Print
|
Back
------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Finance Reform
A Specific and Detailed Proposal
Shaun Kerry, M.D.
Glancing at
the present state of our society, it is evident that we lack good leadership.
Our healthcare and education systems are in serious disrepair. Pollution
and global warming threaten the survival of our planet. These are merely a
few examples drawn from a myriad of instances of social dysfunction.
This is the second of our two political web sites. The other site, Political Reform, discuses the root causes of political dysfunction, and should be read first. The site that you are presently reading explains a plan of action. These suggestions are preliminary, and will be refined over time, with the aid of discussion and input from many people. Our forum is an important vehicle for such discussion, so please feel free to let your views and opinions on campaign finance reform be heard.
In order for the creation of an equitable political selection process, the following criteria should be met:
1. A candidate must be able to run for office without the requirement of more than a nominal amount of money and campaign support.
2. Signatures should not be a requirement for a candidate or a proposition to be placed on the ballot.
3. The candidate should be visible to the public via a web site that candidly presents him without the filtering of a third party or organization.
4. There must be a screening process to fairly eliminate the great majority of candidates that is realistic and operated by the public. The final election should not be more burdensome for the voter than the present system.
5. The government should not give money directly to any candidate or party, but rather, support the mechanism through which there is a level playing field and ample exposure for all candidates.
6. There should be no other campaign contributions.
7. Labor unions, the media, and other organizations should not support any particular candidates.
8. No matter what system is proposed, there will be objections. For example, some will argue that banning campaign contributions would give the media an unfair advantage. But arguably, the media has acted responsibly in recent history, and would have to continue to do that to maintain the public trust. We cannot have a perfect system, but our present system is outrageous. Anything better than outrageous is a step in the right direction.
Remember, the reform must overhaul the entire campaign process, not merely the financing aspect. What cannot be done through laws must be done through the adoption of a code of ethics.
------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Reform
Imagine The Possibilities
Shaun Kerry, M.D.
Soon, virtually
every voter in the United States will have internet access, either
through direct ownership, a friend, a school, or a public library.
Tamper proof systems have been perfected such that people would be able to vote over the internet. The ballot casting program would instantly notify the voter if he cast an invalid ballot. Involving the internet in voting, and in the election process in general, would lead to an explosion of interest in the political process.
At present, younger citizens participate in voting the least, apparently because they have the least confidence in our current electoral system. On the other hand, these same young people are the most energetic when it comes to voicing their political concerns. Why not put all of this energy to good use? These young people could be given an opportunity to use their time much more constructively by screening prospective candidates and exchanging information with other voters. In order for such a system to be effective, it must be simple for people to use. Otherwise, the public will not participate. Even though the mechanisms working in the background sound complex, such a system will not be too complicated.
What if this plan were implemented?
I expect that it would be tried experimentally at the city and county level first. The country would ease into it gradually. Imagine what it would be like. People would be saying: "Hey, I could be president. Or my neighbor, or my minister, or the mayor of my town could be president." Then people would start thinking: "What would I do if I were president?"
That would create quite a stir. How would that alter the attitude about politics that currently exists on college campuses? How would the media react? Instead of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" it would be "Who Wants to Be President?". Sure. The media would screen candidates for the show just like they would for a quiz show. The contestants would chat with the moderator for ten minutes, and at the end of the show, the studio audience (and perhaps the audience at home via the internet) would vote for the best presentation and the winner would get prize money. Instead of trivia, people would be asked questions about what they would do to improve the country. This would get people thinking. People talking. A healthy political climate.
Gone would be the mud slinging and the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds. In its place would be a process that would spring directly from the hearts and minds of the people, with active involvement of the media. In a sense, it would be politics without the politics. Who would have guessed?
Under such a system, any child would have the opportunity to be president. We would have a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. We would have a true democracy
------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Reform
The Automatic Runoff
Shaun Kerry, M.D.
The purpose of the runoff is to prevent your vote from being lost. The
automatic runoff is used to save the voters from having to make multiple
trips to the polls. This process would be very simple for the voter. You
don't have to know all of the details, but for those of you who want to
know, here it is:
This is best illustrated by an example. Suppose you have 3 candidates: one conservative, and two liberal. Let's say that the conservative candidate gets 40% of the votes, liberal candidate A gets 35% of the votes, and the liberal candidate B gets 25% of the votes. Under our present system, the conservative candidate would get ALL of the electoral votes.
Now suppose we required a runoff election. This means that we would eliminate the candidate with the least votes, and have another election. Let's revert to the aforementioned example. If there was a runoff election, the conservative candidate would run against liberal candidate A. Most likely, liberal candidate A would win. This seems more fair, but requires two trips to the polls.
