How We Select Our Leaders, Reinvented
Monday, October 29, 2012 21:50
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
Here is my next column in Mensa’s The Intelligencer.
The
Life Well-Led
Life Well-Led
by Marty
Nemko
Nemko
How We Select
Our Leaders, Reinvented
Our Leaders, Reinvented
Is the the lying and deceptions of both
presidential candidates disgusting you? How about that they and their SuperPACS will have spent $2 billion, heavily to pay for truth-obfuscating commercials, slick ads that
clutter your e-mail and snail mailbox, not
to mention telemarketing get-out-the-vote phone calls interrupting your dinner?
presidential candidates disgusting you? How about that they and their SuperPACS will have spent $2 billion, heavily to pay for truth-obfuscating commercials, slick ads that
clutter your e-mail and snail mailbox, not
to mention telemarketing get-out-the-vote phone calls interrupting your dinner?
And the future bodes worse: The
Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision means that they can raise money
without limits to manipulate us into voting for them.
Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision means that they can raise money
without limits to manipulate us into voting for them.
Indeed, today, nearly every sentence
spoken by major politicians is dial focus-group tested by
Madison-Avenue-inspired “messaging teams.” Sometimes it seems we’re not voting for the
best candidate but for the best propaganda machine.
spoken by major politicians is dial focus-group tested by
Madison-Avenue-inspired “messaging teams.” Sometimes it seems we’re not voting for the
best candidate but for the best propaganda machine.
As troubling, those special
interests wouldn’t be pouring billions into campaigns unless they were
confident it would make politicians do their bidding rather than what’s best
for the nation.
interests wouldn’t be pouring billions into campaigns unless they were
confident it would make politicians do their bidding rather than what’s best
for the nation.
Perhaps worst of all, the need to
run a four-year-long press-the-fat-cat’s flesh campaign deters many of the most
worthy people from running.
run a four-year-long press-the-fat-cat’s flesh campaign deters many of the most
worthy people from running.
I believe that the following two approaches would
ensure we elect better and less-corrupted leaders:
ensure we elect better and less-corrupted leaders:
The
Two-Week Publicly-Funded Campaign
Two-Week Publicly-Funded Campaign
- All campaigns would be 100% publicly-funded. That
has been proposed and rejected in the past as a denial of free speech. I
believe that abridgment is far outweighed by the benefit to society - All campaigns would be just two weeks long.
That would control cost and only minimally reduce voter knowledge: By the
time most voters vote, they’ve forgotten what they heard weeks ago. - The campaigns would consist only of one or
two broadcast debates. Those would be followed by a job simulation:
running a meeting. - A neutral body such as C-Span or Consumers
Union would post each major candidate’s biographical highlights, voting
record, and platform on key issues.
Such a system would reduce
candidates’ corruptibility while increasing the quality of information voters
would have about the candidates. As important, better candidates would run,
knowing they needn’t run an endless, expensive, beholden-to-special-interests
campaign.
candidates’ corruptibility while increasing the quality of information voters
would have about the candidates. As important, better candidates would run,
knowing they needn’t run an endless, expensive, beholden-to-special-interests
campaign.
Alas, this problem does create a thorny problem: Who
participates? The best solution I can come up with is that the Democrats,
Republicans, Socialists/Greens, and Libertarians would each have the option to
present a candidate.
participates? The best solution I can come up with is that the Democrats,
Republicans, Socialists/Greens, and Libertarians would each have the option to
present a candidate.
An even
more different approach: Don’t Elect.
Select.
more different approach: Don’t Elect.
Select.
In Don’t Elect. Select, our government officials would be selected, not by voting
but using passive criteria. For example, the Senate might consist of the most
newly retired of the 10 largest nonprofits, a randomly selected CEO of the
S&P Midcap 400, the Police Officer of America’s Cop of the Year, the National
Teacher of the Year, the most award-winning scientist under age 30, a randomly
selected Harvard visual/performing arts instructor, plus random citizens. To ensure sufficient but not excessive
continuity, the senators would every four years, anonymously rate each others’
job performance, and the top 25% would retain their job for the next four years
and the other 75% would be selected using the passive criteria mentioned in
this paragraph.
but using passive criteria. For example, the Senate might consist of the most
newly retired of the 10 largest nonprofits, a randomly selected CEO of the
S&P Midcap 400, the Police Officer of America’s Cop of the Year, the National
Teacher of the Year, the most award-winning scientist under age 30, a randomly
selected Harvard visual/performing arts instructor, plus random citizens. To ensure sufficient but not excessive
continuity, the senators would every four years, anonymously rate each others’
job performance, and the top 25% would retain their job for the next four years
and the other 75% would be selected using the passive criteria mentioned in
this paragraph.
The benefits of this
system:
- We’d have a more
worthy and ideationally diverse group of leaders.
there would be no campaigns, our leaders would not be beholden to big donors.- The public would view
such a leadership with more respect than they have for our elected candidates. - The absence of
campaigns would save the public a fortune. Just our income tax form’s
$3-per-person check-off box to political campaigns is projected to, over the
next 10 years, cost
the taxpayer $617 million[i].
Of course, one might
argue that the incumbent politicians would never allow it. After all, the foxes
are guarding the hen house.
believe the media, equally eager to see better leaders, would urge the
electorate to support candidates who would vote for a fairer selection system.
And politicians, concerned about their place in history, would feel pressure to
support the change. History would view politicians that voted themselves out of
a job for the good of the nation as heroes, while no-voting politicians would
be seen as self-serving obstructionists.
Another objection is
that Don’t Elect. Select would
require a Constitutional amendment, which is no easy task, but the Constitution
has already been amended 27 times. I can’t think of a more worthy reason for
number 28.
This is an
adapted excerpt from from my just-published seventh book: What’s the Big Idea? 39 Disruptive Proposals for a Better America.
adapted excerpt from from my just-published seventh book: What’s the Big Idea? 39 Disruptive Proposals for a Better America.
2012-10-29 21:42:46
Source: http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-we-select-our-leaders-reinvented.html
Source:
