Imagine, if you will, driving down a remote, rural backroad when you see a bright light in the sky hovering over the road. You pull over to get a better look and are both amazed and terrified to see the bright object begin to descend toward you. You watch in spellbound fascination as the bright light takes form as a football-shaped capsule descending point down toward the field adjacent to where you are parked. Your instinct is to flee but your curiosity overcomes the fear. As it nears the ground, several arms extend from the capsule as landing pads. Moments after it comes to rest, a hatch opens on the side of the craft and a ladder and entry platform emerge. A small, green extraterrestrial alien with an enormous head steps out on the entry platform and suddenly you hear in your mind a telepathic thought saying, “Don’t be afraid, we just want to talk to you. Please come aboard and join us for tea and crumpets.” You see the creature gesture to you with its spindly arm to come aboard.
Something in your head tells you these creatures mean you no harm, so you muster your courage and walk to the capsule. You climb the ladder and follow the little green alien into the interior of the capsule where you enter a large room and find a dozen more little green beings seated around a large, round table. A thought enters your mind, “Welcome to our ship, please have a seat.” You sit down at the table and soon another little green guy comes out with a platter of crumpets and a large pot of tea. “We hope you like these”, a thought says, “We just visited England and were intrigued with this tradition.” You unconsciously think, “I wonder how they know our language.” To which another thought immediately responds, “Oh, we have been monitoring your communications for years and have learned all of your world’s languages.”
After pouring the tea and passing around the crumpets, the apparent leader communicates telepathically, “We would like to ask you some questions about your country if you don’t mind.”
You respond verbally, “OK, what would you like to know.”
“From listening to your communications, we are very confused about your electoral process. We would like to know more about how you choose your leaders from a native’s perspective.”
You think for a moment and then respond, “Well we have several layers of leaders based on our various political subdivisions. Our country is somewhat arbitrarily divided into fifty separate states, each of which is further divided geographically into counties. Within each county there could be several cities or towns. Each of these geopolitical entities has its own government with their own elected or appointed leaders.”
“So how are governmental functions divided between these various entities?”
“Each primarily focuses on its own area of responsibility. Cities and towns deal with issues that directly affect the citizens residing within their boundaries and immediate periphery; counties deal with issues that affect the areas outside of city/town limits and coordinate with city/town leaders on issues that affect both; states focus on issues that affect all residents of the state, but can also pass laws that cities, towns and counties must follow. Similarly, the national or federal government deals with issues that affect the country as a whole and which are spelled out in our federal Constitution, but the federal government can also pass laws and set rules that the States must follow if they deal with areas that fall within federal purview.”
“Sounds like a reasonably effective system. So what determines how these entities choose their leaders?”
“Well,” you respond, “when our nation was first formed there were thirteen existing states that each had an elected state legislature. These legislatures selected representatives from each state to attend a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of drafting the rules and processes which would determine how our country functioned. The Constitution they wrote established the processes for selecting our President, Vice-President, and national legislature or Congress, which is divided into two bodies—the House of Representatives, who are elected directly by the residents of their respective states; and the Senate, whose members were initially selected by their respective state legislatures but are now also directly elected by the people. In addition, each state has its own Constitution and laws that determine how state officials are chosen. Counties generally elect representatives called Commissioners who make decisions on county issues; and cities and towns elect a council of representatives and then either elect a mayor or appoint a City Manager. For the most part, individuals decide for themselves to run for leadership positions at the city, county, state or federal level and then are elected by the citizens of the respective geopolitical unit, but there are some peculiarities.”
“What do you mean peculiarities?”
“Well, the framers of the U.S. Constitution didn’t really have a lot of faith in the ability of the average citizen to caste an intelligent vote, so they tried to build some protections into the system. They allowed all citizens to directly vote for their representative to the federal House of Representatives but restricted their term in office to two years. They required members of the federal Senate to be selected by their respective State legislatures, whom they assumed would be better informed, and granted each Senator a term of six years. When it came to the President and Vice-President, they required each state legislature to devise a method to select independent “electors” equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives to which that state was entitled. Each of these electors was then tasked with voting for two people, only one of whom could be a resident of the state where they resided. These votes were then sent to the President of the Senate and were counted in front of the entire Congress. If one person had a majority based on the total number of electors, they were elected President, and the person with the second most votes became the Vice-President. If no one had a majority, there was a convoluted process in which the House of Representatives would choose the President and the Senate would choose the Vice-President. Both the President and Vice-President serve four-year terms. Interestingly, the U.S. Congress kept the power to determine the date that the State electors were chosen and the day they cast their votes and required that the date be the same throughout the U.S.”
“Over the years, through various amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the election of Senators was turned over to direct election by the people, and the election of the President and Vice President was modified. They retained the “electors” (called the Electoral College) selected by each State but required that they cast separate ballots for President and Vice-President. Once their ballots are cast, the vote tallies are sent to the President of the Senate where a similar process as above takes place.”
“If I understand correctly, the President and Vice-President serve four year terms, Senators serve six year terms, and Representatives serve two year terms. I assume they all can only serve one term.”
“Not exactly. Initially there was no restriction on how many terms each of these positions could serve, but there was a great deal of concern that they did not want to create a monarchial form of government. Our first President, George Washington, set a precedent by only serving two terms and that precedent stood until Franklin Roosevelt decided to run for three terms in the 1940’s. Soon after that the Constitution was amended to limit the President and Vice-President to two terms of four years. Unfortunately, our Senators and Representatives can serve an unlimited number of terms as long as they continue getting reelected.”
“Is that a problem?”
“It can be. In the beginning political office was seen as a form of public service, but unfortunately it now has become a professional career. While many politicians initially enter politics as a means of public service, over time their primary motivation changes to a focus on just getting reelected. Because our electoral process is so expensive, politicians, particularly at the national level, spend an inordinate amount of time just raising money for their next election, often from big money donors who tend to expect a quid pro quo for their donations. It has essentially created a plutocracy where the wealthy and large business interests are basically dictating public policy. This has led to an economic system that is stacked in favor of big business and the rich; and in which the working and middle classes are essentially forgotten, contributing to enormous income inequality.”
“Getting back to these ‘electors’, how do they determine who to vote for? Do they have the ability to choose anyone they want?”
“In theory they can pick anyone they want, but there are various methods through which candidates are identified. Individuals have always been able to campaign directly for election. Initially some states allowed citizens to vote for electors who supported particular candidates. When political parties were formed, each party would have a convention at which electors were nominated who were supposed to support the nominee of the party. Some state legislatures would appoint electors who were expected to support candidates supported by the legislature.
“Today, each political party has a state convention at which electors are selected by ballot. The electors pledge to support the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee selected by the party. When we have our general elections, citizens think they are voting directly for a President and Vice-President, but in reality, they are voting for the panel of electors selected by the party of the candidates they are voting for. Most states have a “winner takes all” type system that awards all of that states’ electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state, but each individual elector is still able to vote for anyone they want– although that rarely happens.”
“So, you have a “general” election in which all citizens are allowed to vote, but in effect they are not voting for a particular candidate, but for a group of electors who are supposed to support that candidate but aren’t required to, correct?”
“Yes”.”
“Why not just allow the people to vote directly for the candidate of their choice, and let the popular vote determine the winner?”
“Well, as I said, the framers of the Constitution did not have a great deal of faith that individual citizens had the knowledge or ability to select competent candidates. Also, the existing states at the time were very concerned about giving up their rights to the federal government and less-populated states were afraid they would be overrun by more populated states. The framers thought this system would reconcile state and federal interests, allow some popular participation in elections, provide some balance between large and small states, keep the “Presidency” independent of the Congress, and help to insulate the process from political manipulation. Unfortunately it has never worked the way it was intended.”
“And why is that?”
“As I said, when the nation was formed, the States were, for the most part, very distrustful of a strong federal government, so they would select electors that supported candidates that held the parochial interests of the state over the good of the country as a whole, and oftentimes the special interests of certain powerful groups within the state over the good of the common person. Also selecting the top two vote getters as President and Vice-President became problematic because of the possibility of ties (which happened in 1800) and also because they could find themselves working at cross purposes. Today, with our institutionalized, adversarial two-party system and winner-take-all Electoral College system, many voters are effectively disenfranchised. Their vote is essentially meaningless.”
“So what are these political parties and how are they formed”
“Political parties are associations of individuals who share similar political or ideological views on how governments should function and what those functions should be or not be. They form loose organizations that promote their particular views and attempt to elect people to office that support their views.”
“That sounds like a natural course of action for people to take. Why is it a problem?”
“It’s a problem because over the last 150 years in this country, two parties—the Republicans and Democrats–have become dominant to the point where they control the political process. And they have become adversarial to the degree that it is no longer about who has the best ideas or policies for the betterment of the country or its citizens; it is strictly about maintaining control over government and preventing the other party from having any influence. Facts and empirical evidence no longer matter; only political interests and engrained beliefs. It’s also a problem because party affiliation has taken on aspects of religious affiliation. It has become an identity issue that is inculcated in children from an early age; and serves as a means to divide and isolate people rather than bring them together for reasoned debate. Many people base their votes for public office strictly on party affiliation, rather than on the merits of the candidate or the strength of their ideas and policies.
“Another issue is that for various economic and cultural reasons, most states have become either predominantly Republican or predominantly Democratic. States on our two coasts tend to have the most urbanized areas which attract more educated, affluent individuals as well as our economically disadvantaged population who often utilize more government services. Both of these groups tend to vote more Democratic. The states in the interior of the country tend to be more rural and have a greater concentration of agricultural and working-class voters who tend to be more Republican. The political parties in these states have been working for years to manipulate voting districts in order to consolidate and concentrate their power. The end result is that we now have a situation where if you belong to the minority party in a state that is predominantly Republican or Democratic, your vote is essentially worthless, particularly in national races for President and Vice-President. The majority candidate will almost undoubtedly win the popular vote in that state and the winner-take-all system will allocate all of that states Electoral College votes to that candidate. As a result, twice in the last two decades, a person has won the presidency who did not win the national popular vote.”
“That does not seem fair, but—on the other hand—if you went strictly with the popular vote, then it would seem the large, primarily urban states would dominate elections.”
“That’s a valid point, but there are other options.”
“What would you suggest?”
“First, I think we need to de-institutionalize the two primary political parties. As of now, they dominate the political process. We have smaller parties that promote specific agendas, but they primarily serve as spoilers. They take votes from one of the major parties or the other, and often allow a less competent candidate to win. Political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. constitution and many of the framers were not in favor of dividing up into political factions. Nevertheless they are a fact of life and are protected by the free speech and right to assembly protections in the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, they can and should be regulated by government, both state and federal.
“As it now stands, states and political parties control the primary process which serves to narrow the field of candidates for a particular position from many down to one candidate from each party. Unfortunately, because of the political domination of one or the other party in most states, the winner of the primary election is almost guaranteed to win the general election. Also, many states have what is called “closed primaries” in which only voters registered to that party are allowed to vote. So, in essence, independent or non-affiliated voters and voters registered to the other party are not allowed to vote for the eventual winner. They are effectively disenfranchised.”
“A related problem, particularly for the Presidential race, is that states and political parties are allowed to determine the date of their primary elections and the type of primary they conduct. The result is a series of state primary elections or caucuses over a five month period.”
“Why is that a problem?”
“Because, we often have a large number of candidates seeking the office of President, particularly from the party that is currently out of power. They often begin campaigning and raising money 18 to 24 months prior to the first state primary/caucus. These candidates often are sitting Congressmen, state Governors, or other elected officials, which means they are neglecting their taxpayer funded elected position to seek a higher office for that period of time. Given the 24-hour national news cycle and ubiquitous coverage these candidates receive, they are essentially running a national campaign from the outset even though they tend to concentrate their personal appearances in the states with the first primaries and those that are considered “swing states”, meaning they have a more even distribution of party members. They spend a horrendous amount of money on campaign staff, travel expenses, signs and literature, 30-second TV spots, etc. which means a lot of their time is spent seeking campaign contributions. The public is subjected to never-ending solicitations for money and volunteer time. The campaigns become all-consuming events that dominate people’s attention, at least the ones who care about our political system (which unfortunately is all too few). This goes on for a year or more prior to the first state primary. Then we have four state primaries (or caucuses) in succession during the month of February prior to the election. These often serve to narrow the field down to just a few candidates. Those who do not do well in the initial primaries are winnowed out because their funding dries up and their powerful supporters bail on them. And this happens after only a small percentage of the U.S. population has had an opportunity to vote.
