Random Thoughts 3

A few passing comments on the news.


I didn't watch the debate in Charleston because they really are inane. They really are just beauty pageants with very little substance. They seem to add little to the discourse or really to outline solutions to pressing issues, much less define the subtle differences between candidates -- that being something that takes more than 45 to 60 seconds to explain, which is about all the time the herd of candidates have for each to explain their answer to the questions. I thought the question presentations were clever, from the clips I have seen on the Web today, if not all that probing.
I wonder what the reaction would be today if debates on the model of the Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 1850's were held. First, I doubt very much that any of today's political figures could mount such a sustained conversation. Second, I doubt very much our ADD-afflicted society could sit still and try to hear both sides out ... although in the current atmosphere, with like 18 people vying for two slots on the ballot, such a debate format would be difficult ... no, impossible to accomplish.
Another thing that bugs the devil out of me is that the MSM, in true and usual fashion, is treating the 2008 presidential campaign like it is a horse race ... unfortunately, the real race won't be run for about 16 months and everything that is so breathlessly reported today will be meaningless then. This is something I fought at the papers I worked at for more than 30 years.
I really think the founders had a better idea, because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all for political parties, I just don't think it is government's role to supervise their internal fights for leadership and power.
In my utopian world, both the federal government and the states would get out of the business of holding primary elections (unless it was necessary to narrow the field to the top two candidates). In a way, I like the parliamentary system in that when it comes to elections ... call an election and six weeks later it happens, but that doesn't fit the bill for our political elites. Actually, what I would like to do is have (for federal races, which the states could piggyback on) a national primary held the first Tuesday in September, with the national general election held the first Tuesday in November. Now, here is my way of screening candidates and it leaves a major role for the political parties: In order to qualify for being a candidate on the ballot, each candidate has to get a petition signed by (pulling a number out of the hat) 5 percent of the registered voters. In keeping with the federal nature of our government, a national candidate (president) would have to get some percentage, say 5 percent, in each of the 53 federal jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the district of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam). Senate candidates would have to get 5 percent in each county in their state, while House candidates also would have to get 5 percent of the voters in their district within a state.
In a digression, we would retain the electoral college with its proportional representation, with the addition of one vote for non-state federal jurisdictions.
Each state or jurisdiction would verify the petitions and the candidate's name would be on the primary ballot. In the national election, only candidates who qualify in all 53 jurisdictions, would appear on the ballot. These petitions would be validated no later than July 1 or a candidate would not be on the ballot.
There would be no "state-run" party primaries. The parties could stage partisan primaries, but they would have to foot the bill as well as organize and hold them. State and local governments would not be involved, unless it was to hand out current voter registration lists. The beauty of this approach is that it offers opportunities for a third option.
Now it would be nice if the MSM would acknowledge there sometimes are third options or fourth options, but in their myopia they remain focused on the dicotomy of the Democrat/Republican divide. I image it would surprise most people to know that there were third options in the last several elections, with the same candidate qualifying for the ballot in all 50 states (an example being the Libertarian candidate in every election since about 1992), but the MSM ignores this potentially viable (because it is on the ballot in all states) option because it is not between the familiar options.
But then, my opinion truly is utopian ... so I don't expect anything to come of my idea.