On a Roll: Improving Political Campaigns

Now that I’ve ventured into the political waters on this blog, I’m being carried by the current of the party conventions.  Something I heard on the radio this morning calls for yet another political commentary.

According to the report I heard, over $1 billion have been spent on this election–so far.  I rolled that figure around in my brain for just a few seconds before becoming amazed that the figure is that small.  After all, this campaign season seems to have been underway since about January 21, 2005, the day after George W. Bush was inagurated into his second, and final, term as president.

Election reform has been volleyed about and scored on a great deal in the recent political history of our country.  I’m not sure how much it has helped–some of the regulatory moves seem to have done more to infringe on free speech than to clean up and streamline the electoral process.  

In light of the current flawed system, I’d like to make a rew proposals:

1) If there are going to be limits within political campaigns, how about limiting the time the whole process can last?  I wonder how much work of the American people hasn’t gotten done in the past four years while Congress has been distracted by thinking about the 2008 election.  It seems like the current way campaigns are carried out makes governing totally a matter of politics, instead of one of leadership and statesmanship, as our Founding Fathers viewed it.  What would be hurt by not allowing any candidates to declare earlier than a year out from the actual election?  I know there is the matter of fundraising, but if everyone was held to the same requirement, there’d be a better chance for an even playing field, even on that count.

2)  Why not have one nationwide primary election day?  Don’t you think the candidates would operate differently if the prize wasn’t doled out piecemeal as state-by-state delegate votes are tallied during the course of the primary season?  It might motivate greater voter participation as well, if people thought their votes really counted for something other than simply saying “Amen” to a foregone conclusion.

3)  Maybe the major parties should hammer out and present their party platforms before the primary season begins instead of at their anticlimactic conventions.  That way, candidates would have to decide before declaring as such and hitting the campaign trail whether they will be true to the party they represent or whether they will strike out on their own and risk becoming known as “mavericks” and “rebels”.  So much of modern political life is centered around personalities, opinions, and spin, rather than on truth, facts, and principles.   Positioning candidates to stand for something specific right out of the gate would almost certainly strengthen the political parties (and, ultimately, their decision-making) and would help the citizenry of this country see beyond charisma or lack of it when making their electoral decisions.

4) Finally–and this is more of a question than a proposal–is there any way in the world to do SOMETHING about the national media during elections, without tromping on free speech?  You cannot legislate or even regulate integrity–that’s really what change would boil down to.  One answer is for people of integrity, interested in truth, to go into those fields of endeavor.  Meanwhile, I wonder sometimes if other countries look at the USA and laugh, observing that our public officials often seem to be chosen by the journalists and broadcasters of this country, and we don’t even realize it.

…Now, that that little rant has escaped, I will watch tonight’s Republican Convention in peace…that is, until the first commentator opens his or her mouth.