We need to buy these good people a chance so they can serve their country.  We have to help them by removing the need to constantly campaign, by removing the need to kowtow to the wealthy, powerful corporations, by removing the need to paint the other side of the aisle as evil — rather than as people we can compromise with.

How to do that?  I humbly offer one simple suggestion (fully aware that simple solutions to complicated problems are often simplistic and naive).  I offer it for discussion as a thought experiment for those interested in improving our system without tossing the baby with the bath water.

With that in mind, my modification would be to do away with re-election campaigns.  Here’s how it would work:

1. Incumbents would be banned from campaigning during their term.  Period. 
2. At the 3/4 mark of their term, said incumbents would declare their intention as to whether or not they desire to stand for re-election.
3. At one month after that 3/4 mark, a voting day would take place in which the only question before voters (for each affected office) would be: Do you wish to keep this politician in office for one more term?  Yes or No.
4. If the majority choose “Yes,” then the politician is automatically re-elected and will serve another term.  The number for a valid “Yes” must be at least 50% plus one of those ballots cast.
5. If the majority choose “No,” then the incumbent is NOT re-elected, will serve out the remainder of their term, and is NOT ELIGIBLE to run.  At that point — and not before — all political parties will nominate candidates for an election to be held no more than three months after the initial polling results are made public. (Yes, 3 months is plenty time)
6. For example, if we are talking about a governor or president, they would make their intentions known after having served three years.  If a Senator, after serving 4.5 years (roughly).  If a Representative, after 1.5 years.
7. Timing of all of these events is, of course, open to revision and is merely given to offer a general idea.

But the point is that with this system, incumbents do not have to worry about money or campaigning — they will be judged by the work they do, and either it will satisfy most, or it will not.

This will save money because parties won’t have to focus on so many campaigns, and the campaign seasons will be necessarily shortened.

Corporate (and other power special interest) influence will be reduced because incumbents will not be so dependent on their money.  They’ll be able to focus on what’s good for us, the People.

Government at least has a chance, then, of working better across the aisle because they won’t have to constantly attack each other.  We are better off when they work together.

NOTE: If people think term limits are helpful, this does not inhibit the implementation of term limits - nor does it depend on them.  If people think all parties are bad, this won’t change that perception, except that the parties will have opportunity to work more cooperatively, which I take to be a good thing. If they think the two-party system is the reason for all this division, that would require a parliamentary system. Our current electoral system will always gravitate toward two sides. That’s outside of the scope of this proposal. 

But if someone thinks ranked choice voting is the key to fairer elections, I’m fine with that. This scheme is well suited to ranked choice voting. 

Whether we like it or not, government is necessary.  Without it, there can be no civil society.  Period.  

But all government is essentially a system in which the politicians must work.  It is the system itself that creates corruption, not the inherent corruption of the politicians.  I propose a system which gives the politicians a fighting chance to actually fight for us.