reforming elections

Rafe suspects that Our nation has failed. I offer some ideas to recover from that:

I understand where you’re coming from with this. It does feel a lot like a failed experiment. I’m actually not convinced that Bush was re-elected in 2004 anymore than he was elected in 2000, but there’s no point in going into that now.

So why did 2004 turn out the way it did? I think it points the nature of modern political discourse. It comes down to something more like a couple of rappers dissing each other than the Lincoln/Douglas debates. There are no ideas discussed, only coded threats (liberal = tax and spend, welfare queens in Cadillacs, abortion on demand, oral/anal sex instruction in the classroom). Talk radio is all conservative all the time as a result of who owns the stations, not who listens to the stuff and the resulting ratings.

So what’s to be done?

There’s no way to make the political classes pay attention, unless the funding problem is solved. As it is now, running a national or statewide campaign costs millions of dollars. An incumbent Senator has to raise thousands of dollars a week for their entire term just to stay in office. Challengers, without the reach and name recognition, must do even more. I think public financing of campaigns and re-vamping how mass media are used is a necessary step.

TV and radio ads should have a minimum length and a maximum frequency: the ad must deliver a message longer than 10 seconds and can’t appear so often as to numb the voters. I think ad time should be donated to candidates (or deeply discounted) as part of the license grant that broadcasters enjoy. Equalize the playing field in terms of access but require an elevated tone by forcing longer spots. Instead of negative ads, force candidates to talk about their plans and ideas.

Some ideas, anyway. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *