We were taught from grade school that our system of government, including the process of elections, was the best in the world. As we were growing up, our schools spent little time on the political systems of other countries, other than to claim that they were not as good as ours. Recent events have suggested the possibility that this conclusion might be wrong – or at least open to debate.
It appears that the methods various other governments follow in their national election processes are significantly different than the way we do it. Outside the U.S., our system is referred to as the most expensive and complicated system in the world. Perhaps it is time to reexamine some alternatives.
As our forefathers designed in the Constitution, only one body – the House of Representatives – was to be formed with members selected directly, by an open vote of the people. The Constitution originally provided that the members of the Senate and the President and Vice-president were to be selected by indirect methods, through processes involving the state legislatures and the creation of an electoral college. Members of the Senate were to be selected by the state legislatures. The President and Vice-president were to be named by vote of an electoral college to be created as provided.
The point to make here is that it appears our forefathers did not intend that the decisions on all matters were to be left to the individual vote of the people of the several states. Perhaps this original intent merits a re-visit.
What we see in the national Presidential campaigns from both parties are professionally polished and shaped personalities on television and in carefully arranged personal appearances, scripted in detail in every way by the professional advisers. The person who survives the primary process and the convention selection process to finally become the candidate does not necessarily become known to the eventual voter. With over a billion dollars now expected to be spent by each side in their national campaigns, the process on both sides of presenting the candidate under the best light has been entirely taken over by professionals. The experts then conspire to present the best image of their candidate that can be constructed, given the technological resources of the day.
Our national election has become so complicated and expensive, and the process takes so much time, that the most qualified and capable potential candidates for office may be disinclined to run simply because of the personal burden and expense imposed by the process.
What to do? Various proposals have been advanced to tinker with our system, but nothing has attracted sufficient national attention to stimulate action. The strongest voice is to eliminate the electoral college entirely, make the presidential vote exactly the same as all others in directly controlling of the outcome. But this solution begs the problem, and if the underlying basis for the electoral vote is to protect the process from the expense and irrational vagaries of a direct vote, eliminating the college may aggravate the situation rather than alleviate the process.
In looking at our system of voting, the first question that must be asked is whether its broken and needs repair. Recent events suggest the answer is yes. The next question is whether the candidate's qualifications and suitability for actually performing in office in real terms are adequately presented to the decision makers for evaluation by our present system? I suggest the answer is no. Finally, the question is whether the process that is applied promotes or discourages participation in the process by the most qualified potential candidates possible? I suggest the answer is that the process discourages participation by some of the truly best qualified candidates.
This is not to say that we have not had excellent candidates in the past. The status of office is more than sufficient to draw out well qualified prospective candidates. The problem is the expense and the artificial obstacles that appear to have been created in the demanding process of seeking the job, and that have nothing to do with accomplishing the job, might prevent equally or better qualified candidates from entering the race. This leaves the field open to the less qualified because once in the race, the professionals can step in to "remodel" the candidate for the campaign.
The overwhelming problem with today's methods are that the ability to win a presidential election says nothing about a candidate's true ability to actually serve in the office and handle the decisions that must be made. The campaigns of today appear to be tests of which candidate was packaged and prompted best, with the winner – regardless of true qualifications – possibly being the proverbial snake oil seller who succeeds in bringing out the vote.
Given the size of the country, the time required, the costs that would be incurred, and the populations involved, it may be impossible to adequately inform individual voters on the all the fundamental qualifications of a candidate to perform the duties required.
Further, and for these same reasons, it may be impossible to persuade the best qualified individuals to become candidates.
A solution might be to re-think the role of the electoral college in the process. We are a democratic society, meaning we refer and depend upon a representative form of government. Perhaps then, instead of doing away with the electoral college, we actually delegate to it the responsibility and power to elect the president?
Choose the members of the electoral college first. State by state. After the full college is selected and qualified, but not before, we then begin the campaigns for office of president and vice-president – not to the general public, but to the members of the electoral college. Give them the task of selecting from these individuals the president and vice-president without the expense and hoopla of a national campaign.
Probably a pipe dream. But it might work.