Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

A Modest Proposal

Submitted by hipparchia on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 2:53am

Outlaw primaries and caucuses entirely.

As bringiton says, political parties are private clubs, and they can run whoever the heck they want, regardless of public opinion, for president, vice-president, senator, dogcatcher. And as BDBlue points out, what with campaigning and primaries and caucuses and all, the parties have misled the public into thinking that we've actually got a voice in this process.

For years I've been arguing that, as one part of reforming the way we do elections in this country, we need one national primary day, operated just like the general election. Secret ballots, ADA-compliant voting places, early voting, absentee ballots, one vote per person and you have to vote in your precinct, paper trail, all results binding, etc.

There would be obstacles to that kind of reform. We'd have to overturn the Supreme Court ruling [rulings? was there more than one? I forget] that says that political parties are private entities. We'd have to convince the taxpayers in the caucus states to pay for real elections [caucuses are paid for by the parties, primaries are paid for by the taxpayers]. Some other things....

But now I'm thinking it would be easier, cheaper, faster to do away with this part altogether. We could just agree with the Supreme Court and force the parties to go back to being private clubs, instead of allowing them to pass themselves off as public entities like they've been doing.

No primaries, no caucuses. The parties can solicit input from the public via television, radio, and print ads, and websites, and mailers, and telephone polls, and so forth. No polls can look like elections, and no mailers, print ads, etc, can resemble official ballots. Each message [poll, ad, website, etc] has to state clearly and up front that while the party is interested in voters' opinions, the candidates [and platform] they ultimately choose won't be decided by the public, but will instead be decided solely by the party.

Persons who want to be considered for their party's nomination have to apply to party officials, they can't ask for money from anyone and they can't ask the public or any other entities to intervene on their behalf.

Parties can hold their conventions anytime after June 1, but must have their final slates submitted to the FEC [or whoever] by July 4, on which date they can begin soliciting donations and their chosen candidates can begin campaigning.

Election Day will still be the first Tuesday in November. Parties and their selected candidates can campaign, solicit donations, and accept money only from July 4 until Election Day.

Individuals who are running as Independents can solicit and accept donations and campaign at any time in an election cycle, but cannot be registered as a member of any party while they are campaigning/accepting donations as an Independent, nor can they accept any nomination to be on any party ticket in the same election cycle where they've run as an Independent.

The media might even have to go back to reporting on boring stuff like wars and tanking economies, at least from November to June.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...precisely how it is done in Canada and other countries. Leader selection is done at occasional party conventions whose process is entirely up to the party. The Liberal Party, for instance, quite explicitly controls access to membership forms so that they can be bestowed as a privilege---and that bestowing them is a privilege.

Local candidates are also selected at closed party meetings of local members, and most of the parties allow The Leader or The Central Committee to override the local choice, which is sometimes not a good move.

Which is the point. The public knows where everyone really stands. If the leadership makes a misstep, they are punished as such. Only a few people have personal investments in it. Primaries are not dragged-out affairs.

And if you don't like it, start another party. No one says you can't elect yourself Party King.

Submitted by hipparchia on

this is a uniquely american solution i'm proposing. because we can't be adopting the poufy ways of other countries here. /sarcasm

that overriding of the local choice sounds like what we get here too, except the party leadership decides which candidate it will throw money at in the primary, rather than just coming right out and saying who they want. same outcome different method, or so it looks like from here.

i'd like to see less money [particularly at the national level] and more independents [particularly at the local level] in elections.

electing myself queen of my own party, i could go along with that.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I think the next best thing would be to institute a run-off election at the presidential level, which would give a third-party candidate an actual chance at disrupting the system, and once you disrupt it it could never go back to two parties, anymore.