Let's look at qualifications first. The Constitution places very few requirements upon aspirants to the highest office in the land. Make it to your 35th birthday and be a citizen from birth. That's it. So we have the spectacle of small town mayors, life coaches and billionaires all running for president. This year the Democrats started with over 20, in 2016 the Republicans started with a similar number. Some had relevant experience, others did not. What is the relevant experience? I would start off with what it is not. It's not running a business. Business expertise is frequently cited as a great background for a state governor or president. But the main goal of running a business is to make money. That's not the goal of a state or the country. Efficiency is often listed as an objective - but in business you can sell of or close down a money-losing division, but you're not going to shut down the Department of Roads, or the Navy. A businessman, especially in a privately-owned company, has no one to answer to. A governor or the president has to work with a legislature. Foreign policy experience might also be a strong qualification. I suggest that the pool of presidential candidates come exclusively from current or former senators and governors who have served at least one term. We still may have a large field, but it would minimize the probability of an incompetent who simply knows how to rile up a crowd getting elected again. A current or former governor would have experience working with a legislature and administering a government apparatus, while a Senator would have the experience of working within that legislature and would likely have familiarity with the issues a president would face.
Taking a step back, there should also be similar qualifications for Governor and Senator. Require that a Senator have experience as a governor or member of the House of Representatives. Stipulate that a Governor have experience as a Congressman, member of the state legislature or as a mayor. That House members have experience in the state legislature or a city council. Too often we have people elected to public office, with far-reaching responsibilities, who have no idea what they're doing. Setting up qualifications for each level that require experience at a lower level wouldn't guarantee greatness, but would at least ensure a level of experience.
What about elections? We start with a huge field of candidates, and by the first primary, half of them have dropped out either because they're polling poorly or because they haven't raised enough money. This may cause First Amendment concerns, but I suggest prohibiting anyone from publicly announcing candidacy until a predetermined date. Advertising, whether it be broadcast, print or social media, would be leveled to the point where a government subsidy would be awarded to all candidates in an amount equal to what the candidate who spent the most was spending. Candidates would continue to be subsidized so that no one would drop out due to funding. Instead of the long strung-out primary process, where one or two early primaries weed out the majority of candidates, have several rounds of national primaries. After campaign period where the various candidates would make their case to the electorate, the first round would be held in February, where the top eight candidates would move on to round two. In Round two, held in May, the field would be narrowed to four. In Round three, in August, the field would be narrowed to two. Round four would be held on election day. If the number of candidates were ten or less, one round would be skipped. If, in any round, one candidate exceed 50%, further rounds would be cancelled. In this way, all voters would be able to weigh in on all candidates in the first round, unlike in the current system where any primaries held after March offer a limited selection.
The change in qualifications would need an amendment to the Constitution, the change in the primary system likely just changes to election law. There's still the pesky Electoral College. There's currently a movement among several states to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Even without changes to the Electoral College, with only two candidates in the final round, the chances of someone losing the popular vote while gaining enough Electoral College votes to win is lessened.
I'm sure that someone could poke holes in some or all of my suggestions, but there's already plenty of Iowa-sized holes in the current system.
No comments:
Post a Comment