I just fixed our voting system, and therefore democracy, while dropping a duece.

I've been reading Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum's collaboration 'That Used to Be Us; How America Fell Behind in the World it Invented and How We Can Come Back'.  It presents a diagnosis of what is wrong with our nation and has a very hopeful outlook on how we can face the challenges of the globalized world we have created.  While I agree with both the diagnosis presented in the book as well as the possible solutions I cannot fathom any positive change in this country until we fix some major flaws that we have created in the processes we use to choose our elected officials.  It has been an informative and inspiring (to whatever extent I can be inspired by anything) read and combined with the non-stop coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign it has brought to the fore of my thoughts some long held curiosities in regards to the political processes that are at the center of the way we choose the leader of the free world;

1) Why the fuck do Iowa and New Hampshire have their primaries so goddamn early and why do we give a shit who they vote for?

2) Fuck the Electoral College.

3) There really ought to be real campaign finance reform.

I'm not going to go on a balls out rant and suggest anything too radical like that we ought to have a more parliamentary system for selecting Senators and Congressmen or that we should go to a direct popular vote and ditch the Electoral College.  I understand that our current system is OUR system and that there is a better chance of teaching an Asian to drive then of deeply changing or scrapping these systems.  I am going to simply offer a few common sense solutions to some very real problems we have in the way we elect our leaders that involve a few changes that will make our government more effective and better representative of the citizenry of the United States.

1) Why the fuck do Iowa and New Hampshire have their primaries so goddamn early and why do we give a shit who they vote for?

 

There is absolutely no reason that Iowa, New Hamphire, and South Carolina should have their caucus/primary so much earlier than everyone else.  I understand why these states want to have their primary elections so early; it gives them an unfair say in who will be nominated for the Presidency.  This is exactly why it is unfair to the other 47 states.  I know why they do it, but I am left in wonder at why the other states allow it.  These 3 states have a combined population of  8,988,189 or roughly 2.9% of the total population of the United States.  If a candidate fairs poorly with the less than 9 million tri-state-early-bird-asshole collective they are all but eliminated from the race and written off by the media and, therefore, the voting populace even though there are 300 million Americans yet to be represented.  

I for one have nothing in common with the average corn-holing Iowan, even less in common with the population of the small east coast state of New Hampshire, and less than nothing in common with the state owned liquor store shopping, first to secede from the union red neck fucks in South Carolina.  Not that my vote is more important than the residents of these states, but, their vote (and special interests) are certainly no more important than mine.  There should either be a federal law enacted that requires all states to hold their primary or caucus on the same day or all the the states that have the value of their electoral rights mitigated by these line jumpers should simply change the date of their primary to the same day as Iowa.  If Iowa makes it earlier, everyone else should make it earlier until finally they are forced to agree on a single date on which every American can cast their primary vote with equal enthusiasm because it is exactly as influential as every other American.  It is absolutely unfair that a state such as Iowa that is 91% white, the most religious state in the country  and accounts for less than 1% of the population holds the most important primary (caucus) and is hailed as a bell-weather for a nation that it is so clearly not at all an accurate representation of.

Fuck the Electoral College

 

In the 1992 presidential campaign Ross Perot garnered 19% of the popular vote and received zero electoral votes.  If there is a better statistic for illustrating how unrepresentative of the will of the people the Electoral College is I do not know it.  Not only does the Electoral College as it is currently devised fail to reflect the popular vote (in this case with the margin of error being +/- 19,741,065 votes) it also places the idea in the American psyche that a third party candidate can never be elected to the Presidency.  Even more disturbing than the aforementioned example is that the Electoral College in it's current incarnation suppresses the will of the general populace, gives a few voters a disproportionate say in the election of our President based simply on the luck of their geographical location, and further polarizes our already fractious and divided political system and electorate.

There is absolutely zero chance of a Republican Presidential candidate campaigning in New York or of a Democratic Candidate stumping in Texas in the months before the general election.  They will be far too busy trying to narrowly eke out a win Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania in order to secure the entirety of the electoral votes awarded by these and other 'swing states'.  Roughly two-thirds of the States have gone to the same party in four consecutive presidential elections and are considered a forgone conclusion not worthy of any serious presidential campaigning.  While there are obviously many factors that go into the allocation of both the funds and time spent on the campaign trail the awarding of electoral votes from a state in one block only further enhances the voice and subsequently the issues of any state that is not overwhelmingly consistently left or right.  While one might argue that this should in turn cause presidential candidates to be more toward the center in their campaign promises and the subsequent policy decistions to follow (if any candidate were, in theory, to hold to their promises once elected) it has quite the opposite effect.  This system pushes right leaning states farther to the right and left leaning states farther to the left and only serves to divide our already large and diverse electorate even further.

  While no Democrat in his right mind could hope to win the majority of the votes in Texas, perhaps, if there was any benefit to gaining votes in that state a Democrat might actually campaign there and gain some votes.  In business a company grows larger not by further saturating a market in which it has achieved substantial penetration and is considered ubiquitous but rather in a new or emerging market where it does not yet have a foot hold.  McDonald's and Coca-Cola are not focused on expanding in the U.S, they are pinning the growth of their companies in Asia and India where they are still largely considered a niche market.  The freer spread of these ideas will make the world a smaller and more similar place (not always necessarily for the good) the same way more evenly distributed campaign resources could make America a smaller place.  This idea expanded to the nation as whole would mean less political polarization between the red and blue states, effect a greater harmony in the electorate and foster a political environment that is more conducive to accomplishing the will of the people rather than one that simply requires a politician to simply charm and harp on certain political hot button issues.

If all states divided their electoral votes according to the percentage of popular vote received rather than awarding them in a block it would cause our presidential elections to be much more fair and make every American's vote count.  This was the point of the electoral college to begin with and since it no longer works it needs to be modified.

3) There really ought to be real campaign finance reform.

I am aware that there are already many campaign finance rules and regulations on the books, but, the fact is that they just aren't working.  Candidates are in a constant state of fundraising and this leaves them beholden to the people who sign the checks.  President Obama raised $750,000,000 during the 2008 election cycle and it is widely believed he will exceed that number before the 2012 election cycle comes to a close.  That is a lot of money that requires a lot of attention and, no doubt, a lot promises to the people making contributions.  If campaign spending were actually capped it would allow our candidates to focus more on campaigning with actual issues and our politicians to focus more on governing the country rather than trying to raise money during every waking moment. 

If candidates were forced to accept public financing for the general election it would put an end to the financial arms race that is presidential campaigning in the United States.  While this would cost the tax payer in the short term it would lessen the strangle hold of special interests on our politicians and allow our politicians to govern more effectively and in the interest of the American people rather than in the interest of the most lucrative donors to their campaign.  

This is to say nothing of the growing phenomenon of PACs and Super PACs that campaigns have been using to get around caps on campaign donations by wealthy individuals and corporations.  These either need to be eliminated for forbidden from mentioning any candidate by name.  While some think that eliminating these organizations would be an assault on free speech I would argue that the existence of these organizations is an assault on our democratic ideals the integrity of our electoral process.  

I really do think that America can adapt to this world that we largely created but only if we fix our electoral system so that it better reflects the electorate and gives our politicians the ability to steer our nation the right direction.