IMPROVING THE ELECTION PROCESS
Corruption pervades our (American) election process because political parties control the selection of candidates for public office. The candidates are not chosen for their integrity. Quite the contrary; they are chosen after they demonstrate their ability and willingness to dissemble, to obfuscate and to mislead the electorate. They are chosen when they prove they will renounce principle and sacrifice honor for the benefit of their party.
A system which renounces virtue is ruled by cynicism.
If we are to correct this, we must develop a method that will harness our natural human tendencies in such a way that they work for our common benefit.
GROUNDWORK
To improve the election process, we must lay the cornerstone by using a method which favors the selection of the most principled among us as our representatives. The method must be democratic (i.e., allow the entire electorate to participate), it must be egalitarian (i.e., give everyone an equal chance of being elected to public office), and it must be in harmony with natural human responses.
This outline will present such a concept in the simplest, most direct way possible. It will, necessarily, mention a few of the mechanics, but they are secondary. The important thing is the concept of harnessing human nature. Once we've seen a way to do that, we can concern ourselves with the myriad other details.
Although the process is continuous, I will describe it as having two phases. The human factors dominating the first phase will metamorphose into a different set of factors as the second phase develops. This metamorphosis is the "magic" of the process.
METHOD
1) Divide the electorate into groups of three people.
2) Assign a date and time by which each group must select one of
the three to represent the other two.
a) No participant may vote for himself.
b) If a group is unable to select a representative by the
specified time, the group is disqualified.
3) Divide the participants so selected into groups of three.
4) Repeat from step 2 until a target number of selections is
reached.
DISCUSSION
For convenience we'll refer to each iteration as a "Level", such that Level 1 is the initial grouping of the entire electorate, Level 2 is the grouping of the selections made at Level 1, and so forth. The entire electorate participates at level 1 giving everyone an equal opportunity to advance to succeeding levels.
* As the process advances through the levels, the amount of time
the participants spend together increases. At level 1, groups
may meet for a few minutes, over a back-yard fence, so-to-
speak, but that would not be adequate at higher levels. As the
levels advance, the participants need more time to evaluate
those they are grouped with. They also need transportation and
facilities for meeting and voting. These are mechanical details.
* The public has a tendency to think of elections in terms of
just a few offices; a congressional seat, a senate race, and so
forth. There are, however, a large number of elected officials
who fill township, county, state and federal offices. The
structure outlined here provides qualified candidates for those
offices, as follows:
At a predefined level (determined by the number of offices to
be filled), the two candidates not selected to advance to the
next level move into a parallel selection process leading to
selection for an office; first in the local, then the county,
then the state, and, finally, the national governments.
The initial phase of the process is dominated by participants with little interest in advancing to higher levels. They do not seek public office; they simply wish to pursue their private lives in peace. Thus, the most powerful human dynamic during the first phase (i.e., Level 1 and for some levels thereafter) is a desire by the majority of the participants to select someone who will represent them. The person so selected is more apt to be someone who is willing to take on the responsibility of going to next level than someone who actively seeks elevation to the next level, but those who do actively seek elevation are not prevented from doing so.
As the levels increase, the proportion of disinterested parties diminishes and we enter the second phase. Here, participants that advance are marked, more and more, by an inclination to seek further advancement. Thus, a powerful human trait is integrated into the system.
Those who actively seek selection must persuade their group that they are the best qualified to represent the other two. While that is easy at the lower levels, it becomes more difficult as the process moves forward and participants are matched with peers who also wish to be chosen.
Each participant must make a choice between the other two people in the group, knowing that, once a participant is chosen, those who made the selection have no control over the selectee's future actions and decisions (except as provided by "Direct Issue" or "Proxy" voting.) Since they are unable to control the person selected, participants are obliged to select the person they believe can be trusted to conduct public business with integrity.
However, they do not make their choices blindly. The process occurs periodically (annually, bi-annually, or some variation, depending on the precise method of implementation). The majority of those seeking advancement will to do so each time the process recurs. Some will be successful. They will achieve public office and their performance will be a matter of public record. When they participate in subsequent occurrences of the process, their peers can evaluate that record to help them decide the candidate's suitability for advancement.
