The process by which American political parties choose their nominees for President is both obsolete and inefficient. In days of yore, the nominating conventions and state caucuses were the venues for selecting a candidate, and before primaries were adopted, the result was frequently unpredictable. That process was probably adequate and apropos for the 19th century, but we eventually outgrew it, thus the party primary.
Since the advent of the primary system, party conventions have become nothing more than ceremonial coronations, an opportunity to wave the flag, scream, and listen to speeches, but strictly political theater, the outcome is well known in advance.
I have an idea wherein we might replace the primary system for something more appropriate, and suited to our times. Don't step on the orange turd as you cross the fold.
The primary process itself is flawed. We package, market, and brand candidates like a box of laundry soap. Insane amounts of money are raised, and subsequently squandered on puerile soundbites, attack ads, trite slogans, and lots of signs and billboards. The way the system usually works, the candidate with the most billboards (ie brand recognition), wins.
There has to be a better way. How much do we really know about our nominee after this process is finished? Does a flurry of canned and sanitized video clips really tell us much about a candidate? Do we know how they think? How they will react under pressure? Are we afforded knowledge of their candid views on a variety of subjects?
I'm tired of the sterile political pablum offered up by most campaigns. Surely we can select a candidate on more germane data than fuzzy photos with babies and banal speeches.
The primary process is nothing more than an ad campaign, and one that lacks full disclosure. I would warrant that most successful candidates have surprised their supporters after the fact, because their perceived views did not match their actual views, or worse, their actions. I think the problem rests in the fact that we do not know our candidates well enough.
Add this to the fact that the current state of American politics is marked by widespread indifference, apathy, and fatalism that anything significant can be changed. I think the solution resides in changing our primary system. We need a system wherein we can get to know our candidates intimately, wherein they can build our trust and support through candid observation and disclosure. We need to get to know these candidates before we vote for them. The office of the Presidency of the United States is arguably the most important office on earth, shouldn't we massively vett our candidates, before allowing them to pursue such a high office? Shouldn't we know their candid views on a wide spectrum of issues?
A large portion of the electorate is disengaged by apathy and distraction... social media, reality television. We can re-engage and invigorate them with a new method of selecting a nominee. Forget the primaries, I'm talking Primary Island!
We establish a reality television show wherein all of the candidates for a political party's nomination are isolated on an island. We film them, and their interactions, 24/7. We won't make them wear loincloths or eat weird fungi, but we will make them answer questions, perform challenges, and observe their interactions.
They could field random, unscripted phone calls from world leaders, Cameron, Putin, Merkel, Keqiang, Castro, Hollande. They could take phone calls from bankers, welfare mothers, the unemployed, union leaders, farmers, business leaders, as well as random viewers. They would have no preparation, all answers and conversations would be ad lib.
Such a scenario would provide in-depth coverage of each candidate in a variety of situations. We would come to know each one, understanding their positions, knowledge, abilities, strengths and weaknesses. Glitz and billboards would be useless, because we would judge them on their actual performance, without scripting or preparation.
Debates serve this function to a small degree, but what I'm suggesting would be at least an order of magnitude more intimate than any debate. We could have exercises in the various Constitutional amendments, foreign policy, climate change, you name it. The point would be that all candidates would have to give their answers off the cuff and unscripted.
The beauty of this scheme is that it involves relatively little money (fund-raising would be irrelevant), it would engage voters/viewers at an unprecedented level, and we would get accurate assessments of each candidate to a degree that we can't get from a billboard.
Registered voters could vote candidates off the island, one by one, over a prescribed period of time, and when there is only one remaining, he or she will have massive enthusiastic support for the general election.
The problem with this scheme appears to be that no front-runner would ever agree to it, but consider this, what if four of the Democratic candidates engaged in it, and it was visible on cable television? Because of the coverage and viewership, the front-runner would be begging to get in on it by week three.
I'm no fan of Chafee or Webb, but it's a shame that they will likely be dismissed before the voters even get to know them, or what makes them tick. Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley would compete on an even basis, without spending money (in fact they would generate money). I don't see a downside to this. Hillary won't agree, but as I said above, she'd be unable to ignore it, eventually.
Anyhow, that's my proposal for a modern primary. If we are to accurately evaluate Presidential candidates, I think we need something more in depth than billboards.