Candidates (a Political Issue)
Most of the people who represent us and our districts in our governments needed to run as candidates for those political offices. Basically, a candidate is someone seeking to be hired to represent us and our interests in one of our governments. To be hired, a candidate needs to apply for the position, to campaign for the position, and then be elected to fill that position. (Note: Sometimes someone is appointed to fill a vacated position temporarily until a new election can be held to elect a permanent replacement.)
For most jobs, we might send in a resume, fill out an application, sit for one or more interviews and then wait to hear whether we are offered the position or not. Of course, we usually do not just apply for one job at a time. Instead, we may send out dozens or even hundreds of resumes. This could then quickly lead to one or more offers where we could then pick the one that we want. On the other hand, this could take several months or more and we might need to end up settling for whatever job we could get.
With political offices, the situation is quite different. We can only realistically apply for one job at a time, and we may need to start campaigning to get that job a year or more beforehand. Once we decide to run for a specific political office, we first need to determine the eligibility requirements and confirm whether we meet them or not.
Even if we meet the eligibility requirements for a given political office, we also should decide if we are qualified and right for the position. That is, do we have the knowledge (information, facts and skills) needed to do the job. If possible, we should also determine if we are as or more qualified than our opponents. Then we should decide if we are right for the political office by comparing our positions on the issues with the people we would represent. If we are not in sync with them, then we should determine if our positions are better and if we would have a good chance of persuading them that our positions are better.
We would start our campaign by filling out and then filing the forms and other required documents like financial disclosers and petitions. Then we need to put together our platform, build a campaign team and create a fundraising plan. Then we need to sell ourselves by engaging with the voters, giving speeches, debating our opponents, speaking to the news media and advertising. All this while trying to do fundraising and watching our budget. Then, as election day approaches, we need to start focusing on getting our voters to the polls. On election day, we would find out if we were able to bring it all together.
Experts say that we should treat any job hunt like it was a job. In the case of being a candidate and running a political campaign, this is doubly true, since it really is like having a full-time job with no holidays or vacations. I sometimes wonder why anyone would put themselves through all this, especially when they have no guaranty of being elected and are often attacked by people who oppose the candidate’s positions and ideas on the issues.
As voters, we need to evaluate all the candidates who we could vote for to determine which ones we think would do the best job of representing us. Obviously, we want someone who is knowledgeable about the issues and who is qualified to do the job. It is also good to have a candidate who understands us, our needs, our wants and our desires. In addition, I believe it is important that we identify the types of candidates we have and to factor that into our decisions about who to vote for.
In general, I believe there are four types of individuals who run for political office. First, we have individuals who truly want to represent the best interests of the people who will be their constituents, will listen to them and will try hard to help them. Second, we have individuals who think they know what will be best for their constituents and will try to impose that on everyone. Third, we have individuals who are only interested in the power, prestige, influence and money they can get from being in political office. Fourth, we also have a lot of individuals who are a combination of these other types.
The first type of candidate is who we really need. These individuals truly care about others, want what is best for them and are willing to work to help them get what they think is best for them. These individuals are statesmen and stateswomen who will try to do everything they can for the common good of the people they represent.
The second type of candidate is who we too often get. These individuals are convinced that their way is the best and are highly motivated to impose their way on all of us. These are the types of individuals who are most likely to belong to and to make up the most active and vocal part of a political party. Since these are also the types of individuals who are most likely to vote in a primary election, they are also likely to end up being the types of individuals who will be the candidates of their party.
The third type of candidate is who we can expect to be or to become corrupt. Their focus is on themselves and what they can get out of being elected to political office. They may do what is best for their constituents, but only if they also get something out of it. Luckily, this type of candidate has or will do something that will expose their true nature and that will help to keep them from being elected. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
The fourth type of candidate is tricky. They may really care about people but may still believe their way is better than what their constituents say they want. They may also be mostly honest but can sometimes be tempted into acting in a corrupt manner. I believe that most of our candidates belong to this combination type. With each candidate being somewhere on a spectrum with respect to each of the other three types.
Although a few third-party and independent candidates do get elected, most candidates must belong to one of our two major political parties to have a chance of being elected. As stated in the previous section on Political Parties, this is mainly due to candidates needing the money and support that would be provided by one of those political parties.
In many cases, the views and positions of a candidate will align more closely with those of the members of one of the two major political parties than the other. Of course, we need to remember that political parties have factions. In addition, different factions may be stronger in some locations than others, so the views and positions of the members of a political party may be somewhat different in different locations. Therefore, a candidate may have views and positions that are better aligned with the members of a political party in some locations than in others and even better aligned with the members of different political parties in different locations.
