The political process
My theory on elections is "Vote early, vote often." Yes, I'm from Chicago, and yes, my family has a tiny Massachusetts political history. But I'm applying that statement to a whole life of political activity. The Vote early part means that you should register to vote as soon as possible. The Vote Often part means that you should vote in as many elections as you can. Vote in primaries. Vote in school board elections. Vote for Congress. Vote for Sanjaya. Umm, strike that last one. Voting is your one true measure of saying I care enough about the process to let my opinion be heard. Having a reasoned, informed opinion is a true demonstration of your civic duty, but at least voting signals some level of interest. Too often our leaders are elected with fewer than half of all eligible voters showing up at the polls. Then they claim a mandate that the voters have spoken - when in fact most voters were not even present.
A notable absence in my theory is "And put your money where your mouth is." I don't believe that money should have as large a place in politics as it does today. It's one thing to say that money equals speech, but quite another to say that this person is allowed to speak 25 millions times louder than this other person. Publicly financed elections would allow the candidates to depend less on special interests for their office and more on voters. Yes, special interests would still have some sway, but it would be dramatically less than at current.
The other change that I would like would be to change the campaign schedule into a 20 week long affair. Every two weeks five states would have a primary, but the catch would be that the states would vote in ascending order of delegates. The first round would be something like North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. The last weekend would be Texas, California, New York, Illinois, and Florida. This would give the smaller states some value as discriminators, but leave the end result in suspense until just before the convention. Every state's voters would have an affirmative stake in selecting the nominee. The current process all but coronates the nominee after Super Tuesday and Texas's election in March. From a practical perspective, it makes sense to hold the coronation as soon as possible so that donors can give their money to the eventual nominee who can start to put together the national election team.
A notable absence in my theory is "And put your money where your mouth is." I don't believe that money should have as large a place in politics as it does today. It's one thing to say that money equals speech, but quite another to say that this person is allowed to speak 25 millions times louder than this other person. Publicly financed elections would allow the candidates to depend less on special interests for their office and more on voters. Yes, special interests would still have some sway, but it would be dramatically less than at current.
The other change that I would like would be to change the campaign schedule into a 20 week long affair. Every two weeks five states would have a primary, but the catch would be that the states would vote in ascending order of delegates. The first round would be something like North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. The last weekend would be Texas, California, New York, Illinois, and Florida. This would give the smaller states some value as discriminators, but leave the end result in suspense until just before the convention. Every state's voters would have an affirmative stake in selecting the nominee. The current process all but coronates the nominee after Super Tuesday and Texas's election in March. From a practical perspective, it makes sense to hold the coronation as soon as possible so that donors can give their money to the eventual nominee who can start to put together the national election team.
posted by mypetrock at 10:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home