(1) Remove money from the requirement of being elected. It is such a waste to spend millions of dollars on an election.
(2) Shorten the time of the election. No one needs 1 1/2 to 2 years to decide who to vote for. Six weeks to three months and no longer than six months is all that is needed.
Yes. Look at democraties in Europe. The US's excessive money driven elections, favoring a few, is contrary to the very notion of a democratic society as conceaved by europeans.
The problem as I see it is our system has failed to evolve. That in my view, that is the problem with organized religion, Congress, our views on the ecology, politics, etc etc etc..while the earth evolves, while we evolve (very slowly), our institutions do not.
In the film Armageddon, Bruce Willis's character asks NASA (paraphrasing) "is this the best you could come up with?". I'm not in a position to comment on elections processes of other countries, however I often wonder, - for the size of the country, what it is supposed to represent on the global stage, and how it want to be seen, when they select nominations for leader - "of all the people you have, is that genuinely the best you could come up with?"
I love your question - this is not the best we have. The USA is full of people who could be amazing national leaders. They cannot get a placement on the ballot for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the protections aggressively maintained by the current crop of "leaders" who keep the doors to the next generation closed. I am certain the next generation is about to blow the doors off OR create new systems of change. I in favor of either. The current direction is not serving the country.
I completely support what you are saying. I also believe that good character is one of the most important traits we should seek in a candidate, even if that seems impossible at the moment.
Include forensic financial audit of candidates and do it randomly for those already in office. Not only do they need to be competent, they must also be trustworthy. Capable crooks need not apply.
Headlines are made by the most egregious characters, but we have plenty of good to great leaders today. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind, Cory Booker also. In my AZ State legislature, I’ve been a Long time admirer of Mitzi Epstein for her knowledge, calmness and passion to do what I consider a crappy job filled with stress.
I'd propose the Gore-Tex corporate governance model, kind of an inside out leadership.
The idea is that workers belong to (assigned) small groups, about 20. The workers elect their own representative from the group, and are free to recall that representative at any time and elect another member of the group.
The group leaders get together, in the same way, a small groups,and elect their own leader as their representative, which they can vote to recall and replace at any time. We proceed like this to the CEO, which is elected by a board beneath them, that can, again, recall the CEO at any time.
The purpose of groups is to meet periodically on issues that affect them. Every step up, however, is concerned with a different set of issues on a longer time line. Line workers may be concerned with weekly schedules and a fair distribution of the week's work, their leader attends to longer range issues, perhaps a month or quarter, supply issues, etc. The CEO is ultimately responsible for the five year corporate strategy, opening or closing plants, dealing with shareholders, entering new markets (or withdrawing), etc.
It is the power of recall that keeps group representatives honest, all the way down to the individual workers (or in our case, adult citizens).
Workers are, reportedly, quite satisfied at Gore-Tex, happy with their jobs and advancement if they want it, etc.
We could adjust the model for voters; so we can choose our groups, and allow some groups of plus or minus 1 to ensure everybody can be in a group. This would be a more representative form of government: The consensus of your group represents your feelings more accurately.
I am glad someone mentions that elected representatives should be subject to recall (no safe tenure for a whole term on promises not sure can be kept).
Yes, a central feature of this model. If majority of the group decides their representative is not representing their views, and the representative cannot explain why they are voting against the majority, or what special circumstances apply, then they can recall the representative, and hold another election for a different representative.
But the demoted representative is going to be a member of their group again, and get a vote on the new representative.
I'm not sure if there is a protocol to eject somebody from the group altogether, or to transfer to another group with an opening, but perhaps some super-majority protocol can be devised for that eventuality.
If you've not yet familiarized yourself with STAR Voting (https://www.starvoting.org/), you owe it to yourself to do so. It's an existing, highly viable and evidence-based alternative to the "hold your nose and vote" status quo. Originating here in Oregon, it's garnering small, if growing interest worldwide. STAR Voting is easy to use, easy to tally (just two rounds, vs. Ranked Choice's confusing system), and highly representative of both the depth and breadth of a voter's preferences. Working a little like Yelp, it lets you give highest , 5-star scores to your favorite(s), whether or not they stand a strong chance of winning, but still have your next-best preferences count if your most favorite doesn't make it into the final tally. It's far better structured than Ranked Choice. Seriously, this one's for real, not a fantasy. I encourage you to give it a look-see.
Just learned about STAR recently and it is amazing! I know there’s more momentum for RCV currently but either solution is a vast improvement over our terrible current voting system.
I'm glad you found STAR Voting! I agree, it's a breath of fresh air when you do. I also agree that both Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and STAR are improvements over the current "Choose One" system. But IMO, only STAR qualifies as a _vast_ improvement. RCV especially falls apart when there are a lot of candidates to choose from, as it doesn't as effectively protect against "vote splitting" (weaker candidates winning because an otherwise plurality of votes end up getting spread too thinly across the actual preferred candidates). Here's a page that further compares Choose One vs. RCV vs. STAR: https://www.equal.vote/better_voting
Over time, we have become more of a entertainment-oriented culture, so we generally hear sound-bites rather than read position papers. The polarization that we see is mainly a result of laziness more than anything. Voters won't do the difficult work of learning about issues and sifting through the rhetoric presented by candidates. It's easier to take extreme positions on issues rather than understanding the trade-offs involved with any policy decision.
As an economist, I have frequently thought that I seldom find what is supplied to be a surprise but am often surprised by demand. That Trump would want to be President is not surprising or, frankly, of much interest or concern by itself. What is astonishing is the breadth and nature of demand for him. (sorry, a personal example, insert Biden if that appeals). I would also observe that, with the exception of the one office that everyone votes for, more commonly the persons we want to oust are people for whom we don't have a vote (Pelosi, Cruz, etc, etc). I find that frustration to be irrelevant. If West Virginia voters truly want Manchin, then that is for them to decide. So, my frustration with "your choice" is not a reason to change the system. For me it boils down to why do we end up with candidates that make a majority (or a lot) look for door #3. Personally, I think a huge problem is that 1) most voters don't want to do the homework and thus look for someone to tell them who is good and why which leads to 2) the need for big money to create a media heavy promotion which in turn requires 3) backing by big money which 4) means a small number of very wealthy and totally unrepresentative people get to decide who is going to have the tools for a successful campaign. Selecting government officials like ping pong balls in a rotating wire ball is one solution to this, but if the real issue is campaign financing, then there are other, very different options. It is also well to keep in mind that for offices that are not term limited, the need for money is perpetual. It has forever been the joke in the House that the first day of the next campaign is the day after the last election. For at least a few decades now, this has also become the observation for Senators. This leads to an addiction for money to stoke the habit. Does ping pong selection automatically mean one term limits? Logically it must. Is that a good idea? Personally I think having some legislative, governing, and political experience is a good thing, although maybe not so good as to electing people beyond their "best used by" date. thanks for provoking thought about what may well be an existential topic.
I love the Churchill quote—except that you truncated it and reversed his meaning. The full quote is:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, and that public opinion expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”
“We haven’t turned public leadership into a profession like law or medicine”? Wait, we most definitely have a professional political class. Universities have majors built around developing the political professional. The whole reason for term limits is to rid ourselves of the professional politician.
I too proposed this to family members and I was met with the many reasons why it couldn’t be done instead of what could work. I think it is a grand way to reorganize Congress. I would remove the pay to play we currently have. It would discourage careers in dictating to others.
I think the 2-party political system has gotten too powerful and controlling. All it's giving us is the choice between meh and meh. We need 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties to come along and shake things up. The problem is the media is biased and only promotes the 2 reigning party candidates. When it comes to government I feel like I'm watching theatre and often wonder what is going on behind the scenes that their drama is distracting me from knowing.
It's not the system that is the problem. It's simple apathy. Consider that half the adult population never bother to register to vote. Of those that do, 30-40% actually vote...on a good day. That means a small percentage of the entire adult population values their freedom, or understands how voting affects that freedom, enough to participate.
Electing peers, not professional power-mongers, is an essential attribute that preserves freedom and allows "Power to the People" to be more than a platitude.
Thank you to the good people who are willing to weather the push back and nastiness that too often comes with being in the public eye. It is especially difficult when 2 or more sides of an issue have good reasons and strong support. I work with business teams to help the navigate tough decisions but politicians have to do the navigation in the public arena.
3 Things are needed:
(1) Remove money from the requirement of being elected. It is such a waste to spend millions of dollars on an election.
(2) Shorten the time of the election. No one needs 1 1/2 to 2 years to decide who to vote for. Six weeks to three months and no longer than six months is all that is needed.
(3) Term Limits
Yes. Look at democraties in Europe. The US's excessive money driven elections, favoring a few, is contrary to the very notion of a democratic society as conceaved by europeans.
