Presidential Campaigns, or Isn't There Any Other NEWS!

So, we have just endured the Iowa caucus. It's ALL that's on the news, and I'm as sick of it as I KNOW almost every other American is. Now, let me say that I am keenly interested in politics. I even served as an election judge for several years in South Texas, and for one year, as precinct chair. Aside from the tediousness of the job of election judge, the main thing that sticks in my memory about those endless election days, is the log of registered voters, a thick, heavy book filled with track-style computer paper with name after name of voters in alphabetical order. As a voter came in and we verified them, a rubber stamp that said "VOTED" was put beside their name in that mammoth log book. But the disappointing part of all of that was the overwhelming majority of names in that book that did NOT have the "VOTED" stamp beside their name. I think the highest turnout we ever had while I was working the polls was about 27% -- pitiful.

Voter apathy. You hear about it all the time, occasionally even on the news. My theory is voter apathy is caused by our over-hyped, highly dysfunctional campaign process. By the time election day comes around, people are simply shell-shocked by all the news coverage, the endless debates, and all the mostly negative television ads. What I believe is that we need a massive over-all, TRUE campaign reform, which will never happen unless there's a big push from the public. Sadly, though, the public is disinterested, detached, and uninvolved, as witness the abysmal percentage mentioned in the first paragraph.

Here is what I believe needs to happen:
1) No candidate can begin to publicly campaign any sooner than 90 days BEFORE any election. A fine should be assessed if this rule is broken. Ninety days is plenty of time for campaigning, especially since 90 days is just about how long the public pays attention. This rule alone would cut the cost of campaigning at least in half. It's criminal that it takes millions that could be put to so much better use to conduct a campaign. One local judge, when I was politically involved, spent $235,000 to be reelected, and this was in a little bitty city of less than 65,000 people.

2) Election campaigns should ONLY be financed by the public, a mandatory $1 contribution to this fund to be added at the bottom of a taxpayer's income tax return. Taxation? Not exactly, but even if you want to look at it that way, then also look at it like this: Elected officials are supposed to work for us, the tax payer, the American citizen. If we are financing their campaigns equally, instead of the rich, the abundant, the corporations, and special interests, maybe just maybe, we would TRULY be represented in Congress instead of appeased and lied to just to get us to the polls, and then ignored when legislation time comes, when all the paybacks to the big money contributors come due. Money is the corrupter in Washington.

3) The media MUST provide FREE airtime to the candidates. A specified amount of airtime, to be determined later. Television commercials cost millions for just a 30 second ad. Thus the need for the huge amounts of money to conduct a campaign. Take away the huge costs and along with it, the corruption, the obligations to big donors, is diminished.

4) Campaigns must be limited to two 2-hour debates moderated by a nonpartisan spokesperson with questions taken from the audience, conducted in a Town Hall style. Questions should be screened ONLY for repetition or profanity. These candidates are, in fact, applying for a job. They should be interviewed by those of us who are doing the hiring. Rarely are the questions asked that I want to know, and I bet there are millions who feel the same way I do. Make these candidates submit their resume.

5) Finally, do away with the Electoral College. Make it a one person, one vote kind of election. Make voting available online. If I can vote for who gets the Oscar online, I should be able to vote for my elected officials online. I have done these Oscar votes, then tried to go in and vote again, only to have the second vote rejected by the Oscar.com site because it detected that I had already voted once. The software to make this kind of voting safe surely exists. It has to be at least as safe as the electronic voting machines that are used in millions of voting precincts throughout the country right now. The idea behind #5 is to hopefully increase voter turnout. Democracy, after all, is determined by who shows up at the polls. Nothing is more frustrating than to go vote for your candidate, only to have that vote negated by the lumping of numbers done in the name of the Electoral College. The feeling of disenfranchisement comes from this kind of lumping of votes.

So, that's my two-cents. Something has GOT to give. The way things are now, our elected officials are bought and paid for by big money interests before they ever get into office. If someone does decide to run for idealistic reasons, to better the country, to serve the people, they are corrupted before they ever get to Washington, corrupted by the system, the expense involved in getting elected. Change is needed, big change. I'm not even that smart, and I know that much. Millionaires run this country only because it takes that kind of money to get into office. If we take the money equation down to reasonable numbers, maybe we really could get a man (or woman) of people into the slots given to us to fill.

Onward ....