How would you pick a President?

[Mark]

I will take it for granted that no one here seriously believes that John Kerry and George Bush represent the two most qualified people to lead this country. That is, of all the people you can think of, neither acheives the closest approximation of your ideal characteristics of a leader- at least someone, or possibly many, else does.

Given that, and if you don't agree assume for the sake of argument that you do, it seems obvious that the system for developing, selecting, and electing Presidents in the U.S. doesn't produce the best outcomes. These do not seem like the people with the best ideas, the best experience, the best connections, the best speech or, somewhat cynically, the best blend and compromise of all possible characteristics.

What in the system is at fault for this? Is something far back in the line, generally the circumstances that most politicians seem to share in common with respect to profession, age, etc the problem? Is it the process by which they have to run for office, or by which we select them? Is the campaign process specifically unfair to what we may feel are the "best" candidates? Is the problem that there exists a class of politicians and candidates at all, and we would be better served by some more direct form of government, or in some Platonic vision whereby all people would be proper citizens and would, with the right education, choose the most appropriate course for themselves and thier nation?

If you had to start all over, really from the beginning, what systems would you put in place that would ensure that the most qualified people (naturally, by whatever criteria you employ to evaluate that term) were selected to, essentially, run the place?

I have to work on this one myself for a time, so no worries if people don't have immediate responses.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. -Cicero

[Brent]

Mark, this is a really great post, and by the way, I think the same sort of discussion probably applies to most any elected office, not just president (although I think exceptions are more frequent at the local level than at the national level).

I certainly don't claim to have the answers. I think that much of this phenomenon is attributable to the campaign process, specifically:

- how prosepective candidates are able to garner sufficient support
--- ESPECIALLY $$$ that it takes to run a successful campaign
--- ESPECIALLY support of one of the major parties, which almost always is necessary to run a successful campaign

To get the support and especially the $$$, one has to take positions and make promises to enough people and special interests (especially the ones with the $$$) to gain their support (whether it's the fundamentalist Christians, environmentalists, teachers, government employees, home builders or whomever).

Only the ones who are well connected enough and palatable to a sufficient number of people/groups/interests (and I'll say again, especially the ones with the $$$) will emerge as viable candidates. Then the two-party system kicks in, with each party putting forth its "most viable" candidate (with "most viable" being determined by that campaign process). Aside from a few notable exceptions, the mass electorate is then faced with a choice of only two people who can realistically expect to be elected. And those two people, by and large, aren't the smartest, or most knowledgeable, or most devoted, or whatever; rather, they are the ones who succeeded in getting just enough people and groups (one more time: especially the ones with the $$$, and especially the political parties) behind them in the beginning.

[Wuptdo]

Good post by both. Would of expect more comment for other folks, but there seems to be a lot going on these days.

Just my cents. Stop the "winner takes all" in the electoral college. You win the district, you get the district. This would really make the Presidential races really interesting. :wink:

However, it doesn't matter what we think. Most of the American public will vote for whoever these people will tell them to vote for. These are the most important people in American, and they are always right, and they know what is best for this country. See attached and read "their" comments and learn what is best for you and this country.

http://www.celiberal.com/index.php

Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

Most of the American public will vote for whoever these people will tell them to vote for.

This no longer makes this a "national issue", but a whole lot of people apparently voted last fall for whomever Liddy Dole told them to vote for.

[Mark]

Some of my thoughts on the issue, in no particular order... though the latter ones might be predicated in some way of the success of the first.

If the problem is candidates that don't live up to the ideals of most people than we can go about rectifying it in at least one of two ways. 1) Make the existing candidates better somehow or 2) Get different and, more importantly, more candidates.

Our FPTP (first past the post, winner take all) system for allocating votes, not just in the electoral college, but everywhere, does us a great disservice when it comes to fielding candidates. Long touted as one of the virtues of a stable two-party system, it does indeed force the candidates to the middle, to bridge societal clevages, and to appeal to the maximum number of citizens. Stability may have been the most overwhelming desire of the nascent political system in a new country, where it might actually be a possibility that parts of it would try to secede . Does anyone really think the bread basket is going to leave the union these days?

I think we've moved past a point where stability should be the prime focus to one where more accurate representation should be paramount. I also don't think doing so would in any serious way undermine the political unity of the country. It would behoove us to move to some alternate voting method that generally followed some proportional representation scheme. There are literally dozens of voting mechanisms to acheive this, from simply precentage allocations, to instant run offs, to systems where you rank all candidates and formulas determine who the best fit is.

There are at least three candidates running for President that I would consider voting for over Kerry if my preference could be translated into some viable political traction. Once that system is established you needn't rely on major candidates who only partially fit your goals, candidates who are walking compromises, who hold half hearted positions. The resulting plurality of people would most likely be of higher calibre, at least to their respective constituents. Imagine reading a candidates platform and never once having to turn up your nose, to feel like you wrote the thing yourself. I'd argue that the type of people who enter politics now, the politics of, well "politics", compromise and greed are very different from the type of people who might enter politics knowing that they could stand for a set of issues, count on a pillar of support and do some good. The stability comes in forming coalitions of groups to effectively govern. That might not mean the candidates compromise any less in the long haul, that is, they might still have to do so legislatively, but at least we wouldn't have to (as much) in choosing them.

Naturally then, I think the electoral college is part and parcel of the same problem. Starting over, I wouldn't include it at all.

I might also include in my fresh start full public financing of all campaigns that meet some sort of organizational criteria. That could be based on nation-wide petitions, outcomes from previous elections, what have you. But you're limiting free speech, you might say. I might agree, though I'd wonder out loud if the speech of those that cannot afford to be heard is currently limited more, and which system is the lesser of two evils. True, the fine parsing of what is political speech and what you would disallow is extremely difficult, but we should all agree on at least this - without the need to raise funds incumbents and challengers alike would be more inclined to fulfil their current duties, less inclined to show favoritism to major supporters, and generally more willing to be issue oriented.

