Real campaign reform - Updated


Here are my thoughts, all in one place
Let's start today with campaign reform. I've given you bits and pieces before, but in this entry I will sum all my ideas up.

First, the nomination process has to be reformed, As it stands now, the two major parties have goosed the system so that their candidates are the only ones who stand a practical chance of getting on the ballot. By it's very nature, that will make any elected official beholden to the party that nominated him, often more than to the voters. The exact numbers aren't important, but one percent of the eligible electorate might be a good start. It's a nice round number, it is low enough so it can be reached without depending on a party machine. We'll get back to why I emphasized eligible later. This gives the parties competition whether they want it or not, and it doesn't even have to be well organized competition.

Second, only voters registered in the election area can contribute to campaigns, and a current list of all donations must be published weekly by the campaign. No more out of state money to get a "friendly" candidate to the U.S. Senate or in a crucial House seat. After the election, any unused funds must be returned proportionately to each of the donors.

Notice that we have a dynamic that gets set up here. There is always going to be a difference between eligible voters and registered voters. With this system, eligible voters can get you on the ballot, but only registered voters can pay for the campaign.

Third, to be elected, a candidate must have a clear majority of the eligible voters. Not the voters registered or even the votes cast, but eligible voters. What's more, any elected official short of the Presidency can be removed by a simple majority of votes cast in any election. This makes it easier to remove someone from office than to elect them in the first place. Which is going to make the politicos extremely nervous and ensure that they remember why they were elected in the first place.

Fourth, None Of The Above should be a candidate in every election. If NOTA passes in a given election, the other candidates for that office are prohibited from serving in that specific office for the term of that office. So no one can get appointed, there would have to be another election with new candidates.

Fifth, votes must be counted at each possible level and no election can be certified unless a majority of the results agree. If we're going to use electronic voting, let's get secure about it. Put three independent computers with three different programs/operating systems in the same housing. One would run the fancy graphics and upload to the State office, one just tallies results and transmits to the city/county, and one prints results for the voter to take and another "tape" that is tallied at the precinct level. The election isn't certified until at least two of the three results match. No voting machine should have the ability to upload software from off the shelf parts. If necessary, the chips should be crippled or manufactured without the ability to interface.

No, this won't stop all possible problems. But it does level out the playing field and make the political machines start over from scratch.

And that can't be all bad.

UPDATE: I meant to say that this entry and the other three this morning were prompted by reader watcherinthewind in his comments to this post and juliaki's comments to this post.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Mon - December 4, 2006 at 08:06 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved