A Better Way to Choose Our President
![](http://www.stateline.org/live/digitalAssets/7283_primary-box.gif)
The current method of nominating candidates for the US Presidency is a disgrace. States leap frogging to be first choosers, too many debates with too many participants, and overall chaos mired in huge sums of money all bespeak the need for improvement. Most of us have no opportunity to vote in the primary process until it has already been decided, and if we live in a State that always votes for a particular party which we do not favor, the electoral college makes our vote meaningless. I have a proposal for a better way.
I have previously written about real campaign financing limitations, but what I most strongly advocate is public financing of campaigns, based on a formula tied in to the number of votes cast for a particular political party in the last primary election. Basing the financing on past party votes will also serve as a deterrent to crossover voting in party primaries. The President and Vice-President are the only offices we elect nationally, so the Federal Government should supervise those elections, including at the primary stage. But beyond changing the financing method and supervisory authority, we also need to regulate the actual voting process.
Our choice of President should start from the State level, with a national day of State Presidential Primaries in which voters in each State will be given a separate primary ballot for each political party, with all the candidates being State residents. Voters will then choose one ballot to submit, marking on it the candidate of choice. The top vote getter in each political party will be the party nominee from that State. Each State can set its own rules for financing and debate, but the ballot and election will be according to national standards. This method of State voters nominating State residents respects one of the concepts behind the electoral college, that electors can do a better job if they are more personally aware of the candidates. Indeed, some candidates in this election may actually campaign as endorsers of candidates from other States. This national election day eliminates the nonsense of leapfrogging caucuses and primaries. Each State, regardless of population size, is also given an equal right to nominate one of its own citizens to be President.
The federal government will then produce and distribute DVDs for each political party, in numbers proportionate to the total votes that party received in the State level primaries. The DVDs will contain 5 minute speeches for each candidate indexed alpha by State. From this point on, all financing will be federally regulated. At this stage, there will be no official debates. Most of the action at this time will involve State favorite sons and daughters who are not viable candidates and who have not already endorsed someone else being politicked to endorse someone else, akin to the role supposedly played by the electors of the electoral college.
Two months after the previous election, a National Top Three Primary election will be held, in which voters again select the party ballot of choice, but this time vote in no order of preference for up to three of the fifty candidates, listed alpha by State. This allows a voter to nominate the local favorite, as well as a more viable candidate for now and a hopeful one for the future. The top three vote getters for each party will be their finalists. The results of this election will also be fertile ground for farming VP nominees. After the unaccountable Vice Presidency of Dick Cheney, we should expect our holders of that office to be legitimate Presidential hopefuls and therefore answerable to the American people, and this new process should give us some input in that direction. Over the two months following the Top Three Primary, the federal government will sponsor three official debates for each party’s three finalists, with party expenditure commensurate with votes received by the party in the that election.
After this second two month period, the National Presidential Primary will be held, at which a voter will again choose a party ballot and this time vote for one of the three finalists to be the party nominee. The prevailing nominees will then choose their running mates and a final four month campaign will begin. Four official federally sponsored debates will be held during this time, with the first and third debate including the top two vote getters as well as the third party candidate who received the highest primary vote, but the second and fourth only including the top two. There will also be two debates between the VP candidates, the first including the top three and the second including the top two.
Four elections in eight months may be expecting a lot from an electorate with shamefully low voter turnout, but starting the nominating process in the home State and then giving the opportunity to consider candidates from every State should make voters feel more empowered. Two months into the voting, after the second election, the field for each party will be reduced to three, so there will never be more than three candidates in a debate, yet the third party candidates will play a role by participating in half the debates. Voters will be able to spend the first four months narrowing the field and the last four months focusing on the finalists. State and local governments could coordinate their elections with the national voting days. All four Presidential elections could be conducted efficiently by mail.
The electoral college would have to be abolished as part of this new approach. The smaller States might agree with abolition, since the new process preserves some of their equality, regardless of population.
4 Comments:
Tom,
Interesting proposal, but it is very unlikely to be accepted by any of the political parties. I cannot imagine any of the three major parties accepting control of their operations by the Federal Government. The parties in order of repulsion of Federal control would all work together to defeat this concept: Libertarian, Republican, Democrat. This proposal reminds me of the bizarre blanket primary that the people of Washington state love. What right has government at any level have to control the internal operations of any group whether it be a fraternal organization, a religious organization, an academic organization, a political party, or a drinking club?
John from Phoenix
Though it is better than the present system, I agree, the political parties probably, in the order you indicate, would oppose the system I proposed. I think the opposition by the two major parties would come from their money/power wielders, because the current, expensive mess gives them more control. After a few more chaotic primaries like the present one, the more grassroots party people may start pushing for something along the lines of my suggestion.
The old blanket primary in Washington State was changed under a court order obtained by the political parties who convinced the court that the parties should have an exclusive primary, open only to voters who do not participate in selecting the candidate of any other party. Some people here were upset with the change, because they thought they would have to register publicly as a voter for a particular political party. But the complainers calmed down once they saw that the only change was that the new primary ballot grouped the candidates by political party and the voter then had to decide which party group to participate in and only mark candidates in that group. Their ballot is still secret, so no one knows what party or candidates a voter chose.
You are correct that the government usually should not be involved in the internal affairs of private organizations, absent criminal or improper discriminatory activity. However, elections to choose public office holders and elections to choose nominees for those offices, do belong to the general public, so through our government we have a right to control how they are conducted. There are some limits on the right, however, as the political parties showed with their successful suit ending the blanket primary in Washington.
So who would be your choice for Washington State US Presidential candidate?
Anna
The highest national profile Democrat in Washington State is Senator Patty Murray, who holds some post in the Senate leadership hierarchy that I cannot even name. Patty is a low profile person. The two other top candidates by virtue of the offices they hold are also women, Senator Cantwell and Governor Gregoire. Our State does not currently have any charisma type candidates, in either party. I would go for Patty, with the idea she could use her influence in endorsing a desirable and viable national candidate. I expect this time around she supports Hillary. To see what Patty is up to, go to her web site and look around.
Post a Comment
<< Home