“For instance, the first state to caucus is Iowa. Iowa has a population of about 3.2 million people, of which about 1.5 million are registered voters–with approximately 28% being Republicans, 33% Democrats, and 38% Independents or non-affiliated voters. In order to participate in a party caucus you have to be registered with that party. Of registered voters, only about 20-30% actually participate in their party’s caucus which means of say 500,000 registered Democrats, only 100-150 thousand actually participate in the caucus process. This year we have more than 20 candidates currently running for President in the Democratic Party. There is a good chance that at least half of them will drop out of the presidential race if they do not do well in the Iowa caucuses. So out of a 157 million registered voters in the U.S., 100-150 thousand of them will effectively decide which candidates the other 156.9 million can vote for. By the end of February, after only four states have voted, the field of Democratic candidates will probably be down to 3 or 4, if that.”
“That seems ridiculous. Why don’t all the States have their primary election on the same day?”
“Because our federal Constitution leaves it up to the States to decide when and how they conduct their primary election process, and many states have delegated that responsibility to the political parties. It has become an engrained tradition that nobody seems to question, even though some states have voted to move up their primary elections so they can have more say in the eventual nominee.”
“Wouldn’t it make more sense for the federal government to establish the process for at least the Presidential election and have a national primary election on the same day throughout the country?”
“It certainly makes more sense to me.”
“You mentioned that political campaigns are very expensive to run. It would seem that with all the basically free forms of communication you have available, such as TV, radio, and the internet, that it would not be hard for candidates to get their message out to potential voters.”
“You would think, but in many ways we still run political campaigns the way we did prior to all those forms of instant communication. Candidates still travel all over the country so they can talk to voters in person. They spend untold dollars building a national network of campaign offices all across the country and hire staff to work in them. They spend millions developing 30-second TV and radio ads, and then have to buy time on commercial networks to broadcast them. They spend additional monies on campaign posters, yard signs, bumper stickers and other ridiculous forms of media just to build name recognition. It was estimated by a campaign finance watchdog called OpenSecrets.org that for both the presidential and congressional races in 2016, a total of $6.5 billion from all sources was spent, with $2.4 billion of that being just for the presidential race. The candidates themselves spend hundreds of millions of dollars; money they often raise from large corporations and wealthy individuals—all of whom expect a quid pro quo in exchange for their money. Money has become the single most significant factor in determining who wins an election. And this is for jobs that pay $400,000/year for President and $174,000 to be a congressman.”
“At least voters should be really well informed after the candidates and others spend all that money.”
“Not really. A lot of time and money is spent on TV and radio sound bites attacking their opponents, often with lies or misrepresentations of their actions or policies. Politicians develop “talking points” that they think will appeal to their voters, but rarely provide facts or evidence to support their positions. Even in our so-called debates candidates are not given time to provide support for their positions or to rebut their opponents’ positions. They become just another opportunity to rehash their “talking points” and attack their opponents.
“You would think that voters would demand a process that would allow them to be more fully informed about a candidate and his or her positions.”
“Unfortunately, there is a lot of apathy among voters. Even in presidential elections, only about 50-60% of qualified voters actually vote. In off-year elections that number goes down to about 40%. Local issue elections may only bring out 10-15% of registered voters. Many people have very little faith in our political system and do not feel it works for them. Of those that do vote, many just vote for a political party or because a candidate is an incumbent or they recognize a candidate’s name.”
“It does not sound like a very effective system for choosing your nation’s leaders. What do you think you could do to change it?”
“While I cannot take credit for these ideas, I would support making several changes to our presidential elections process. First, I would designate an “official” national campaign season which would begin on the 1st of January of the year of the election. Candidates would not be prohibited from campaigning prior to that, but it would be on their own dime. Essentially their task prior to January 1st would be to gather a specified number of signatures of registered voters on petitions from a specified number of states in order to be considered a “qualified” candidate. Obviously that would necessitate a degree of fundraising and travel, but nothing that would be beyond the capability of even a modestly funded candidate, and would not require a large campaign organization. After January 1st, all ‘qualified’ candidates would become eligible to access publicly funded radio and television stations where they would be given free air time to fully explain and justify their positions and policies, as well as answer questions submitted by viewers. Essentially it would be a national town hall meeting that viewers would be able to access through the universal communication media available to virtually every citizen. Every candidate would be given equal time. Real debates could be scheduled that would again allow candidates to lay out their positions and provide hard data to support them, while giving their opponents the opportunity to rebut those positions, again by providing real evidence. Debates would be open to candidates from all parties.
