RETURN TO ODDS N' ENDS PAGE | E-MAIL ME
HOW WE SHOULD ELECT OUR NEXT PRESIDENT
Imagine that the
CEO of a Fortune 500 company has just announced his imminent retirement, forcing
the company's Board of Directors to scramble to find a replacement. However,
in a dramatic break from tradition, the Board decides that instead of either
enticing a CEO away from another company or interviewing several qualified applicants
for the position to oversee the company's two hundred million dollar a year
payroll and over six billion dollars in assets, they decide to open the position
up to any employee of the company, thereby making it at least theoretically
possible for anyone from the office janitor to the senior VP of Marketing to
become the next CEO, regardless of their background, education, temperament,
or competency, if they can garner sufficient votes.
Now let's imagine that within a few weeks of this announcement three strong
candidates emerge from among the company's nearly 25,000 employees to make a
run for the coveted and lucrative position: a staid but experienced senior VP,
a charismatic and dynamic junior exec, and a well-liked assembly-line foreman
with twenty years experience. Each candidate quickly develops a constituency:
the Senior VP has the backing of the senior executives due to his experience,
the junior exec has the backing of many of the mid and lower level executives
because of his promise to bring fresh blood into the higher levels of management,
and the foreman has the support of the workers due to his common-man persona
and pledge to more equitably divide the company's profits amongst the employees.
Not surprisingly, the election quickly becomes nasty, with each side accusing
the other of dirty tricks, of making promises they can't possibly keep, and
of lacking the expertise to do the job. At one point things get so bad that
some of the employees walk off the job in protest to what they perceive to be
unfair tactics being used by the other sides, threatening to bring production
to a standstill.
Mercifully, election day arrives at last and after an acrimonious round of voting
the Senior VP wins the balloting by a narrow margin. Again, not surprisingly,
this results in accusations of vote-fixing being made by the losing candidates
and in the ensuing weeks thousands of employees call in "sick" in
protest, again hurting production and sharply cutting into profits. It takes
some heavy-handed threat of mass terminations to get things back to normal,
but by then the company has been irreversibly factionalized into contemptuous
warring camps, creating a strained work environment that is to haunt the company
for years afterwards.
Obviously the decision to open the position up to any employee and having the
employees vote among a slate of largely unqualified candidates did more harm
than good. Even though the process was the very model of democracy in action,
it proved to be disastrous for the company and have negative consequences for
years afterwards in terms of poor company morale and lowered productivity.
Sound a bit difficult to imagine? It shouldn't be, for the scenario I have just
outlined occurs within the highest echelons of the largest corporation in this
countrythe United States Governmentevery four years. This illustration
is but a microcosm of the national trauma we endure when it comes to electing
our next president (or reelecting the current one), and one I believe works
no better for us than it would for our fictitious corporation.
One only needs to look at the current atmosphere of polarization, contempt and
distrust to surmise that our election process is badly flawed on several levels,
from the quality and qualifications of the men and women running for office
to the general fickleness of the voting public itself. Unfathomable amounts
of money are spent to pay for around-the-clock negative campaign ads and months
of tedious electioneering analysis and punditry are endured all in an effort
to elect a person only a fraction of the population are truly happy with. Then
we do the same thing all over again four years later, with one party trying
to destroy the other in an attempt to get "their man" (or woman) into
the Oval Office to enjoy the next four years of the general public's contempt,
apathy and indifference. The problem is systemic, and appears to be growing
worse rather than better.
It wouldn't be so bad if this process resulted in superior leaders, but history
has demonstrated that it has produced no more than a handful of truly capable
presidents, with a pantheon of the inept, mediocre, and just plain corrupt being
the norm. Of course, none of the forty-three men (Grover Cleveland having two
non-consecutive terms) who have held the office were truly evil nor did any
of them set out to be bad leaders; it's just that the job turns out to be more
than theyor most men or women for that mattercan handle.
But why is this? Why do we so rarely elect the most qualified or capable people,
but instead are forced to choose among the most charismatic, the best organized,
or in many cases simply the most determined, ambitious, and wealthy? Frequently
we cast our ballots based on nothing more than the fact that our candidate is
less objectionable than their opponent and then wonder why we aren't satisfied
with the direction of the country!
But it doesn't have to be that way. Consider for a moment that in this country
of over three hundred million men and woman, there must be literally thousands
of people who possess the leadership skills, intelligence, experience and wisdom
to make, if not a great president, at least a competent one. They might be business
owners or corporate executives, educators or diplomats, scientists or teachers,
or even gardeners or carpenters, but I am convinced that there are at least
a thousand people more qualified to be president than most of the people who
have held the post in the past or will hold it in the future. The only reason
they don't runand, in fact, the main reason we never hear about them at
allis because they have neither the means, ambition, nor inclination to
endure the rigors of a two year presidential campaign (or it could be because
they are smart enough to know better). In any case, they don't make it into
the stellar heights of presidential wannabes for any number of reasonsmuch
to the detriment of our country.
So how might we rectify this problem and create a scenario in which everyone
who casts their vote can do so knowing that no matter who wins, the country
is likely to be in good hands? I have pondered this question and have a few
suggestions that we might consider. I'm under no illusions that a single idea
mentioned here will be adopted any time soon (if ever), but I believe that whenever
a person complains about things, they should be ready with a set of solutions
lest their grievances be seen as little more than mere belly-aching. As such,
I present my answer to the question of not only how we should go about electing
our next president, but how to do it in a way that is most likely to guarantee
a truly qualified candidate wins while minimizing the rancor and political infighting
that has become the hallmark of American politics.
Step1: Write
a Job Description
Do you realize that unlike nearly 99% of all jobs in the world, that of president
of the United States has no formalized job description? Wouldn't having the
basic qualifications and requirementsalong with a complete list of expected
dutiesmake selecting our next candidates far easier? It's most immediate
advantage would be that it would allow us to instantly discount the vast majority
of those who aspire to the job, saving them and the rest of us months of having
to endure their mindless drivel. Okay, here's my proposed job description:
POSITION: President of the United States
QUALIFICATIONS: Must be an American citizen (naturalized or native born)
at least 35 years of age. Must be a man or woman of integrity, intelligence,
and proven leadership abilities (creating and successfully running ones own
business, senior executive in a major corporation, organizer of a global charity,
etc.) Higher education helpful but not required; experience being the primary
factor in consideration for this position. Candidate must be a quick learner,
possess the capacity to take both criticism and advice equally well, consistently
demonstrate an even temper and generally good-natured demeanor, and have the
ability to simultaneously consider multiple options while under extreme duress.
Candidate must also possess a prerequisite sense of humor, have an innate compassion
for others, be of a peaceful nature though still possess the strength and willingness
to fight for what they believe in, and most important of all they must at all
times maintain and express the courage of their convictions. Honesty, reliability,
consistency and patience are all required traits, as is the ability to work
long hours, be able to negotiate compromises between warring factions, and explain
your policies in a coherent manner to the general public. Rigorous and often
relentless schedule with some travel required with the possibility of being
put into dangerous circumstances (and potentially being the target of political
assassination) is always a possibility.
DUTIES:
Of course, this is only a partial list, but you get the idea. At least it's a place to start. Okay, so now we have our job description, what next?
Step 2: Identify
the Candidates
The next step in this process is to create a review board whose job it will
be to identify a short list of from ten to fifteen potential candidates. This
august body would be composed of carefully selected men and woman of various
backgrounds and qualifications from both ends of the political spectrum (as
well as those in between). It would include diplomats, politicians, scientists,
engineers, educators, capitalists, industrialists, artists, authors, activists,
military officers, philosophers, and even a few psychiatrists thrown in for
good measure, along with representatives of all the major religions (and even
a few atheists and secular humanists thrown in for good measure) as well as
anyone else thought to have a stake in the country's future. They would serve
on this board for a period of approximately six months, without pay.
Next, this committee (let's call it the Presidential Review Committee-PRC for
short) would meet about a year prior to the general election on a weekly basis,
going over a who's who of potential candidates that has been collected and periodically
updated over the years, examining each person with the above job qualifications
in mind. This investigation, done without any of the potential candidate's knowledge,
would go beyond merely examining their professional résumé, but
ask questions normally outside the venue of a traditional job interview such
as whether there are any papers they've published, talks or lectures they have
given, charitable organizations they have worked with or chaired, accomplishments
and awards they have achieved, organizations they belong to and boards they
have served on, along with other aspects of their professional and public lives.
