John McCain and Barack Obama: There Must Be A Better Way To Select A President
A year ago, I had high expectations for the 2008 Presidential Election. Not only would we have a change in leadership, but for the first time in a long time, there would be no incumbent and no vice presidential candidate. It turns out that the field was wide open, and between the Republican and Democratic Parties, there were nearly 30 people competing for their party's nomination. With several candidates to choose from and lots of time to choose them, we would have two quality candidates in November. Well, that reasoning makes sense, but that really isn't what happened.
If you look at the candidates, we have John McCain and Barack Obama. Since they are the nominees for their respective parties, you would assume that they are the best their parties had to offer. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The parties are rallying around their candidates, but amongst independents, there seems to be a lack of satisfaction with their choices. After all the debates and all the campaigning, we're left with just two candidates, who in theory, are the best their respective parties have to offer. I find this hard to believe. We need to change the candidate selection process and media coverage. We need an electoral revolution.
Our first problem is the primary process. For the most part, candidates focus on one state at a time, try to impress a small group of voters, then move on to the next state. Many candidates were out of the race before a quarter of the people in their party had the opportunity to vote for their candidate. Is this fair? Why should voters in Iowa or New Hampshire have so much power? I can think of one solution: Have national primaries. Each party should set a date in the spring and have all the states vote on the same day. It would be less like a circus, and it would ensure that every member of a political party was able to cast a vote that is not tainted by the results of another state.
The second problem, and possibly the biggest, is the media coverage of elections. To most Americans, there are two political Parties: Democrats and Republicans. The only way to change the way the media covers elections is for people to notice other political parties, but the average person won't notice the parties because of their lack of coverage. It's a circular problem that dooms the other political parties. However, we can solve this with just one change: Allow third party candidates to participate in the Presidential debate if they are on the ballot in enough states. For example, there could be a rule stating that all candidates who are on the ballot in at least 75% are eligible to appear. This would allow Americans to learn about other candidates whil ensuring that the candidates who appear have a national organization that is able to get its message out in most of the states.
These ideas would help ensure that the best person wins the Presidency, not the one from the most popular party, while helping well-organized candidates get much needed exposure. For the most part, Democrats and Republicans would probably fight these proposals because it makes their lives more difficult. Unfortunately, until reforms are enacted, we probably won't have much to choose from in Presidential elections.
If you look at the candidates, we have John McCain and Barack Obama. Since they are the nominees for their respective parties, you would assume that they are the best their parties had to offer. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The parties are rallying around their candidates, but amongst independents, there seems to be a lack of satisfaction with their choices. After all the debates and all the campaigning, we're left with just two candidates, who in theory, are the best their respective parties have to offer. I find this hard to believe. We need to change the candidate selection process and media coverage. We need an electoral revolution.
Our first problem is the primary process. For the most part, candidates focus on one state at a time, try to impress a small group of voters, then move on to the next state. Many candidates were out of the race before a quarter of the people in their party had the opportunity to vote for their candidate. Is this fair? Why should voters in Iowa or New Hampshire have so much power? I can think of one solution: Have national primaries. Each party should set a date in the spring and have all the states vote on the same day. It would be less like a circus, and it would ensure that every member of a political party was able to cast a vote that is not tainted by the results of another state.
The second problem, and possibly the biggest, is the media coverage of elections. To most Americans, there are two political Parties: Democrats and Republicans. The only way to change the way the media covers elections is for people to notice other political parties, but the average person won't notice the parties because of their lack of coverage. It's a circular problem that dooms the other political parties. However, we can solve this with just one change: Allow third party candidates to participate in the Presidential debate if they are on the ballot in enough states. For example, there could be a rule stating that all candidates who are on the ballot in at least 75% are eligible to appear. This would allow Americans to learn about other candidates whil ensuring that the candidates who appear have a national organization that is able to get its message out in most of the states.
These ideas would help ensure that the best person wins the Presidency, not the one from the most popular party, while helping well-organized candidates get much needed exposure. For the most part, Democrats and Republicans would probably fight these proposals because it makes their lives more difficult. Unfortunately, until reforms are enacted, we probably won't have much to choose from in Presidential elections.
Comments