Campaign and Party reform is a controversial issue on many levels. I will spell out just a couple of the downsides to our current system and offer some thoughts on how to fix it.
First: Partisanship. The division between Democrat and Republican is so limiting. It often reduces legislative voting and discussion to a two-sided shouting match rather than a debate with several voices of input all communing until accord is reached. We should not shortchange ourselves by relying on just two major Parties. A candidate should not have to identify with any party to be considered for office. The purpose of elected officials is supposed to be the interests of their constituency, not their Party agenda. We need to effect change on that front.
Second: Campaign spending. The steady trend is that the candidate who spends the most money nearly always wins the election. This does not ensure that the most qualified candidate wins the seat, just the richest or most well-connected. Then, when elected, that candidate often rewards the interests who donated the money that won them the election. Again, an elected official’s interests ought to be those of their constituency, not who gave them the most money during the campaign.
So how do we fix these problems? In a blog on the New York Times and this TIME article from 1974, public financing is discussed. It would seem, based on these two sources that public financing is something the public is interested in. It would also seem that incumbents, particularly conservative incumbents shy away from public financing because they fear that it would give an advantage to progressive, liberal challengers who can motivate a larger voter population. What I gather from that is that the US as a nation desires change but is too comfortable with the status quo to put forth the effort and effect some change. And since at least 1974, relying on that complacency has allowed the two party system to survive with private financing, favoring the incumbent and wealthier candidates heavily. The call goes out then for the voting population to speak out and force reform. If we truly want to eliminate the two party system, then we need to replace it. And that’s where things get difficult. That’s a lot of work to change an entire political system, especially one as deeply entrenched as our current one.
What would a new system look like with public financing? If all private financing were banned? I think it would level the playing field tremendously, with each candidate being forced to rely on their convictions and their abilities rather than their Party to support them. With equal time and money devoted to each candidate, merit would be evaluated in a much more equitable fashion and we would certainly achieve a much closer approximation of the public opinion. There should even be a standardized set of information, dossiers of each candidate published and distributed through all the media channels. Voting records should be made public, for the population at large to see. Expose the candidates in all their glory, or infamy, as the case may be. Let their reputations and records speak for them.
The one large drawback I can see, and I wish I had an answer to, is candidate selection. It’s the process of candidate selection where there will certainly be some Party-mongering and interest group involvement. I don’t know of a way to regulate the candidate selection. Perhaps a presidential tournament. Start with say, 64 candidates, and those who have the most votes move on to the round of 32, then the sweet 16, and so on. Such an approach might motivate voters and keep them engaged. Coupled with a publicly regulated and financed campaign process, it might be one of the most educated elections yet. Or it could yield incredible voter fatigue. There are certainly large kinks to be worked out in order to build a successful publicly financed campaign system, but I think the benefit would outweigh the cost in the long run.
"Campaign Reform: Blog Stage 7" has some very wise messages. In his blog, Jmoser states his frustration with the limitations of our two-party politics, as well as the problems that come with private campaign funding and interest groups. He discusses his dissatisfaction with the way a candidate must side with one party or another to be elected, rather than just his political viewpoints. He feels that it is wrong that the candidate who spends the most money on their campaign almost always wins, and thinks that we should ban private funding, and completely rely on government funding, so that everyone has the same opportunities. He then goes on to discuss some possible ways to fix our political system.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jmoser on the issues of our government, but I think they are much deeper rooted problems than he discusses, of which there are really no solutions. For instance, Jmoser thinks that our political system is strictly two-party because privately funded campaigns are difficult without a political party to help, and greatly favor the rich, but I feel like one of the major reasons for them is the fact of how politically uneducated and inactive our society is. In reality, voters don't really do that much research about candidate's viewpoints. They just know generally what the Democratic and Republican parties represent, then simply vote for the candidate who is representing the party that they tend to side with. For a majority of the population to be able to choose a candidate from an independent party, it would mean that a great deal of research and thought has gone into the political decision-making process, and unfortunately, I don't think that that will ever happen in our society. On the issue of banning all private funding, including interest group donations, I feel like it is pretty much impossible. I think that to some degree it is a violation of our First Amendment, but even if it did pass, politicians and interest groups would likely find some ways around it. It may be pessimistic, but I think that our government is just bound to have these flaws no matter how we may try to fix them.