Or, more specifically, I dislike political parties.
Don't get me wrong; I think the little two-party system we have going on in this country works fine for the most part, especially when the White House and Congress are divided (and thus very little actually gets done). I'm really not a political science type of person, so I don't actually have too much to say about the inner workings of our system. All I really know about is voting, because that's all I really get to do.
When it comes down to voting, I feel like the American public gets a raw deal--not because of the electoral system (I really have no strong feelings there)--but because we don't have enough viable options when it comes to electing a president. There are two main options--the Republican and the Democrat--and a smattering of third-party candidates who would need some sort of direct divine mandate to even be in the consideration. I think that that pretty much sucks; it comes down to two candidates who try as hard as possible to run solely on being the antithesis of each other. Each candidate's position on each of the issues is simply the negation of the other candidate's. So, we're stuck with a "for-or-against" mentality which I feel is incredibly damaging to our leaders' ability to actually lead the country in a meaningful fashion.
In any case, I'm not just going to bitch; I have an idea. It's a pretty simple one, and I haven't really built up a bullet-proof case for it, but here it is: in an election (especially for president), the incumbent (if there is one) should not be allowed to gain his or her party's nomination. The incumbent should run as the incumbent, not as the Democratic or Republican candidate (of course, they can retain their party affiliation; that would be silly to revoke that).
My goal with this is that the party in question would then nominate another candidate for the office as a challenger, bringing the number of viable options up to three (presumably). For instance, let's say that the Democrats decide that Barack Obama is the best candidate for president in 2008, but he doesn't have the necessary experience to win the general election in the current climate and a failed bid would ruin his chances for the future--say, 2012. If they nominate another candidate and that candidate wins, Obama won't even have the chance to run in 2012 because the Democratic support would go to the incumbent (unless he or she does something really, really, really stupid). If the incumbent were off the table, the Dems could nominate him again when he's ready and we'd have three possible candidates.
Anyway, that scenario aside, there's a bunch of positive things I see coming out of this:
- More voter options - the people get to select the status quo, the opposite philosophy, or the updated version of the philosophy in power.
- Increased perception of accountability - if the people currently in power know that their own party will be putting up an opposing candidate, they might tend to police themselves a bit more and not be quite so cavalier about making decisions.
- Increased freedom for dissent - if each party knows that there will be another candidate against the current administration, they may not be quite so scared of going against the policies of those in power
- More debate on the issues - if each party is forced to go through the primary process at each election, the issues of the day will debated between the parties as well as with the current administration (no more of the current "I just have to out-run you" kind of thing; we would actually get to debate nuances).
..and there's probably more I could come up with if asked, but for now I'm tired of typing out the list. I would say that it will decrease the advantage the incumbent naturally has, but I'm not sure if it would; sometimes it might split the incumbent's votes, but other times it might split the challenger's votes. I don't know.
In any case, I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose this before, so I figured I should get it time-stamped and out on the Internet, just in case. I'd like to explore it a bit more, too, and so other people need to read it so we can discuss.
Although, discussions are better when they involve beer rather than keyboards...
5 comments:
This is a very interesting idea. I like the thought put into your statements. Another option would be Instant Run-off Voting where the voters rank candidates based on preference and the candidates with the fewest votes are dropped off and those votes are redistributed until a clear majority is selected. This would be about the only hope for smaller party candidates and this stage in the political game and more people would not feel like they were wasting their votes on one of two candidates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting
i don't know what i think about the instant run-off thing; it seems more complicated than its benefits would justify, since what really upholds the two-party system is the "first-past-the-post" deal, and if the goal of the instant run-off is still to get to a plurality or majority, we'll still resolve into two major parties (especially given the level of establishment).
even so, though, if that's what it takes to get more options and to stop living in a "for-us-or-against-us" world, i'll take it.
I agree. Discussions are much better over beer than keyboards.
That being said, although I like your idea, and certainly the intent behind it, I would be concerned with regards to the incumbent party leaning towards a sort of "Sacrificial lamb" scenario every year they were forced to enter a second candidate into contention.
Like you mentioned, the possibility of splitting votes seems like a near certainty to me, especially since the majority of voters rarely take stock on the issues themselves (if they did I feel that third party candidates wouldn't need divine intervention for a shot), but rather just align their vote with the party they feel they relate to most.
Just like Leonardo DiCaprio isn't going to win a Golden Globe when nominated for two performances (Blood Diamond and the Departed), the Democrats aren't going to win if their constituents are forced to decide between two, most likely very similar, candidates.
I agree there's a problem, but I feel that adding another candidate from the two parties in power will not solve the problem. Getting the American public to actually give two shits would be a good start. ;)
i think you're definitely right that the real problem is that the voters don't care enough to actually pay attention to who they're voting for. i don't really have an answer for that.
the "sacrificial lamb" thing is something i'd thought of, and i think that would be ok. obviously, that's what they'd do at first, but really...none of the politicians want to be that guy, since it would probably ruin their careers. i don't know how they'd handle it, but hey...i don't like the party thing anyway. let them figure it out.
as far as splitting the vote goes, i'm not too worried about the incumbent still being able to win in most cases. in the 2006 Senate race, the incumbents raised an average of $11.3 million while challengers only came up with $1.8 million and either side for open seats raised an average of $2.8 million (source). i don't think they really even need the party support.
mainly, i think the incumbent is pretty much guaranteed the nomination in the current system, and if that's the case i'd rather just have them on the ballot already rather than have them taking up a party nomination slot.
Interesting indeed.
Post a Comment