It
appears that American voters will have to choose between Donald Trump
and Joe Biden to be our next President. Both of these men are old. Biden
sports signs of dementia
and has been accused of corruption. Trump is considered divisive and
not as truthful as many people would like. It could be said many voters
are not jumping with joy.
To say America has a flawed election process is an
understatement. Early in each Presidential primary season, it becomes clear that we suffer from a defective election system. Over the years televised debates
have not been of much help. Efforts to remove the process from power brokers in smoke-filled rooms has not drastically improved the system. The people who have the least say
in this system remain the average voter. The political debates highlight our flawed
election process.
America's primary system is not geared to putting the
best-qualified choice in a position to move on but unfairly places the decision in the hands of voters in a few early primaries. These voters casting their
ballots months before the rest of us set in motion a culling process that often nullifies our voice. I wrote a similar article four years ago highlighting the poor choices such a system can produce. Sadly, like in 2016, it again appears, we as a country will be forced to choose the least of two evils when deciding which candidate to elect President.
Reform of the election processes would benefit the country in selecting better leaders.
A few years ago the
animated comedy South Park produced a line that eloquently describes the choice before us.
"an election decision
usually comes down to a choice between a giant douche and a turd
sandwich." I contend even the political debates highlight America's flawed
election process in that while presenting us an opportunity to preview the Presidential contenders it does not result in anything more. This superficial peek at candidates so they can be weighed and measured to
see if they have the right stuff is simply a dog and pony show.
When the Presidential
primary debates begin to fill the airways the media is chocked-full of
stories about the individual candidates and their
prospects. Speculation, spin, and unlimited efforts by the media to
influence our decision as to who will become America's next leader go
into full swing. Sadly, the people who will most likely have the least
say
are voters like you and me. These flaws become most evident when we are faced
with actually narrowing down the choices before us.
Our political system
was structured in a way that may have been acceptable in the past or when our country
was
first formed but since then it has morphed into an inefficient costly
mess. This
often results in not putting the best-qualified choice in a position to
move on and has in recent decades concentrated the decision in the hands of a few voters in early
primaries. By casting their ballots months before mine my vote is greatly devalued. By the time my state primary takes place, it no
longer matters
and the choice has been made for me.
Moving to the general election
the process fails to improve. In the general election, any third party
candidate hellbent on making a point can easily derail either party by
drawing even a few votes thus having a major influence on who is
elected. America’s presidential system is far
from perfect and the flaws are exacerbated by the influence of the Electoral College.
This
misunderstood institution
takes over after the general election and discounts the votes of many Americans voiding the idea that the person getting the most votes should win.
This dinosaur created by our
founding fathers created a buffer
between the population and the selection of a President it also gave extra
power to the smaller states. Over time this institution has grown obsolete and has become an obstacle to seeing all votes carry equal weight. In our system, the "outdated" electoral college makes the final
call on who is elected. This means certain key states and "swing states"
are guaranteed to get all the attention and the rest of us will be
treated as an afterthought or second class citizens.
Flipping one swing state is the key between winning and losing. As noted earlier, in our current system the announcement of
any "third party candidate" can quickly skew the results, this means
candidates with an important message become "a spoiler" that can deny
the best
choice any hope. Our current system promotes the gridlock that polarizes our nation. It
is geared in a way that a small active group at either the
far left or the far right of the political spectrum gains far too much
influence and this often leaves us forced to chose between the worst of
two evils.
The best way to determine if a system needs change is
to look at its goal or purpose.
It is logical to think that if a
group of intelligent people unencumbered by bias or partisan politics
entered a room to devise a better process they would emerge with a far
better system than currently exists. While all these systems have their
supporters, much of this support is based on partisan politics. Reform of all these processes would benefit the country to choose better leaders.
The fact that positive change is highly unlikely does not mean a discussion as to how it can be reformed should not take place. For example, while "the winner takes all" primaries are quick and often less divisive to
political parties, the notion that we should unite behind a
flawed or lesser candidate because he or she is better known or financed
makes no sense. I consider these
"winner take
all"
contests an unfair way to allocate delegates. As noted earlier, often by the time my state primary takes place it no
longer matters
and the choice has been made for me.
Across the world, Instant-runoff voting is used to elect
those that best represent the choice of the people whether choosing a country's leader or a city mayor. This system is devised to let the best talent and most qualified candidates work their
way to the top.
Years ago I realized a person does not have to know everything,
but it is more important to know where to get the right answers, thus I defer to Wikipedia. On
their site, they delve into the processes known as instant-runoff voting
(IRV), alternative vote (AV), transferable vote, ranking choice voting,
and preferential voting. These are variations of systems used to
elect a winner from a field of more than two candidates in which voters
rank the candidates in order of preference rather than voting for a
single candidate. IVR has the effect of avoiding split votes when
multiple candidates earn support from like-minded voters.
Some countries have devised ways to have quick elections and systems based on a run-off process where only the top two choices move forward. In such a system, ballots are distributed based on the first choice of each voter and if a candidate receives more than half the votes a winner is declared. If not the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped and
ballots assigned to the eliminated candidates are recounted and added to
the totals of those still in contention based on who is ranked next on
each ballot. This continues until one candidate wins by obtaining a
majority of the votes.
Sadly, even an incredibly fair and sound plan that substantially
improved the process would not have a prayer of getting through our
political system because the vested interest of those in power have
little interest in such things and hold us hostage. Our two-party system
and partisan politics tend to gravitate towards a
system that eases getting the party's slated candidate elected or blocks
an opponent, I reject that goal. We should elect officials that most
represent the views and desires of a majority of the people while protecting those on the political fringe
.
It is time to put each vote on equal footing. Today with
instant
communication and no area of the United States more than a few hours
away by jet the least we can do to improve the election process is to
eliminate the electoral college which
skews attention during Presidential campaigns to key “swing
states” and taints an already
lengthy and expensive process. The cost of maintaining this antiquated
dinosaur runs a billion dollars a year but no longer yields any real
benefit and is in many ways harmful.
With our current system, we always find the election teetering on a few hundred votes
in states such as Ohio or Florida. Another major flaw with our current system is that the announcement of
any "third party candidate" can quickly skew the results. These
candidates with a message can rapidly become "a spoiler" that denies our true or best
choice any hope. All this magnifies the stupidity our Electoral
College now brings into the current process.
Over the recent years, we have witnessed countries torn apart by
burning, killing and tribal mayhem because the leaders in power stole
the election, it should be pointed out that the winner-takes-all
attitude is partly
responsible for this problem.
When the people's voice is ignored and
both
sides see the stakes too high to admit
defeat the system will lose broad support. How ironic that all those
constantly calling to crush inequality are busy scurrying about
demanding that all votes treated as equal never place this into their
line of vision.
Footnote;
You
owe it to yourself and America to at least do a "look-see" at this
hilarious YouTube video that puts these debates in perspective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8EQFhj8ca4
The best thing about it is you can simply turn it off if you don't enjoy
it, we don't have that option when it comes to politics in general.