However, in some cases the views and positions of potential candidates may not align well with the views and positions of the members of either of these two major political parties. Either they do not align well with the members of either political party in the potential candidates’ locations or at all. This situation can lead to some problems.
On the one hand, the candidates we do get will align more with the views and positions of the members in one of the two major political parties than they align with the views and positions of most of the people in their districts. The reason for this is that many possible candidates who would make great representatives do not become candidates because their views and positions do not line up well with those of the members of either of the two major political parties and they do not want to support the views and positions of these political parties or even to be associated with either of these political parties.
On the other hand, we end up with many candidates who do not really align with a lot of the views and positions of the other members of their chosen political party but will too often go along with them so that their chosen political party will support them. Although some of these candidates may have views and positions that may be better aligned with the people in their districts, they may still not be good representatives given that they are willing to compromise what they believe in to get the support of a political party.
Even when candidates generally go along with the views and positions of the other members of their chosen political party, they may still express many different views and positions than others in their chosen political party. If they do not stray too far from what others in their party believe, at least in the districts that they represent, they may be able to retain the support of their chosen political party. However, if some in their chosen political party do believe they have gone too far, then they may very likely be challenged in their party’s next primary election.
Given that the views and positions of the members of a given political party may be more extreme in some locations then they may elect representatives who are also more extreme. This can lead to a serious problem for other candidates of this political party when others try to paint all of them to be just as extreme or even more so than these more extreme representatives. It is a fallacy to assume everyone in a political party is the same. Unfortunately, too many voters will allow themselves to be manipulated by this fallacy since it is easier to lump everyone together under a label than to evaluate each candidate on their own merits.
Unlike applying for most jobs where the employer decides what an applicant must do to get hired, candidates for political office currently decide what they will do as part of their campaigning. For the most part, candidates for office currently decide what issues they want to talk about, who they will talk to, when and where or even if they will debate their opponents, and even who can come to their rallies.
It sometimes seems like these candidates think they are the bosses, and that we work for them. The truth is that these candidates are applying for a political office (a job) where we would be their bosses. Therefore, we should have every right to decide what they need to do during the campaign to have a chance to get our votes.
Instead of the candidates dictating when, where and how they campaign, we must take control. We should have the right to decide what the candidates need to talk about, what questions they need to answer, when and where they must debate their opponents, and what other events they should come to. Since we would be their bosses, we need to show them that we would be their bosses right from the start.
The most important change we need to make in our political campaigns is with the way they are financed. We need to get rid of the influence being bought by special interest groups, wealthy donors, and anyone else who can pour a lot of money into campaigns. This could start with some incremental changes but would really need to be completely overhauled so that we can truly fix the way our political campaigns are financed to remove any influence peddling and buying of elections.
The first issue is with all the money coming in from outside the candidates' districts. Some individuals and groups want more influence over some legislation or policy than they could get with just their representatives. Therefore, they may donate to candidate campaigns in other districts and other states to buy some extra influence. If these candidates want or need this money for their current campaigns or want or need additional money for future campaigns, then they may feel obligated to represent the interests of these outsiders over the interests of their constituents.
Our representatives need to represent the interests of us, their constituents, so the first thing we need to do is to bar all money coming from outside groups. This would need to include any outside money being funneled through special interest groups, political action committees, and political parties. Of course, to ensure there is no outside money, the source of all campaign donations would need to be reported. That is, we could not allow any dark money to come in. Then, only money coming from people in a candidate’s district could be used to support that candidate’s campaign.
The next issue is with individuals who can afford to make extra-large donations. Since less money would come in from outside donors, a rich individual living in the district could potentially donate a significant portion of a candidate’s campaign money. If the candidate to whom this rich individual donated was elected, then this donor could end up having bought some extra influence. The only way to prevent this buying of extra influence would be to limit donations to some relatively small amount per person.
With the above limits on outside and individual donations, we would end up with a new issue. That is, campaigns may not be able to get enough money donated to finance an effective campaign. This leads us to what really should be done to overhaul our campaign financing. We need clean election laws that would have our governments provide all the campaign financing. This would eliminate any donor influence buying and shift our political campaigns from who can buy the most advertising to who is truly the best candidate.
The government would budget the same amount of funds for all qualified candidates in each district. Each candidate would get a budget that would be proportional to the size of the district that that candidate was running in. There would be one budget for each primary candidate, when needed, and a separate budget for each general election candidate. There would need to be some appropriate adjustments to the general election budget made based on whether there was a primary or not.
