Offering Solutions
I’ve spent the last few posts complaining about campaign ads. It occurred to me that simply complaining is a more or less empty gesture. Besides, at least some of my readers are not Texas residents, so complaining about Texas campaign ads likely falls on deaf ears. So, I thought I would offer three suggestions to improve the public discourse.
All 50 states, D.C, and Puerto Rico have the same election rules
This would require a law from Congress. There are three parts to this law, but the first one involves voting rules. This one is pretty simple. If you want voters to have ID, then it should be the same throughout the country. If you want the polls open 24 hours then it should be that way everywhere. If you want drop boxes then it should be the same and mandated with a certain number per one million voters.
If you want early voting then it should have the same rules and times everywhere. Congress has the right to regulate elections where a national office is involved. That involves the presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives. If you are electing city officials, school board races, or dog catchers in odd numbered years then follow whatever rules you like. If my family were to move across the country I should know what the rules are because they would be the same everywhere.
Congressional Districts are Drawn by Computer
This sounds simple, but it would be revolutionary. If you go back to my complaint in the last piece it would be how easy it is to tie candidates to the most extreme members of their party. One of the reasons why these extremists are there is because the Congressional districts are drawn by the state party in power. Louie Gohmert was never going to lose in East Texas despite how stupid he was.
Sheila Jackson Lee is never going to lose in urban Houston either. When a member doesn’t have to worry about reelection then they will never appeal to their voters. They can continue throwing bombs and acting like a fool. Studies have found that less than ten percent of districts are truly competitive. When you go to the fringes of each party you get more performance artists and fewer serious adults. Different research models have predicted that a neutral drawing of districts would result in more than 50 percent being competitive. When you are forced to campaign to the middle you will find different candidates rising to the top.
All General Elections are Publicly Funded
We aren’t eliminating dark money, the Koch brothers, or George Soros. We are simply saying they can only influence the primaries. If you want to use foreign money, drug money, or money from terrorist groups like the NRA to get out of your primary then go right ahead. The rules then change for the general election.
This allows for two things. First, it puts everyone on an even playing field which makes for fairer elections. Second, it means that a public commission gets to approve all ads. So, hit pieces on your opponent will be a thing of the past. You can run ads about your record, your plans, or your life story. If you want to throw mud around then your ad doesn’t get approved. Period. We are the federal election commission and we approve this ad.
Nick,
1offering solutions.
I’ve ranted lots about fox news tactics.
Let’s pass a law that establishes a GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED database that records every syllable, digit, and bit uttered by any entity using the word news in their description.
They’ll scream about censorship.
But it’s the opposite.
If you don’t want it recorded for posterity,
IT AIN’T NEWS.
There for eternity.
That’d equal the playing field some.
All 50 states, D.C, and Puerto Rico have the same election rules
Sounds like Australia or Canada.
Congressional Districts are Drawn by Computer
Probably not possible in a totality. The algorithm is likely to be too complex but it should be possible to do the first cut that way and then set up a non-partisan committee or a non-partisan committee for each state to hammer out the details.
2Hello, Surly Professor!
Thanks for chiming in!
I’ve always been in the corporate world, so the models I’m aware of have to do with money – who gets it and who doesn’t. These applications have all kinds of bias built in that has been there for years. Review and regulation are in their infancy but I have hope.
It sounds as though academia might have built a better – open source – mousetrap. Good to know!
But, yeah, SCOTUS. đ
3âCongressional Districts are Drawn by Computerâ
This just shifts the focus to who controls the folks who write the algorithms.
4“General elections should be publicly funded.”
Even better, change the system so it is based on the Fairness Doctrine, which gives underdogs as much advantage as the overdogs enjoy: Make it incumbent upon all those who provide goods and services to a candidate to provide those same goods and services to all qualified candidates.
This will make it pointless for candidates to scrounge for yet more money; all they have to do is go to the lawn sign maker and say, “You owe me the same number of lawn signs of the same quality as you are going to provide my opponent.” The maker simply adjusts his price to make his nut.
This means candidates will not be owned by megacontributors any more. It also means that the general public will stand to profit by suing donors of goods and services when they find out their candidate did not get the same (“Who provided that company plane to Bob Dole? I’m going to call my hungry lawyer.”)
It means the FEC will no longer be needed.
5As the airwaves are a public trust, we are well within our rights to require broadcasters to offer free airtime for candidate statements and debates. This could be a means to remove the money from politics and elections. No gravy; no gravy train.
6AK Lynne,
7Yes, Alaska has a good system. I’d prefer the top 5 in the primary going to the general, but close enough. The more complicated system would have had you ranking all 49 candidates in the primary for the House seat. While you or I would have done it, too many voters would throw up their hands and not vote. That’s the advantage of Alaska’s two-step process over a single, ranked choice election with voters asked to rank 6-10 candidates (or 49) in every contest.
I’m not sure I have a solution but I have to believe that any campaign/voting/fundraising changes are going to have to be endorsed by the media and I don’t want to be the one to ask them to forego all or part of the (projected) $10 BILLION in political ad buys. I aint real smart but I kinda think that’s A LOT OF MONEY!!!!!
8That is an excellent point about advertising dollars and campaign ads. I would have to think that eventually the dollars would even out. Each candidate would be guaranteed a certain amount and I would think that some candidate would get more public money than they could raise on their own. Conversely, the richie riches will spend less. I would think it would be a similar concept as the salary cap in professional sports.
As others have mentioned the Fairness Doctrine, I would think that it would take time for campaigns to readjust to the new paradigm. It also doesn’t solve the problem of issue ads that are funded by PACs and other interest groups. The problem with those is that the names of the organizations don’t match who they actually are. It’s not like the soft drink companies come out and say, “A message from the sugar pushers trying to get you dependent on junk food.”
9No, Nick Carraway, the wealthiest will very easily outspend whatever the government provides the other candidates. Plus, there’s the matter of PACs promoting issues clearly identified with a candidate– and that spending isn’t considered as a contribution.
Make the vendors provide equally to ALL, and watch the successful campaigns win by turning to their volunteers! There will then come the day in DC where incumbents 75% of the time will cancel a meeting with a contributor to meet instead with a constituent– the exact opposite of the situation today…
10Read it and fucking weep, peeps.
I’ve been warning y’all about this for years, decades even; and now it certainly looks like yet another Democratic disaster.
As a formerly absolutely solid Democratic territory, and an entire Texas [and elsewhere?] voting BLOC goes over to the darkside.
Primarily due to long term Democratic INeptitude at all levels, especially the highest ones!!!
I have lived most of my life down here [in these districts as they and I moved around], it’s almost inconceivable that this has been allowed to happen. Sheer incompetence on a galactic scale.
I hope that this article[s], and I, are wrong…
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/04/south-texas-republicans-congressional-districts/
“…But some Republicans are now openly speculating theyâll win all three. Dave Carney, Gov. Greg Abbottâs chief strategist, recently said Abbottâs campaign feels âspectacularly positiveâ about South Texas and that all three contests are âwithin victory.â In a signal of his commitment to the region, Abbott is hosting his election night watch party in McAllen.
âI expect to winâ all three, Tom Emmer, the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a recent interview. âI absolutely do.â…”
11I like the way you think. Fair is good, right?
12I don’t usually comment on US political matters, although you better believe a lot of people in the rest of the World are KEEN observers, but it occurs to me that a lot of Nick’s wishlist describes what the Australian Electoral Commission does over here.
13