The most recent presidential election is now a month behind us and the choices this year were not great. The Democrats largely imposed a candidate on us in Hillary Clinton who came with more baggage than the average 747 full of vacationers. On the Republican side we had Donald Trump emerge from a crowded field of contenders to get the nomination and ultimately the presidency. The typical third party candidates were nothing to write home about and fell far short of unseating either of the two mainstream options.
We'll be hearing a lot of chatter about term limits over the coming months, but realistically the odds of any elected official voluntarily voting for term limits is very slim. I have a crazy idea for a way to solve both the third party and the term limit issues in one fell swoop.
I like the idea of making every elected official lose their party membership when elected. At that point they become a default third party we'll call the Incumbent Party. They're supposed to represent everyone regardless of their party, so why not take away their party membership once elected?
They can no longer raise money for their former party, accept money from their former party, or campaign for their former party. Their re-election campaign would be funded by the government from taxpayer dollars but limited to a percentage of the amount their opponents spend (somewhere between 50% and 90%.) Without having to raise re-election funding we'd largely eliminate the pay to play issues and limit the ability of our elected officials to be bought/rented.
Let's presume this to be in effect and say Joe Smith, a Democrat from New Jersey was elected to the Senate. When he takes that oath of office he forswears his allegiance to the Democratic Party and becomes an Incumbent. He's representing everyone in NJ and not just the Democratic Party any longer. There is no Senate majority or minority any longer. They're all Incumbents. There's no majority leader or minority leader as there is no majority or minority. Everyone in the Senate is free to do what they feel is best for those they represent with no pressure other than to make sure they're doing what's in the best interests of those they represent.
As his term is winding down opponents to Joe Smith start to line up on both the Republican and Democratic side and one emerges from each side in the primary election as a challenger. The purely reflexive voters ("I've always voted for no one but a Democrat/Republican/Green Party/ etc.") will still vote reflexively meaning that if it's a strongly Democratic area, they'll likely support the "official" Democratic candidate over the Incumbent. That could be bad for Joe Smith. They're splitting the very vote that got him elected. But, if he's done a good enough job as an Incumbent he could steal enough votes from both party's candidates to keep the job.
Democracy only works when elected officials are held accountable for their actions. In far too much of the country there is little to no accountability. If you're a Republican or Democrat in a strongly blue or red state, you'll likely get re-elected regardless of how incompetent an idiot you are, simply because the reflexive voters will still vote for you.
Give the voters a legitimate third option, someone with a track record they can look at and evaluate. Someone they may or may not have voted for previously. Someone who can make the voters stop voting reflexively. Give them an Incumbent Party.
Would elected officials vote for such an absurd idea? Talk to any elected official and they'll likely tell you the thing they hate the most is fund-raising. It consumes their lives once elected. Voting for this type of proposal would eliminate that hassle from their daily lives. They're also freed from the peer pressure of having to vote along party lines as they're no longer a member of their previous party. They can, and should, truly vote for the best interests of those they represent.
What are the negatives? There would be a strong tendency for the two parties to not challenge one of "their" people who was an Incumbent. Sure they'd forswear their party loyalty, but deep down the parties would know they'd stick to the party line. Of course, if they didn't mount a serious challenge to the Incumbent they could have the other party sneak in and grab the seat. I suspect this three party system would lead to more rapid turnover without imposing artificial time limits on careers. By forcing a split of the majority reflexive vote it would open up the races into more of a free for all.
I think there's some potential in the idea of a third party composed entirely of incumbent candidates that's publicly financed, and independent of either mainstream party. It would likely lead to more efficient government, more care about the best interests of the voters, and fewer long term elected officials unless they were really good at what they did. The cost would be fairly minimal. By taking the established politicians out of the party you eliminate the party's big name fundraisers. That would limit the amount of money they could raise to spend on their campaigns which would limit the matching contributions for the Incumbent Party.
It's time voters had more real choices. It's time we had a government that represented the voters more than the party. We need to limit the influence of campaign donations on our elected officials. I think this type of plan would achieve all of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment