As of the night I write this the election is just two weeks away. Early voting has begun in several states, including mine. And there are indications that this will be the most closely scrutinized election in United States history.
Republicans have long suspected their Democratic rivals have won elections with a little vote-manipulating. (Why that should be any worse than attempting to manipulate the thinking of the public is entirely beyond me.) Some even contend that the irregularities of the 1960 election led Nixon to instigate the Watergate break-in.
And now Democrats believe strongly that the election held 40 years later was stolen by the Republicans with the assistance of the Republican candidate's brother. There were voting irregularities in Florida, as there probably were in other states. But Florida became the battleground. It's possible that Democrats felt their best chance of winning lay in a Florida recount. But one thinks they would have considered the wisdom of taking on Jeb Bush who had an obvious bias.
Then again, it's possible this was their aim, to have a questionable election result that would help the party in subsequent elections. In that case they failed to consider the effects of September 11, 2001. Since nobody I know predicted that event, it's understandable that the Democrats missed taking its impact into account.
But as I sit here and contemplate the two candidates this year, I'm not harboring much confidence about the nation's future. One of them would continue to use the terrorist attacks as an excuse to fight wars he wanted to fight long before these terrorists began attacking United States interests so boldly. And he would likely continue his attempt to link religion and government, violating a key principle of the Bill of Rights.
Both are sons of privilege, both are overfilled with ego, and neither one seems able to state their thinking clearly. In Bush's case that's because he doesn't dare tell the truth about his ideological goals. They're too radical for the bulk of Americans. In Kerry's case it seems to be that he hasn't sat down and thought through a comprehensive, consistent approach to governing.
Like Bush, Kerry probably also has the problem of not being able to say what he really thinks. Bush is at least partially right when he claims that Kerry makes his policy decisions based on the public mood. The Republicans said the exact same thing about Bill Clinton. I have no idea why it's such a terrible thing for a leader of a democratic republic to listen to the governed before ramming policies through congress. I was raised to think that one of the goals of our system was to keep the leaders attuned to what the people want.
My point is that we haven't had a qualified candidate for president in years, maybe in nearly 200 years. Why is that? I see two major impediments to finding qualified people to take the important office of president. First, the two party system maintained by hook or by crook by the two parties in power; second, the misuse of the electoral college.
There's been a lot of discussion about the electoral college. Many reasons are suggested for why the founding fathers arranged that means for choosing president. Whether they meant it or not, I believe one great use for the system would be to bar EVERYONE from seeking the office. Particularly with the political system the way it is, anyone who willingly submits to the humiliation of running for the office, and anyone with the unmitigated gall to ask for the job is, by those very characteristics, markedly unqualified for it.
Columnist and international traveler Ted Rall believes one purpose of the electoral college is to prevent there being any "federal" election. In his opinion that's why the conclusion of the 2000 race was so illegal. The Supreme Court had no authority to cast a decision in the matter of the Florida election. State elections are the jurisdiction of the states alone.
Another good reason to outlaw running for the only "national" elected office is that it's virtually impossible for everyone to get to know a candidate except through the "biased" media. Of course, in our largest states that's probably equally true of senatorial candidates. But here's how I envision a revived electoral college would work, with things updated to take advantage of modern technology.
Only the names of potential electors would appear on the ballots. Everyone would select three names; two statewide electors, and one congressional district elector. People would evaluate the candidates based on their stated views of what characteristics a president should have. Candidates would be forbidden to name any names of potential nominees for president.
Election night we'd know the face of the new congress, and who will represent our state in the electoral college. The selected electors would meet the following Monday and work behind closed doors. No media interviews and no public statements would be allowed. Press entities that try to scoop their rivals by sneaking information out of the closed session would be seized by the government to be sold at auction.
(I know that last bit sounds draconian, but the press is too important an institution to our political system to let it be controlled by greedy owners looking only for better profits.)
The electors would have up to four weeks to complete their task. As specified originally, the highest vote-getter would become president, the second-highest vote-getter would become vice-president. It might require some sort of system of successive ballots, with the bottom half of the candidates dropped until one candidate had a majority of the 435 votes that would be cast.
As soon as a candidate was selected, the electors would announce a press conference. The doors should then be closed again for one hour, giving time for all media outlets to have a reporter present. When the hour had passed, the doors would be opened, the results of the electoral process would be announced, and the gag orders would expire. Electors can then freely speak about the process, about who else had been considered, about anything they want to say.
Granted, such a system would cut into the time for a transition team to do its work. But it might be for the best that if an incumbent can no longer serve or is voted out, the replacment president would start where the incumbent left off, and take adequate time to replace cabinet members and other staffers. Since the new president would not have political "debts" to pay, the qualifications of candidates for each position would be the ONLY consideration.
Sound too radical? After listening to both candidates this year lie, misrepresent, and misconstrue, in order to bitterly attack their opponent; and then make unfulfillable promises to bolster their own image can you think we could find a worse system than the present one?
George Bush has now had the audacity to call on the presence of AlZarquawi in Iraq as a justification for the war there. Any voter willing to pay attention over the last year or so, will know that AlZarquawi was NOT in Iraq at the start of this "war." He is there now only because King George issued him an engraved invitation by taking out Saddam. And with the prisoner abuse that has been revealed, we have succeeded only in stirring up the hornet's nest. No matter how many times the president says it, the United States are NOT safer because of his "war." Indeed, our safety has declined markedly, and after Mr. Bush's cowboy unilateralism, most of our former allies will probably sit back and watch us burn.
I have long maintained that the American voter has the power to reclaim the political process. We don't HAVE to select from only two candidates. It would probably be best if we voted for whichever candidate did the least to promote himself or herself (including campaign spending).
Media outlets should give equal coverage to ALL qualified candidates, regardless of how miniscule their chances of attracting votes. If they won't do it voluntarily (by journalistic tradition they should be eager to do so) we could pass laws to force them to do so, with the same penalty for violations as noted above. These could be justified under the First Amendment through the principle applied to the vote system. We adhere to "one man one vote," why shouldn't we also adhere to "one man one voice." Letting the wealthy drown out all other voices by purchasing access to the media is not free speech. It violates the most fundamental principles of free speech -- the open marketplace of ideas.