Limit the campaign season. Maybe from June or July onward. Cuts down on redundancy, spending, and the ability for disinformation to cloud substantive issues. With a shorter season all candidates would have to put forth their best, in an attempt to define their niche, faster and better. 4 or 5 months is plenty of time to run a national campaign.

Increase the use of national ballot initiatives, even interelection national referrenda. Which, with our goal in mind, would free candidates from having to campaign specifically on the issue, or having to faux compromise to appeal to many.

Pay politicians no more than 200% of the median income of the U.S., and make all donations, gifts, and honoraria of physical assets, more or less, illegal. Again, the type of people who might enter politics as a launching pad for another upward career move are perhaps different than those who want to work solely for their constituents.

Similarly, borrow from the practices of industry. Acknowledging that many industries, business, or other groups might actually seek ends that do not serve the public good essentially force elected officials to sign non competes barring them from entering into competitive industry (defined as not serving the public interest, be that what you may), to limit the revolving door, at least one way. Admittedly this is a fairly radical suggestion that undelies my leftist thinking, and no doubt I'll meet some resistance here for it. I understand that captains of industry and technical leaders have their place in government but I am more skeptical of government officials who then work for industry in some capacity that influences government. Naturally you can't bar these people from making a living, but they are, in a real sense, bringing inside information to people who are trying to take a buck from the U.S. government and taxpayers. If these were two business entities, it would be illegal. Consider the recent example of one of the lead architects of this administration's prescription drug policy who left to consult from Pharma. I trust that most people would be at least critical of such a thing and many would, like me, not so quietly question whether the move helps Pharma at the expense of ordinary citizens.

More radical ideas that I've thought about but would actually know how, or really want, to implement. Poll tests. Each political party that secured greater than 2% of the popular vote the previous election gets one representative to the "poll test commission." This commission is charged with creating a short test, the number of questions being equal to the number of representatives to the comission, which will be administered to each voter immediate prior to her voting. Voting is contingent upon correctly answering a specified number of questions. Each question must be approved unanimously by the commision and will generally deal with some general aspect of politics or issue. Given that the members of the commission are assuredly political adversaries, this will insure that all questions are general enough and not related to specific levels of educational attainment. Adequate provisions will be made so that people of all education levelsand physical ability have the opportunity to demonstrate the required knowledge.

I really don't know if I even like that, but I will admit to at times thinking it would be a good idea. It would force campaigns to disseminate widely their issues and stances and increase the general knowledge of the population.

On the completely opposite hand - compulsory voting. Or, at least incentives. 5% tax cut for voting. Fine of 5% of your income for failing to do so. Would this ensure that elections are actually representative, or easily manipulated?

There plenty more in the details that we could do but the meat of it is changing the way seats are awarded for votes. It would be the easiest way to increase the quality and number of candidates, and, I think, ultimately better reflect the desires of the general population, left, right, and center.

[johnb]

Our FPTP (first past the post, winner take all) system for allocating votes, not just in the electoral college, but everywhere, does us a great disservice when it comes to fielding candidates. Long touted as one of the virtues of a stable two-party system, it does indeed force the candidates to the middle, to bridge societal clevages, and to appeal to the maximum number of citizens. Stability may have been the most overwhelming desire of the nascent political system in a new country, where it might actually be a possibility that parts of it would try to secede . Does anyone really think the bread basket is going to leave the union these days?

No, the folks most likely to secede would be the more extreme sections, ie, New England or California. Although that is, at this time, a VERY low probability.

The winner takes all system is actually the best method for ensuring political leadership remains within the broad confines of the
"mainstream". When one party nominates someone outside that spectrum the results are an electoral b!tch slapping. To wit, McGovern, Mondale, and Goldwater all were the political equivalents of the freaks on DC street corners near the Mall with a "The End is Near" poster in their time.

We don't need the dozens of fractious splinter parties the Europeans create with such glee. Rather than have a Left-handed lesbian biker dyke party and other assorted dingleberries competing for limited time and resources in the political arena the current system causes politicans and voters to winnow the priority list to a more managable and workable size.

Given the size and scope of the American electorate, at the national level, we should be dealing not with minute bureaucratic measures, but with broad philosophical outlines.

[Anonymous]

The easiest way to curb splintering of the electorate into too many disparate pieces is to simply raise the threshold for seats in the national legislative body.

The knesset's threshold is the lowest in the world, I think, needing but 1.5% of the national popular vote to qualify for the first seat. For Israel this reflects their desire that minority viewpoints be voiced and- which makes sense for a people sensitive to protecting the minority. The most recent figure I've seen is that there are 13 parties with seats. Despite that number though, there are far fewer major parties and the existence of many doesn't seem to cripple politics there.

There are many systems where a portion fo the seats are filled by popular vote and a portion from a PR system off party roles. Mexico is but one close example, Italy being an example of this system with a low threshold on their PR portion.

Anyway, 5% seems to be the most popular number. And, as third party politics in their quest for federal matching has shown in this country, 5% is sufficiently high to keep out what most of us would agree are the quacks. However, it is sufficiently attainable for parties who have a strong base that are inclined not to "waste" their votes in Presidential or other large elections. I have a tough time thinking that limiting the formation of viable Green, Reform or Constitution parties is good for democracy or the quality of candidates from which we can select. I think the degree of representation with respect to voting mechanisms goes far beyond the technical minutiae of the subject and into the broad philosphical questions of representation and governance. But, that's just me.

[Wuptdo]

Take a few minutes and read this important notice on what to do on election day: :roll:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4043&n=10


Wuptdo B-)