If we use the automatic runoff, we can accomplish the same result, but with only one trip to the polls. And the process will work whether we have three candidates or twenty. The voter simply votes for as many candidates as he wishes, but he ranks them in order of numerical preference: 1,2,3,4,5 . . . and so on. By ranking the candidates, you are telling the computer that you prefer candidate 1, but if he or she can't win, then you would prefer number 2, and so on down the line.
In doing this, your first choice would count as it always has. In the event of a runoff, the computer would know in advance how you would vote, and it would cast your ballot for you automatically. Of course, you wouldn't have to rank all of the candidates. And if you wanted to, you could vote for only one. You may simply have no preference among some of the others.
When the votes were tallied, the single candidate receiving the least votes would be eliminated by the computer, leaving ninety-nine candidates. The process would be repeated, leaving ninety-eight candidates. This would continue, eliminating one candidate at a time, entirely by computer, until ten or so candidates remained. The computer would stop at this point, and the finalists would be announced to the public.
The General Election
The finalists would be given wide media coverage, with a wide variety of interviews and debates. After a reasonable period of time, there would be a general (final) election. Each voter would cast his vote, ranking the candidates according to his preference. The computer would then repeat the automatic runoff process, eliminating one candidate at a time, until the winner was chosen.
This process was primarily intended for presidential elections, and elections for lesser offices could be simplified. Voter confidentiality should be maintained by a system of controlled access to the computer data. No single person would have access to all of the information.
------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Reform
Screening the Candidates
Shaun Kerry, M.D.
If the changes that we have discussed on this site were implemented,
there would obviously be a very large number of candidates. Given the
lack of financial requirements, nearly anyone would be able to run for
office. In order to manage such a large body of prospective candidates,
there would have to exist some type of screening process.
One of the screening processes now in use requires a large number of signatures on a petition. While this sounds fair in principle, the signatures are actually bought by mailings or other campaigns. It costs X number of dollars to secure each signature. The resulting expense is often millions of dollars. Acquiring signatures has little to do with the qualifications of the candidate or the validity his propositions for bettering the state of our society.
The purpose of the screening process is to help the voter to eliminate most of the unqualified candidates. At present, we support the "Amazon" method mentioned earlier. It works for sifting through hundreds of thousands of books to find the right one, so why not adapt it for use with political candidates? The server in use would be managed by a team of people, with no one person having control. Any person could submit suggestions for improving the site and its administration. The site you are reading now operates in a similar way. We respond to reader suggestions, and as we grow, our site will become more sophisticated.
In the past, we had considered accreditation boards to rate the candidates. We have since changed our position on this and think that this would be unnecessary. The Amazon system, coupled with a media response that mirrors it, seems the most democratic and efficient. It would be administered by the people, and would improve over time just as versions of software improve. This site will continue to be updated to reflect the most appropriate suggestions. Please let us hear your opinions. We respond to all e-mail suggestions and pay for ones that we can use.
------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign
Reform
A Simple Metaphor
Shaun Kerry, M.D.
Are the common people intelligent enough to choose the best political candidate? A lot of people have brought up that issue.
Let me answer this question with an illustration.
Suppose you live in a town that has only two auto mechanics. We'll call them Bill and Duke. Let's say you want two opinions, and you take your car to Bill first. Bill looks under the hood for a minute and then says: "You've got a loose spark plug wire. Let me show you." You look down at the engine, and sure enough, the wire is loose. Bill does something to the wire, then asks you to turn on the ignition, and the car runs fine.
But you are still not sure, so you take your car to Duke. Duke says: "Well, you've come to the right place. I'm the best one to fix your car. Been in the business for twenty years. When I get through with your car, it will run better than any other car in town. And by the way, whatever you do, don't take your car to Bill. Hear tell he smoked pot as a kid. Yep. Hangs around with homosexuals too."
Well, in this situation, your choice isn't very difficult. Now let's say that you leave town, and come back five years later. The town has grown. You settle down, and a few weeks later, you have car trouble again. You ask around and someone tells you: "Oh, just after you left, Duke bought Bill out. Duke's got the only car repair shop in town. Has a lot of people working for him, too. Bill got out of the car business."
I think that the average person can tell the difference between the Bills and the Dukes. But when they have only Dukes to choose from, they feel very frustrated.
You can change the system without spending any money. And just by using your mind.
Send letters to your representatives in congress and to your friends, with just a few mouse clicks. There are national and state committees that are working to address campaign reform at this very moment. A preformatted letter has been prepared which you can personalize.
Using just your address, the letters will be automatically sent to your appropriate congressional representative.
Please contribute your ideas to our discussion forum which is located HERE.
Read More: Political Reform Health-Care Reform School Reform