The new presidential election cycle has begun, and I’m already weary of the whole thing. Perhaps you find this whole thing painful too. I’ve been thinking about a way to make this less painful, and more effective. This is the CavProposal, and it is far more rational than the Occupy Wall Street Movement (I won’t even dignify it with a link). Similar reforms could be made for Congress.
Here we go:
- The time to file your candidacy is limited to a few months. My proposal would be February-March of the election year. This mean incumbants, or elected officials who seeking the Presidency would minimize their time away from the reason we elected them in the first place.
- There would be no campaigning. Only ads that report your platform would be permitted. No attack ads! This can help create an even playing field when it comes to financial resources. Websites can be used to lay out policies in coherent fashion. It will also save our sanity.
- There will be a series of 3 nationally televised debates. One will be on economic policy. A second will cover foreign policy, and the third on social policy. The voting citizens will be able to hear each candidate’s policy views. These debates would take place in April & May.
- There would be a national primary. All on one day. Everyone gets to have their vote count, not just those in the early primaries. This primary would be in June.
- The conventions could be held in the summer. The Vice President candidate would be presented, as well as the platform. This is a time to motivate the base.
- The same process would be followed prior to the election. No campaigning state to state (this should make the environmentalists happy!). There would 3 more national debates following the same formats in September and October.
Yes, I am something of an idealist. I think the candidate with the best ideas, not the most money, should win. Billions of dollars are wasted by the current system. Politicians become beholden to rich contributors, PACs and unions. This is true reform of the system. It puts the focus on ideas, not character assassination and distortion of viewpoints. If your views cannot withstand scrutiny, you can’t hide by attacking your opponent.
I know this will never happen. But I wish it would.
Cavman Considers 
Sounds great. Sometimes I wonder if the reason we still have the campaign styles we do comes down to tradition – before the Internet, people had to travel all over the country talking to voters. Now they don’t.
Old habits die hard. Even before the internet, we had TV but these guys travel like we don’t. How many voters do they actually meet that don’t belong to the base?
How would you accommodate third parties?
Same rules. Actually may help 3rd parties since running a campaign becomes less about big fundraising. Unions, business, banking, lobbyists etc. have less influence.
I mean in the national (not primary debates) how would you choose with 3rd parties are invited to the debate?
How do they choose them now? Actually, I’m not sure who does choose them, but it is based on “legitimacy”, the ability to actually win.
Yes, the focus would still be on the 2 main parties but the time frame be shorter and less dependent on raising $ (and therefore less beholden to special interest groups). The focus would be on policy, though we understand not all people would vote on that basis.