In addition, the names of advancing candidates are announced as each level completes. Members of the public with knowledge of unseemly acts by an advancing candidate can present details for consideration at the next level. Since, after the initial levels, the peers also seek advancement, they won't overlook inappropriate behavior.
For miscreants, the dissimulation and obfuscation which are so effective in our current election process will not work in a group of three people, each of whom has a vital interest in reaching the same goal as the miscreant. Thus, the future of selectees will depend on the probity with which they fulfil their public obligations.
This is a distillation process, biased in favor of the most upright and capable of our citizens. It cannot guarantee that unprincipled individuals will never be selected ... such a goal would be unrealistic ... but it does insure that they are the exception rather than the rule.
The process is inherently bi-directional. It encourages the use of James Green-Armytage's proposal for "Direct Issue" or "Proxy" voting. Because each elected official sits atop a pyramid of known electors, questions on specific issues can be easily be transmitted directly to and from the electors for the guidance or instruction of the official.
The cost of conducting an election by this method is free to the participants, except for the value of their time, and minimal to the government. Thus, it removes the greatest single cause of corruption in our current system; the need for campaign funds.
I originally thought to buttress this presentation by citing two newspaper articles which discuss the (apparent) lack of interest in the election process among the majority of the electorate and the working of corruption in our system. I've decided that to do so would be superfluous.
The idea presented here will be considered radical. It bears little chance of adoption because it protects no vested interest. The only way such a process will ever be adopted is if the concept can be made a topic of discussion, particularly among students interested in achieving a righteous government.
ILLUSTRATION
To illustrate the process using real numbers, I'll use data from "http://www.fec.gov/pages/96to.htm". The table below provides a visual description of the method. I selected California as a basis for the illustration to show the application over a large electoral base. I've carried the table out to a result of one selectee, but anticipate that a real implementation might not go beyond (about) the 11th or 12th level.
California, Total Voting Age Population (1996), 22,826,000
REMAINING CANDIDATES
LEVEL ELECTORS SELECTED
1 22,826,000 7,608,666
2 7,608,666 2,536,222
3 2,536,222 845,407
4 845,407 281,802
5 281,802 93,934 Possible office distribution
6 93,934 31,311 for candidates not advancing
7 31,311 10,437 to higher levels
8 10,437 3,479 ==============================
9 3,479 1,159 2,320 Municipal Officials
10 1,159 386 773 County Freeholders
11 386 128 258 County Officials
12 128 42 86 Representatives
13 42 14 28 Senators
14 14 4 10 Cabinet
15 4 1 3 Kitchen Cabinet
Statistical Data (from http://www.fec.gov/pages/96to.htm)
% REG % T/O
STATE 1996 VAP 1996 REG of VAP TURNOUT* of VAP
California 22,826,000 15,662,075 68.62% 10,019,484 43.90%
New Jersey 6,034,000 4,320,866 71.61% 3,075,860 50.98%
New York 13,564,000 10,162,156 74.92% 6,439,129 47.47%
UNITED STATES 196,511,000 146,211,960 74.40% 96,456,345 49.08%
DEFINITIONS:
1996 VAP refers to the total Voting Age Population of the State as reported by the Bureau of Census. Please note that VAP includes all persons over the age of 18 -- including a significant number of people not able to vote in U.S. elections.
1996 REG refers to the total number of registered voters as reported by the States.
*TURNOUT in this instance turnout refers to the total vote cast for the highest office on the ballot in 1996 (President). These figures may be inconsistent with other reported turnout figures since research suggests that approximately 2% of voters fail to vote for the highest office on a fairly consistent basis.
N/A means Not Applicable. North Dakota has no voter registration and Wisconsin has election day registration at the polls.
Registration and turnout statistics courtesy of State Election Offices and the Congressional Research Service, (Government Division) with data provided by Election Data Services Inc., Washington, D.C.
