{Crossposted at The 44th}
Yesterday, I painted a picture (mercifully rescued) of all the disinterested, disaffected, uninformed voters who walk among us every day. We know that the vast majority of Americans aren't paying much attention to this (or any prior) election. But we don't know why.
It's probably a combination of countless factors: lack of time, lack of trust in the news media, confusion over who's telling the truth and who's spinning what...or maybe just a general, aching sense that it doesn't really matter because all politicians are the same.
Whatever the reasons for this cynicism and disenfranchisement, I can't help but think that we could get people interested again (and simultaneously purify the electoral process itself) if we just made a few common sense changes.
Think about the aburdity of this for a moment...
Eighteen people are running for President. Over half of them already have jobs in the political sphere -- all of which are being grossly neglected while the candidates traipse around the country begging for money and votes. Of these eighteen, about a third of them have the money or momentum to participate in more than two nominating events -- the bulk of them will, by necessity, drop out of the race on or about January 16th. The few who remain will dig nickels out of the sofa cushions to make it to February 5th, the "Super Tuesday" of the race for The 44th. By that day, it's almost certain that both parties will have their nominee mathematically locked up. The 23 states who come after that -- including my state of Wisconsin -- will be irrelevant until November.
Is it any wonder people aren't engaged, despite all that's at stake?
If I could change the whole rotten system, here's what I'd do...
1. National Primaries -- next year, Iowa Democrats will vote on January 14th and South Dakota will vote almost six full months later, on June 3rd. Many people who don't live in Iowa will watch all the media hype surrounding that state's winner, get on that bandwagon, and follow the chronological leader.
It's time to have a single National Primary, where we all vote on the same day. For the sake of argument, let's say we do that the Monday after the Super Bowl (in this case, February 4th), and we make that a national holiday so everyone can sleep off their hangover and go vote without having to go to work. All the candidates can spend their last $2.7 million on a Super Bowl ad while folks, in my dreams, watch the Packers beat the Patriots.
While we're at it, the General Election in November must become a two-day event. No more closing the polls while people are still waiting in line to vote. No more excuses that 50% of the country is just too busy to go vote. Let's get another holiday out of it while we're at it and do that on a Sunday/Monday. No votes are allowed to be counted or reported til polls close on Monday night.
If we all voted in our primaries on the same day, think of how things would change:
> Candidates would actually have to pay attention to 50 states instead of 2. While the Iowa and New Hampshire economies may go to hell in a hand-basket, at least the rest of us would get a little political love.
> Every state in the country would be equally relevant, which is good, because last time I checked, the President represents every state in the country.
> Candidates wouldn't have to pander to, er, lie about their allegiance to state-specific issues. Iowa may never hear the word "ethanol" again.
But National Primaries alone wouldn't do the trick. Here's what else we have to do...
2. Issue-Specific Debates -- it's absolutely moronic to expect the next would-be President of the United States to answer a question about troop redeployment or universal health care or the decline of the American dollar in 60 seconds. This is why Americans are so addicted to sound bites -- because that's all we get before the buzzer goes off!
Instead of doing a dozen debates that try to cover every imaginable topic, do each debate around a specific topic so that we can get some real, in-depth substance. Let's have a full 90-minute debate about Iraq and only Iraq. Let's have a full 90-minute debate about lobbying reform and only lobbying reform. And screw the moderators. Let the audience ask all the questions. That way, maybe every response wouldn't be scripted by "senior advisors" ahead of time.
3. Outlaw Polling Before the Primary -- seriously. Do you have any idea how many gazillions of dollars are spent on pre-primary polls? Do you have any idea how many people choose a candidate just based on what the latest poll says? That's no way to engage the voters.
One of my very first posts here at The 44th discussed the dangers of polling. It's pretty good, actually, if you'd like to click over and read it.
Imagine it for a second. Pretend that today, at this very moment in time, you had no idea who was leading or trailing in the polls. Is it possible that we'd give Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback the time of day? (Okay, maybe not Tancredo or Brownback.) But is it conceivable that we'd start paying a little attention, because we actually had to make up our minds for ourselves, instead of letting Wolf Blitzer do it for us?
Now, if you want to have polls about what issues are important, that's great. That could help the candidates stay on topic. But we should abolish candidate polls.
OK. I have about ten other ideas, but you've been kind enough to read this far so I won't overstay my welcome. I would very much like to hear from YOU, however. Are these ideas dumb? What reforms would you add to the mix?
Discuss...