Their private life would also be examined (within reason) as well, basically
with an eye on determining each candidate's moral and ethical nature, and they
would even be evaluated by a panel of psychiatrists to determine their mental
state (of course, since the evaluation is being done without the subject's knowledge,
such an evaluation would have to be largely guesswork, but it could still provide
some idea of what personality "type" the prospective candidate possessed).
And, finally, they would be evaluated on the basis of their physical health
and whether they might have any medical conditions that could prevent them from
maintaining the robust physical requirements demanded by the role of President.
Next, after months of evaluation and investigation, each member of the PRC would
assign a numerical score of from 50 to 100 to each area of review: qualifications,
education, experience, health, personality, etc., which would be added to those
of the other council members to produce a cumulative score. The ten to fifteen
candidates with the highest scores would then be approached with an "invitation"
to seek the presidency. Of course, each finalist would have the choice of turning
down the invitation, in which case the next person on the list (with the individual
with the highest score being given first right of refusal) would be approached
next until five candidates have agreed to serve as potential candidates. Those
five would be then be publicly announced a mere six months prior to the November
election, thereby starting the election clock.
The beauty of this plan is that it demands only a few months time and no financial
investment, opening the process up to almost anyone who meets the basic criteria.
Devoid of the rigors of the modern political process, even the most unassuming
person might be willing to give it a shot if invited to do so.
Step 3: Alter
the Election Process
Obviously, for any of this to work, it would require not merely a dramatic transformation
in the election process itself, but largely an overhaul of the entire system.
First, and perhaps most importantly of all, the entire election cycle would
be greatly shortened, thereby easing the emotional toll each election induces
upon a frequently frustrated and fatigued populace. In my world, the race for
the White House would last a mere six months and be broken into two ninety day
segments: the first three months would be an introduction to and examination
of the five selected candidates (largely through a series of sponsored debates
and video profile reports) followed by a single national primary. The top two
vote getters from this nation-wide primary would face off in the November general
election just three months later (with each candidate's running mate being selected
from among the three primary election losers. This way all four candidatesthe
two presidential contenders and their running mateswould be equally qualified
to be president, regardless of which candidate wins in November.)
Second, no candidate would run under the banner of a particular political party.
Of course, most candidates would likely have some personal party affiliation
and may have even run for public office under a specific party in the past,
but for this election they would remain unaffiliated in an effort to hopefully
reduce the rancor seen in most elections as well as greatly diminish a candidate's
need to "tow the party line" in order to retain support. This would
also make the election far less dirty, as each candidate would have little reason
to attack their opponent; the election process instead concentrating on the
qualifications of each candidate. Of course, a political party or organization
would be free to endorse a particular candidate (as would labor unions and private
citizens) but the candidate would not be allowed to endorse or promote a particular
party's political platform.
Third, money would not be a factor in this election. Both primary winners would
be given a flat $50 million dollars (tax-free) with which to pay for staff,
advertising, travel expenses, etc. and none could accept private donations (citizens
could still contribute to the various political parties, of course, and to PACs,
but it would need to be ensured that none of these monies would go directly
into a candidate's coffers). Public events and scheduled debates would be privately
funded, and of course each declared candidate would be afforded full Secret
Service protection for as long as needed. Additionally, a wealthy candidate
could not contribute any of his or her own money to their campaign, thereby
eliminating affluence as an advantage.
Finally, the election itself would be held on the first Sunday in November when
most Americans do not have traffic, jobs, and other events to be concerned about.
It is expected most voting would be done via the internet (with registered voters
being assigned a twelve digit alpha-numeric code beforehand which would only
be accepted once and only on the day of the election) though polling stations
will still be available. This would greatly speed up the process by practically
eliminating troublesome absentee voting and the chance of fraud as well as all
but eliminate those nasty long lines at polling stations, which would be a huge
boon to civilization already.
