Reforming the Presidential Nomination System
69
It seems that election cycle campaigning is entirely too long and an unfair process. Maybe it is because since 2006 President Obama went on the campaign trail for President despite only being a Senator for a year/ He won the Presidency but has not stopped campaigning. Needless to say he is looking for four more years. Mitt Romney Started campaigning in late 2006 to run for President. He lost to John McCain. Shortly after the 2088 election, Romney hit the road campaigning for the 2012 election. Starting last spring, the rest of those wanting a shot at the Whitehouse started to come out of the woodworks.
Perhaps the dismay we are feeling is the sheer number of debates that have occurred and yet to be held. Or maybe it is all the negative ads and name calling that is going on. Or maybe it is because of the number of candidates there are.
Time has come to reform the presidential nomination system. The campaign is far too long, tedious, expensive, and doesn’t actively engage voters. If a nomination is “locked up” in February, as often happens, are we not disenfranchising voters? After all by the end of February only 13% of voters nationwide have spoken. Why should I accept the nominee picked by only 13% of the people? Many voters don’t get a chance to meet and learn more about them, large states don’t get their say, and states write big checks to hold elections that yield fixed, debatable results.
There have been a number of proposals floated in the last several years ranging from a national primary, which about 55% of people prefer based on Gallup polling, to a population based system.Here is a proposal I believe would be better, improve the system, all states get a say in the primaries, and will cost less money.
First all states keep the delegate counts they have. At the convention they can make the formal presentation and nomination as has been done. Next, create a campaign season. Start December first and end on the last day in March. All campaigning will cease at that time and will not continue during the voting month. During that time period Iowa can have it caucus and New Hampshire can still be first in the nation Primary. Primary elections would then start in April. Each Tuesday will have elections. All the remaining 49 states will divide up between the four Tuesday’s of the month. At the end of the month we will know who the winner is and all states had their votes count. The Presidential season would be form August first till the last day in October. Then the election will be held in November as always.
In addition, there should be a cap on spending for campaigns. This cap would include what PACs spend as well. For example, say the cap is 100 million dollars, if a PAC or outside organization spends 10 million dollars, the candidate can only spend 90 million dollars no matter how much money they collect. Any advertising, media announcements, commercials, and more all count whether spent by the campaign or an outside organization that benefits the candidate. This proposal is interesting because it may increase engagement, eliminate the permanent campaign, and cut the costs of running for office. Turnout for early states are historically low, but holding the contests in warmer months would get more voters to participate.
This is just a beginning; there are more campaign finance reforms that need to be enacted. Also the parties need to revamp the nominating conventions to increase news coverage and public interest. These needed changes would improve our democratic process; make Presidential elections more inclusive to voters; and produce a nominee who may make a good president, but had otherwise dropped out of the race too early.
That is my American View, what is yours.
American View© encourages comments. In brief:
- Keep it civil and stay on topic
- No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. This blog and its contents are copyright © protected, all rights reserved
 | Amazon Price: $25.97 List Price: $42.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.22 List Price: $6.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.34 List Price: $19.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $214.29 List Price: $225.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $0.01 List Price: $6.95 |
- Calling Out Harry Reid
Everyday Congressmen and Senators get onto the floor of their respective chambers and give speeches on different topics. Then they'll gather in the rotunda to give news conferences blaming each other for the issue at hand doesn't get resolved. Of course now that it is campaign season, they give broader speeches, and at times their speech has nothing to do with the issue at hand for which they were supposed to be addressing. I want to make it clear that both sides are guilty of this, but am only - 44 hours ago
- IRS Loophole Enriches Undocumented Workers
Raising my kids I always told them to be responsible, to take responsibility for their actions. If you did something wrong, be honest, step up and take the punishment that may come for your actions. That’s what I have done my entire life and expect no more or less of my kids. I have been far from an angel in my life, but I took responsibility for my actions, including having been in jail, I never blame anyone nor do I expect anything. There should not be any rewards for not being responsible. - 3 days ago
- Walker Being Recalled
Well the Democrats and the unions are at it again in the state of Wisconsin. They haven't learned their lesson, they still want to be divisive, and of course they still want to waste money. I'm talking of the recall election of Gov. Scott Walker. The last attempts at a recall on the senators and congressmen of Wisconsin was a failure to the tune of $30 million spent by them. I have no idea how much they're spending this time, but the unions are bragging they are spending more that last election, - 7 days ago
- Can Obama Get Reelected in 2012
We all know that the presidential primaries are in full swing with all the noise Republicans are making. The Democratic primaries are currently going on at a much lower fevered pitch. After all what could there be to talk about, Obama is running unopposed, or is he. Turnout in most of the Democratic primaries has been light. In fact, if states did not have key races with Senators or Congressmen on the ballot, it would seem like turnout would be nonexistent. Of course so far in every state with - 2 weeks ago
- Americans It Is Time To Get Involved
Stop the Presses, President Obama makes the major announcement we have been waiting for, he supports gay marriage today even though he was against it in 2008 then for it in 2009 and against it again in 2010. This is what we have been waiting for, this was the big one. Champagne is now flowing; confetti is falling from the skies. - 2 weeks ago
- Can Republicans Win the Presidency in 2012
Do Republicans really have a chance at winning the Presidency in November of 2012? President Obama surely has made it easy enough for almost anyone to defeat him. Pick an issue and you will find nothing that Obama can campaign on. In fact in his speech kicking off his reelection campaign, president Obama did not mention one thing that he accomplished during his first term. All he did was lodge attacks against the Republicans and why it would be so terrible to elect those bad boys. - 2 weeks ago
- Are Ron Paul Supporters Stealing the Nomination
Does your vote really count? We have all heard the stories over the years, stuffed ballot boxes, ballots destroyed, ballots thrown out, ballots just not counted, and of course the most famous are those hanging chads. We all have the right to vote, its part of what our founding fathers fought for in establishing this new great nation. Every November we the people go to the voting polls whether it is a presidential election, midterm elections for Senators and Congressmen, governors, mayors, judge - 2 weeks ago
- The Ho-Bots Are Coming the Ho-Bots Are Coming!!
Robots and machines came to prominence in the early 1900s during the industrial revolution here in America. From robotic arms spot welding on the automotive assembly line, to the arms packaging products in boxes for shipping, robots have improved our way of life tremendously. - 3 weeks ago
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
I'm not so sure the parties nomination system is governed by the Constitution. Is it not governed by the individual parties, so that they choose their own method for selecting a candidate? If so, I say leave it to them to let them figure what is best. The last thing we need is the federal government getting involved, or we the taxpayer footing yet another bill.
Very interesting ideas, American View. I agree that the campaign season is way too long and expensive. Small states seem to have way too much influence on the nominating process. FitnezzJim is correct in stating that this is the purview of the parties as to how they pick their nominee. The Constitution says nothing about parties and thus it is up to the parties. I do wish the parties and the states would get together and create a better system. I greatly doubt that it will happen in any significant way. Excellent Hub.
You are right, the Constitution does not have dictate how parties handle the nomination process, but AV suggested capping campaign contributions, which Citizens United has already had a large effect on. Contribution limits are against the First Amendment according to the Citizens United ruling.
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions"
The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.
This law ended up not being about corperate limits but it was about whether or not an ad could air by a Pac 60 days before election day. To get aound that, corperations started to make documentaries like Micheal Moore did or the one against Hillary. The claim was those were commercial films to make money and therfore were not considered political ads and since they were not ads they could run within the 60 day time period. The Supreme court decision basically said that limiting the 60 day rule was a violation of the first amendment because of FREE SPEECH, nothing to do with dollar limits.
My proposal is capping what a CANDIDATE can spend and that the ads others like PACs spend counts against the the cap. What will happen is the candidates will get ticked off and stop the PACs from spending as much as they do. Show me where in my article I suggest a cap on contributions. You will not find it.
Perhaps I was not clear enough so let me break it down more. The Election gets a cap, say 100 million dollars and it is you vs, me. Does not matter how much monet we raised, could have been a billion dollars, we are only allowed to spend not more than 100 million dollars. Now the Pacs spend their own money and can spend as much as they want to. So the unions are backing you big time and spend 40 million dollars. Well even though you did not pay for it, that counts against the cap and you only have 60 million dollars available under the cap to spend. Now my Pacs spent only 10 million dollars, I would have 90 million left under the cap to spend. Again I am not regulating contributions, I am capping spending, just like the NFL and NBA do. So long as we do not interfere with contributions, we are not violating the first amendment
I understood you. I don't think your proposal would be Constitutional following the Citizens United case. Do I like your proposal. Yeah, its much better than what we have no for sure, but look at what the Citizens United case did. It blew the door open on spending. It said that spending = free speech, therefore you cannot limit the spending amount.