The campaign funds would be dispersed directly by the government, and the government would ensure that funds would only be used for authorized campaign expenses. These funds would cover such things as debates, rallies, advertising and other expenses related to the campaign. Our governments should have more than enough to pay for the campaigns, since our elected representatives would not need to include all the earmarks intended to pay back their campaign donors in the bills they pass.
The government would also sponsor multiple events like debates, meet and greets, and town hall meetings, where we, the voters, would have an opportunity to get to know and to compare the candidates. In addition to any government sponsored events, any group or individual could also sponsor an election related event. These additional events would not be to support a given candidate but would provide the sponsors and their guests with an additional opportunity to get to know and to compare the candidates.
For all these events, whether it was government sponsored or privately sponsored, each candidate would need to be invited and provided with any appropriate transportation, accommodation and meals. Speaking order at all these events would be random or would be rotated. Each candidate would also be provided with equal time to talk, to answer questions and to respond to comments made by other candidates.
Advertising space would also need to be equally distributed among all the candidates. Individuals and groups would still have the right to express their opinions about the candidates when talking to others but would not be allowed to buy advertising without giving each candidate equal time to respond. This would preserve everyone’s right to free speech but eliminate someone being able to buy extra speech rights, which might give them some extra influence over a candidate.
During a campaign, a lot of candidates spend a lot of time promising to do various things that are popular with their current audience while avoiding talking about things that are unpopular with them. For another audience, the candidates may promise different things, even some that are at odds with their earlier promises. Since each candidate will often promise a lot of different things for different individuals and groups, it is likely that most of us will like some promises, but dislike others.
Candidates often promise to do things like lower taxes, create more jobs, spend more on some things, spend less on other things, or to fix this or that issue. Most of the time, these promises are vague and without some important details. This can leave us wondering whether they have good plans for these promises or not.
We should not allow candidates to make these types of vague campaign promises. If a candidate has a specific well-thought-out plan to do something, then they should present it to us so that we can see the details, debate it and make up our own minds on whether we think it would work or not.
Barring a well-defined plan, candidates should stick to discussing the issues and the plusses and minuses of possible solutions. We want our candidates to show us that they are knowledgeable and well informed about the issues and the job they are running for, will listen to our views, and can evaluate and analyze issues and any possible solutions. We do not need representatives who want to manipulate their way into office with vague promises.
When a candidate is elected, we do not always know whether most of us really preferred this candidate over the others, were swayed by one or more of that candidate’s promises, or just settled for the candidate that we hoped would do the least amount of harm.
In fact, many of us may not even like many or most of the positions taken and promises made by any of the candidates. Therefore, we may have simply ended up electing the candidate with positions and promises we liked on some issues important to us or the candidate with the least positions and promises that we disliked. I often find myself voting for whichever candidate seemed like the lesser of two or more “evils”.
Another problem with campaign promises is that they are not always kept or what is done is not what we thought we were voting for. In addition, legislation is often passed for the things that the candidates did not talk about and for which most of us may not have wanted or that would not really be good for most of us.
Although we may want to elect someone who can come up with ideas that can solve our problems, what we really need is someone who will be good at listening to and evaluating many ideas from many different individuals. We need to separate the issues from the candidates. We want to elect individuals who will be best at representing and protecting our interests, at running our government, and at handling whatever issues that might arise. We want representatives who can gather all the relevant information, are open to new ideas, and can evaluate and analyze everything to select the best solutions to our problems no matter where those ideas come from.
What we want is to give all of us the chance to express and to debate our ideas about the issues and to propose solutions. We should be able to submit our ideas to our representatives or to bring them up at town hall like meetings. Our representatives should also have the right to debate the issues just like any other citizen, but they should not be allowed to simply impose their ideas on us, their constituents.
We should not be forced to vote for the combination of a candidate, of a bunch of campaign promises and of a package of proposals. We should be able to vote for our representatives and for individual proposals separately. For instance, instead of being forced to vote for a vegetarian pizza with broccoli, cauliflower and pineapple slices or a meat pizza with spam, haggis and liver bits, we should be able to vote for a vegetarian or meat pizza, and then to be able to vote for a separate list of toppings.
Part of the answer to the problem of campaign promises is with the campaign financing changes that I talked about in the previous subsection. By taking control of campaigning, we can demand that candidates answer our questions about the details of any promises and about issues that they may try to avoid. The other part of the answer would be for us to vote for the candidates who answer our questions clearly, honestly and intelligently.
Voting -
How to improve the way we vote.
|