I imagine many readers imagine I'd also suggest eliminating the electoral college
and selecting the winner purely through the popular vote, but I don't see that
as being fair. The electoral college was designed to ensure that the president
is elected by the states in an effort to deter candidates from concentrating
all their efforts in only the most populous coastal cities and ignoring the
"hinterlands" of the country. Without the electoral college, the presidency
would be routinely decided by a half dozen heavily populated states, resulting
in a potential indifference to issues important to the rest of the country and
creating a power monopoly centered around New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
Unfortunately, that's not the last word on the subject. In the three Presidential
elections in history in which the winning candidate won the electoral vote but
failed to win the popular vote, each President's legitimacy was questioned,
much to the detriment of their administration and, it could be argued, to the
country at large. As such, the question remains of how does a candidate maintain
legitimacy without a popular vote majority and still make the selection reflective
of the entire nation and not just the big cities? Easy: give each state a single
electoral vote regardless of their population, with the winner being the candidate
who wins twenty-six or more states (a tie would be broken by the popular vote.)
In this way North Dakota becomes as vital to a candidate's chances as does California,
making for a far more equitable situation. Of course, it's still possible a
candidate could win a majority of states and still lose the popular vote (as
George Bush did in 2000) but it comes as close to an equitable solution as I
can think of.
Single Term
or Life Term Presidencies?
Finally, the last significant change I'd suggest is making the Presidency a
potentially life-time position rather than limiting it to a pair of four year
terms. I know this is probably the most controversial aspect of my plan, but
consider it from the standpoint of practicality: if a particular leader proves
to be highly capable, why force them to step down after a comparatively brief
tenure, especially just when they may be hitting their stride? Successful corporate
CEOs have been known to stay on for decades, so why should we automatically
retire a proven commodity once we've finally found him or her? Instead, it makes
more sense for the President to serve as long as they are capable of doing soboth
physically and popularlyrather than repeating the messy and ponderous
process of electing a new leader every four or eight years.
Of course, this doesn't mean a President couldn't be recalled (or fired, in
more vernacular terms) if they fail to live up to expectations. Like judges,
the President would be automatically subjected to a straight up yes/no "confidence"
vote by the voting public (unless they announced their resignation at the end
of their term beforehand) three years into each four year term, with only a
simple majority needed to either keep the President in powerthereby eliminating
the need for another electionor give him or her their termination notice,
at which point a new PRC panel would be empowered to begin the search once again
for a replacement. Additionally, a sitting President could still be removed
from office through impeachment or the Congress could call for an early "confidence"
vote (with a two-thirds vote) anytime after the President's twenty-fourth month
in office. Like a corporate CEO, a President would serve at the indulgence of
the public and could be removed at any point were their performance to be considered
seriously lacking.
And, just to be complete, what if a sitting President fails to finish their
term for any reason and the Vice President takes over? If this happened before
the President had completed his or her first twenty-fourth months in office,
the Vice-President would effectively become president for life (though, of course,
they would still be subjected to the automated "confidence" vote one
year prior to the end of each term precisely as their predecessor would have
had they remained in office). Should this eventuality come to pass after the
twenty-fourth month, however, the Vice-President will be considered an interim
leader only, would not be subjected to a confidence vote, and would have to
run for their own term in the next election cycle (again, with the PRC choosing
a slate of candidates for him or her to run against). In either case, the succeeding
Vice-President would be selected from among the last election cycle's slate
of losing candidates, or a special, abbreviated version of the PRC could be
called to choose a slate of candidates and a special election called.
True Democracy
or Merely an Autocracy?
Some may complain that my proposal threatens the basis of the democratic process
by depriving the vast majority of Americans the right to run for president if
they have the means and ambition to do so. To this charge I plead guilty. This
is a more autocratic way to elect our leaders, with tremendous power being delegated
to a short-term, unelected panel of what might best be described as Human Resources
managers. However, it still strikes me as a far more enlightened and less rancorous
means of choosing the countries' leaders, for not only does it largelythough
not entirelydivorce the election process from the long-term rigors of
a brutal and expensive and frequently polarizing campaign, but ensures a higher
quality of leadership in the process. Surely "drafting" men and woman
with proven leadership abilities who are devoid of the naked ambition inherent
to so many who run for the presidency could only be considered an improvement
over our present system, and it would free our leaders from the pressures and
demands of having to continually keep their Party leadership happy while attempting
to be as bipartisan as possible. Further, it would give men and woman of tremendous
abilities an opportunity for service they would never have through our present
system. It may not be the perfect solution, but what we are doing now doesn't
seem to be working, so why not give my proposal some consideration?
TOP
| ODDS N' ENDS PAGE | HOME