Election 2004: Current Political System Problems

First. Our nominating and election process has become severely distorted since it relies on enormous amounts of money to produce 30 second ads that are designed as much to misinform as to inform and with little accountability for the truthfulness of the content or the amount spent and by whom. Unfortunately: (1) negative ads and appeals to wedge issues (those that divide us rather than those that unite us) work well in this abbreviated format; (2) only 4% of citizens make any sort of political contribution, and as G.W. Bush says, you have to "dance with the people who brought you..." and since by far most of the financing has come from large business interests and wealthy individuals, the "dance" is about their interests;(3) while advertising for toothpaste has to be accurate, there are no penalties for misrepresenting an opponents position; and (4) most telephone calls, push polls and web activities are completely beyond any financial or reporting requirements.

Possible solutions: Since the media, campaign consultants, and the elected officials all have a strong financial stake in the present system, any change will have to come from the people. And although the recent McCain Feingold campaign finance reform legislation was the first effort to rein in spending since the 1970's, loopholes have appeared and the legislation's effectiveness has yet to be evaluated. Thus, while Hobie hoped that campaign finance reform would fix the system, the reality seems to be that the financial stakes are so high all interested parties will find ways to game any system. Obviously, pouring unlimited money into a system that is neither regulated or reported is a recipe for disaster... and will naturally increase, not decrease the amount of campaign misrepresentations.... So while the ultimate answer would likely involve public financing of elections... a shorter term goal should be the immediate reporting all amounts spent and by whom on any efforts to influence the election. However, Hobie now believes more accountability might also be realized by the following two other reforms.

Second. Computer technology has allowed gerrymandering with unprecedented accuracy with the result that 98% of the House seats are totally safe seats... that is the incumbent -- or that party's successor candidate -- is virtually guaranteed to be elected. Unfortunately the impact is more than safe seats, it means that the Representatives must court and cater to those who are most active in the party, which means those who are further to the right or left than the electorate as a whole. It also means that the Founding Fathers' intent that the Representatives be closer to the interests of the people has been grossly subverted as the Representatives have instead become closer to the interests of the extremes of their party. (Indeed, until the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913, Representatives were the only directly elected officials since before that time Senators were elected by state legislatures and presidents were and are elected by the Electoral College.) Indeed Senators have become far more representative of the electorate as a whole since they are elected on a state-wide basis. Certainly no one could possibly argue that this was what the Founding Fathers intended... or that it is good for the country, or that it serves any purpose except to preserve political power.

Possible Solutions: We can pray that a legal case that challenges this grotesque gerrymandering will change it. However, a better alternative is to have "the people" demand the present dysfunctional system be changed. And indeed initiatives have been placed on the ballot in Ohio and California that try to do just that... and not surprisingly both Republicans and Democrats are using every tactic, resource and avenue to fight these initiatives...

Third. The best decisions are based on what's best for the country, not what's best for a party... and based on facts rather ideology... thus the more decision makers have to explain and defend their decisions, the better... and unfortunately the present system provides very limited opportunities to question decision makers and allows them to hide behind staged events, sound-bites, and PR spin. Interestingly, most countries that have adopted a democratic republic system of government have chosen a parliamentary system which differs from our congressional system in two significant ways:

By comparison, our political system reflects the Founding Fathers deep fear of government by dividing power between three branches of government, executive, legislature and judiciary (as well as a deep fear of the people by only allowing direct election of Representatives). This conscious decision favored limited government over a more efficient government, i.e. but since different political parties can, and frequently do control the legislature and executive branches, each can escape responsibility and blame the other side. We also have set terms for the executive which means that a president can only be removed during their term by a very difficult impeachment process. And unfortunately it also has come to mean that the executive is immune to direct questioning by the legislature and the opposite party by simply asserting executive privilege.

Certainly the Bush presidency has dramatically demonstrated how our political system has let us down by revealing the stunning differences between Bush and Tony Blair... it's not just that Mr. Blair is incredibly more articulate, but that his rationale and arguments are far better and far more consistent... and make more sense... and this is largely because the English system forces the Prime Minister to defend his actions and positions in a rigorous and sometime raucous way before a very tough crowd of the brightest and best Lords, Ladies and Commoners during a weekly "Question Hour" that is broadcast live to the nation... By contrast Bush has come to his convictions through ideology and association rather than analysis and reflection... and has apparently fallen victim to the praetorian guard effect that isolates presidents in the White House with a staff that tells him what they think he wants to hear.... During the 2000 presidential campaign GW often said that while there were better candidates only he and Al Gore were running... a very truthful and incriminating statement! While forcing a president to weekly answer questions in public would favor articulate candidates, it would not only result in better facts and decisions, it would produce better candidates since the Question Hour also provides a forum for potential candidates to show their stuff... and over time and not just in 30 second sound bites or staged events.

Possible Solutions: Waiving executive privilege for the limited purpose of answering questions posed by the legislature in a formal and frequent Question Hour format would bring immediate accountability and transparency to the system... and the benefits are so great that they should outweigh any executive privilege concerns. However, if this is not possible the citizens should demand that every president hold regular and frequent and substantive press conferences... and town meetings... and even perhaps debates with the opposite party.

Changing to publicly financed elections and a parliamentary system are unlikely in the shorter term, at least without some greater shocks to the country. However, requiring immediate disclosure of all resources used in any way in a campaign, instituting question hours before the press and town halls if not the legislature, and undoing gerrymandering would immediately bring more accountability in the system...

The McCain phenomena during the 2000 election showed a large part of the electorate knows something is wrong and desperately wants a truth-sayer... and this phenomena was not limited to the electorate but also, and perhaps even more strongly, was exhibited by the press who despite hours and hours of on-the-record conversations loved McCain as a different type of politician. The few McCain political pro's were astounded that rather than twisting arms for money and workers, thousands of people called volunteering to contribute and help with the campaign. The Howard Dean phenomena in this election cycle seemed to tap some of the same disenchantment with current system. And Tom Friedman’s startling lament for the need of a bi-partisan Kerry and McCain ticket also reflected his concern that something new is needed.
Simply put, in this new very dangerous world we cannot afford presidential decisions that are made without the reality check of probing questions and conflicting facts... or only having the opportunity to choose from among "less than the best."