“After six months, a national primary election would be held with all candidates from every party appearing on the same ballot. Voters would be able to vote for three candidates on a ranked choice basis. Their first choice would be given 3 points, second choice 2 points, and third choice 1 point. In addition, all voters would be given the opportunity on a voluntary basis to take a civics test prior to the primary election. This test would cover basic knowledge about our governmental processes, the candidates and the major issues facing the country. It would consist of a large pool of objective questions developed by a panel of academicians and experts in the fields of political science, history, and government. Voters could go to their local city or county elections office and take a computerized test of 100 randomly selected questions. Those passing with a score of 80-90% would have their voting points doubled; those scoring above 90% would have their voting points tripled. In that way, the most informed and knowledgeable voters would be rewarded and, hopefully, we would select better candidates. After the points are tabulated, the two candidates with the highest points would go on to the general election held in November. They would continue to have access to the public radio and TV outlets and have one-on-one debates. The winner of the general election would be President and the runner-up would be Vice-President regardless of the party to which they belonged.”
“What about the congressional races?”
“I would run both state and federal legislative races the same way. Candidates could openly affiliate with a political party but would run head-to-head on the same ballot. Voters would use the same ranked choice system in the primary to select the top two candidates to run in the general election. Once elected, we would do away with the “aisle” in our legislative houses. Senators and Representatives would be seated alphabetically regardless of party. Individual parties could select their own leaders, but there would be no “majority” or “minority” party. Committee assignments would be by lot, although party leaders could nominate candidates based on areas of expertise.”
“What would you do to get “big money” out of politics?”
“We obviously are going to have to pass another constitutional amendment to accomplish a number of these changes. Part of that amendment could establish maximum limits on what any individual, business, corporation or group could donate to any individual candidate. I would suggest $2500.00 regardless of the source of the donation. That will not stop Political Action Committees from forming, raising money, and supporting candidates, but it will limit direct contributions to the candidate from businesses, PACs and wealthy individuals. We could fund dedicated public TV and radio outlets by repurposing the check-off on our tax forms which currently allows us to donate to a political party. That should substantially reduce the amount of money needed to run for office.
“The other thing I would do to get “big money” out of politics is by setting strict term limits on public office. As it stands, politicians start raising money for their next election on the first day they take office. It occupies a significant portion of their time and attention throughout their term in office; and unfortunately, it opens them up to bribes and corruption, or at least undue influence. I would limit all public offices to one term with the condition that a politician cannot run for public office while they currently hold a public office. As part of that I would increase the term for Representative to four years, for Senator to eight years, and for President and Vice-President to six years. That would allow a politician sufficient time to pursue their political agenda, while taking away the incentive for deal-making strictly to prolong their political career. Hopefully it would incentivize politicians to work for the common good and not just their political futures, while allowing dedicated public servants to move up the political ladder if they choose. They would just need to return to the real world for a period of time between elections.”
“Do you really think incumbent politicians are going to promote an agenda that essentially will cost them their jobs?’
“Of course not, the only way we could ever implement such changes is if an over-whelming majority of Americans demanded it; and conditioned their vote on a candidate supporting these changes. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen, but we can at least dream, can’t we? By the way, how do you select your leaders where you come from?”
“Oh, we took the advice of your philosopher Plato centuries ago, and began selecting the best and brightest of our youth at a young age and training them to be our future leaders. After their formal education is completed, we require them to work for a period of time in many real world capacities in order to broaden their knowledge and experience; and then, when they reach a mature age, we pick the brightest and most successful to join our governing body where they serve until they reach the mandatory retirement age. We do not have a single leader, per se, but our governing body makes collective decisions on a consensus basis.”
“Do you ever have to remove a person for cause from the governing body?”
“Very seldom, because the selection and training process takes many years. Those with bad character are usually weeded out along the way, but the governing body can impeach and remove a member if needed.”
“A true meritocracy, I like that.”
“It is time for us to depart, but we thank you for your time, and your explanations and insights, and wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. We will be watching to see if your country ever decides to do any of the things you have suggested.”