The problem as I see it is our system has failed to evolve. That in my view, that is the problem with organized religion, Congress, our views on the ecology, politics, etc etc etc..while the earth evolves, while we evolve (very slowly), our institutions do not.
I agree that experimentation is needed.
It seems logical that a 21st century world could come up with something more suited to their needs than one with its roots in the 18th century.
In the film Armageddon, Bruce Willis's character asks NASA (paraphrasing) "is this the best you could come up with?". I'm not in a position to comment on elections processes of other countries, however I often wonder, - for the size of the country, what it is supposed to represent on the global stage, and how it want to be seen, when they select nominations for leader - "of all the people you have, is that genuinely the best you could come up with?"
Nice article Adam. Thanks for sharing.
I love your question - this is not the best we have. The USA is full of people who could be amazing national leaders. They cannot get a placement on the ballot for a number of reasons - not the least of which is the protections aggressively maintained by the current crop of "leaders" who keep the doors to the next generation closed. I am certain the next generation is about to blow the doors off OR create new systems of change. I in favor of either. The current direction is not serving the country.
I completely support what you are saying. I also believe that good character is one of the most important traits we should seek in a candidate, even if that seems impossible at the moment.
Include forensic financial audit of candidates and do it randomly for those already in office. Not only do they need to be competent, they must also be trustworthy. Capable crooks need not apply.
Headlines are made by the most egregious characters, but we have plenty of good to great leaders today. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind, Cory Booker also. In my AZ State legislature, I’ve been a Long time admirer of Mitzi Epstein for her knowledge, calmness and passion to do what I consider a crappy job filled with stress.
Yikes! I disagree violently with your idea of good leadership.
Really, violently you disagree with @JulieMorrison?
Then name a few good leader you like. It’s like saying everyone you work with is terrible and you know that isn’t true.
I'd propose the Gore-Tex corporate governance model, kind of an inside out leadership.
The idea is that workers belong to (assigned) small groups, about 20. The workers elect their own representative from the group, and are free to recall that representative at any time and elect another member of the group.
The group leaders get together, in the same way, a small groups,and elect their own leader as their representative, which they can vote to recall and replace at any time. We proceed like this to the CEO, which is elected by a board beneath them, that can, again, recall the CEO at any time.
The purpose of groups is to meet periodically on issues that affect them. Every step up, however, is concerned with a different set of issues on a longer time line. Line workers may be concerned with weekly schedules and a fair distribution of the week's work, their leader attends to longer range issues, perhaps a month or quarter, supply issues, etc. The CEO is ultimately responsible for the five year corporate strategy, opening or closing plants, dealing with shareholders, entering new markets (or withdrawing), etc.
It is the power of recall that keeps group representatives honest, all the way down to the individual workers (or in our case, adult citizens).
Workers are, reportedly, quite satisfied at Gore-Tex, happy with their jobs and advancement if they want it, etc.
We could adjust the model for voters; so we can choose our groups, and allow some groups of plus or minus 1 to ensure everybody can be in a group. This would be a more representative form of government: The consensus of your group represents your feelings more accurately.
I am glad someone mentions that elected representatives should be subject to recall (no safe tenure for a whole term on promises not sure can be kept).
Yes, a central feature of this model. If majority of the group decides their representative is not representing their views, and the representative cannot explain why they are voting against the majority, or what special circumstances apply, then they can recall the representative, and hold another election for a different representative.
But the demoted representative is going to be a member of their group again, and get a vote on the new representative.
I'm not sure if there is a protocol to eject somebody from the group altogether, or to transfer to another group with an opening, but perhaps some super-majority protocol can be devised for that eventuality.
If you've not yet familiarized yourself with STAR Voting (https://www.starvoting.org/), you owe it to yourself to do so. It's an existing, highly viable and evidence-based alternative to the "hold your nose and vote" status quo. Originating here in Oregon, it's garnering small, if growing interest worldwide. STAR Voting is easy to use, easy to tally (just two rounds, vs. Ranked Choice's confusing system), and highly representative of both the depth and breadth of a voter's preferences. Working a little like Yelp, it lets you give highest , 5-star scores to your favorite(s), whether or not they stand a strong chance of winning, but still have your next-best preferences count if your most favorite doesn't make it into the final tally. It's far better structured than Ranked Choice. Seriously, this one's for real, not a fantasy. I encourage you to give it a look-see.
Just learned about STAR recently and it is amazing! I know there’s more momentum for RCV currently but either solution is a vast improvement over our terrible current voting system.
I'm glad you found STAR Voting! I agree, it's a breath of fresh air when you do. I also agree that both Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) and STAR are improvements over the current "Choose One" system. But IMO, only STAR qualifies as a _vast_ improvement. RCV especially falls apart when there are a lot of candidates to choose from, as it doesn't as effectively protect against "vote splitting" (weaker candidates winning because an otherwise plurality of votes end up getting spread too thinly across the actual preferred candidates). Here's a page that further compares Choose One vs. RCV vs. STAR: https://www.equal.vote/better_voting
Over time, we have become more of a entertainment-oriented culture, so we generally hear sound-bites rather than read position papers. The polarization that we see is mainly a result of laziness more than anything. Voters won't do the difficult work of learning about issues and sifting through the rhetoric presented by candidates. It's easier to take extreme positions on issues rather than understanding the trade-offs involved with any policy decision.
Lottery is how the Doges were elected in Venice - they had a very convoluted system to avoid corruption and it seemed to work ok for quite a while!
If you as a citizen want to be ruled by an oligarchy.
As an economist, I have frequently thought that I seldom find what is supplied to be a surprise but am often surprised by demand. That Trump would want to be President is not surprising or, frankly, of much interest or concern by itself. What is astonishing is the breadth and nature of demand for him. (sorry, a personal example, insert Biden if that appeals). I would also observe that, with the exception of the one office that everyone votes for, more commonly the persons we want to oust are people for whom we don't have a vote (Pelosi, Cruz, etc, etc). I find that frustration to be irrelevant. If West Virginia voters truly want Manchin, then that is for them to decide. So, my frustration with "your choice" is not a reason to change the system. For me it boils down to why do we end up with candidates that make a majority (or a lot) look for door #3. Personally, I think a huge problem is that 1) most voters don't want to do the homework and thus look for someone to tell them who is good and why which leads to 2) the need for big money to create a media heavy promotion which in turn requires 3) backing by big money which 4) means a small number of very wealthy and totally unrepresentative people get to decide who is going to have the tools for a successful campaign. Selecting government officials like ping pong balls in a rotating wire ball is one solution to this, but if the real issue is campaign financing, then there are other, very different options. It is also well to keep in mind that for offices that are not term limited, the need for money is perpetual. It has forever been the joke in the House that the first day of the next campaign is the day after the last election. For at least a few decades now, this has also become the observation for Senators. This leads to an addiction for money to stoke the habit. Does ping pong selection automatically mean one term limits? Logically it must. Is that a good idea? Personally I think having some legislative, governing, and political experience is a good thing, although maybe not so good as to electing people beyond their "best used by" date. thanks for provoking thought about what may well be an existential topic.
I love the Churchill quote—except that you truncated it and reversed his meaning. The full quote is:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time; but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, and that public opinion expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”
“We haven’t turned public leadership into a profession like law or medicine”? Wait, we most definitely have a professional political class. Universities have majors built around developing the political professional. The whole reason for term limits is to rid ourselves of the professional politician.
I too proposed this to family members and I was met with the many reasons why it couldn’t be done instead of what could work. I think it is a grand way to reorganize Congress. I would remove the pay to play we currently have. It would discourage careers in dictating to others.
I think the 2-party political system has gotten too powerful and controlling. All it's giving us is the choice between meh and meh. We need 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties to come along and shake things up. The problem is the media is biased and only promotes the 2 reigning party candidates. When it comes to government I feel like I'm watching theatre and often wonder what is going on behind the scenes that their drama is distracting me from knowing.
It occurs to me that we do use a lottery in the US.
We use it for juries.
How many people avoid jury service?
How many people blame court decisions on the stupidity of people who couldn't get out of jury service?
Now tell me you did want to put the legal system in the hands of people who couldn't figure how to get out of a two year commitment?
It's not the system that is the problem. It's simple apathy. Consider that half the adult population never bother to register to vote. Of those that do, 30-40% actually vote...on a good day. That means a small percentage of the entire adult population values their freedom, or understands how voting affects that freedom, enough to participate.
Electing peers, not professional power-mongers, is an essential attribute that preserves freedom and allows "Power to the People" to be more than a platitude.
Thank you to the good people who are willing to weather the push back and nastiness that too often comes with being in the public eye. It is especially difficult when 2 or more sides of an issue have good reasons and strong support. I work with business teams to help the navigate tough decisions but politicians have to do the navigation in the public arena.