Your proposal would somehow link super PAC spending to an overall candidate's campaign and limit what they can spend based on total money spent on their campaign. How would you do that? Especially since candidates cannot control super PACs?
Gingrich's super PAC is a prime example. He called on them to fix the film they are running or stop running it. The head of that super PAC (his former spokesman oddly enough), said no, they would continue to run it.
So how could a candidate stop what super PACs do when they are independent and by law, candidates cannot coordinate with the super PACs?
Again, I don't dislike your proposal. I just don't see how it could be implemented or stand Constitutional muster.
Good job my friend. As you know, we are calling for campaign finance reform at THP. I wanted to discuss this with you anyway, so I'm glad you wrote about it. Remind me when we talk to go over this with you.
Of course my idea begins with getting corporate money, special interest money, and the like out of the campaign. I want to set up to where everyone's got the same amount of money to work with so that the best man wins and not the guy with the most money. These two things are usually mutually exclusive. My plan, while still needing to be tweaked, and that's where you come in, eliminates the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" crap once and forever.
And it's up! Yes it's awesome! Dang right it's interesting! Funny? Not really. Beautiful? ummm .. Not so much. Useful? I think it very possibly could be!
Jim
PZ,
You are right that Citizen United blew the doors off spending by PACs. I am dealing with the candidates, not the PACS. So how do you curtail them. As you know, Candidates like Gingrich are NOT allowed to call PACs and Gingrich said so last night. What he said was he PUBLICLY asked for them to only advertise the truth and change the ones that are not accurate. But since you used Gingrich, let's stick with him on the issue. OK Cap is 100 million dollars, If a Gingrich's PAC s spend 100 million dollars, Gingrich is in deep shit. Therefore the national committee's will reach out to those Super PACs and control their spending so the Candidate can do what he needs to on the campaign trail. So while Pac's can spend endless money, they will stifle their candidate over the long haul. Candidates will not let that happen.
By the way, the 100 million is just a number I pulled out of thin air for demo purposes and no way represents an actual number I believe in backing. Just wanted to be clear.
We surely need reform. I really like the idea of a "season" that ends just in time for the election. Personally, I would like to see contributions, most especially those by corporations, abolished. I think we should give each candidate the exact same amount of air time to keep everyone on equal footing and let the people decide, after all this is a democracy. As it stands now dollars do translate into votes which undermines the whole idea of the democratic process.
Thank you for some much needed ideas on a thorn in America's side!
It is def an interesting idea. I just don't see how it would be implemented. By limiting what candidates can spend because of what another independent entity spent supporting them, that would limit the candidates first amendment rights wouldn't it? I think such an action would probably have to be passed via a constitutional amendment to stand up. Again, I'm not disagreeing with u, I just don't think it would be a simple thing to do.
I do agree with the overall sentiment. The elections process needs a revamp. Money pays way too big of a role and needs to be limited somehow. My understanding is that Citizens United really screwed the whole thing up though, making a constitutional amendment the only sure way to limit the way big money rules elections.
I still like a national primary though. It never made sense to me why Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina should have more of a say than Georgia, Texas, California, and New York who have way more delegates, but have less of an impact because of the order that their elections take place. A national primary would take care of that.
PZ,
I am looking at a campign as a businees like the NFL or NBA, they have caps, so why not cap campaigns?
National primary would be an OK alternate to weekly elections. I just thought it would be easier and cost less speading it out instead of one day. But either way works
politicalzealot Level 4 Commenter 4 months ago
I personally would prefer a national primary. That way everyone gets their say all at the same time. I know that system could be implemented.
I also think there needs to be a strong third party and a system that supports a strong third party. Currently, the system does not support outside parties by keeping the names on the ballot locked down. Even within the primary system, candidates are having problems with the lockdown (GOP in Virginia).
The system you propose isn't bad. I just do not think it will pass Constitutional muster, especially after the Citizens United decision.