Presidential Elections

Another presidential election year has drawn to a close. From my perspective it has been one of the most annoying, exasperating events that I have endured in my adult life. What used to take nine months from start to finish has now been elongated into a two year process.

More than a year ago I was already annoyed by the deluge of political television commercials. During both the morning and evening prime time, candidate ads were consistently repeated. Adding to my annoyance was the nearly constant, mostly biased commentaries from media sources that aired, day in and day out. Frankly, my tolerance of it all had peaked well before New Years had arrived. At the time, I was certainly not looking forward to the spring primary season where I knew the campaigns would intensify in both ads and media coverage.

The passion of the fall campaigns was merely the prelude of what was to come in the months ahead. Once the primaries were in full swing, fueled by the energy of the Obama – Clinton battle, we were totally consumed by the political process as it played out. The theatrics of it all continued to build until the crescendo finally climaxed on Election Day.

One point of note that set this campaign apart from historical others was the amount of money raised and spent. I recently read that Obama raised more than 750 million dollars prior to the convention. In contrast, candidates in the 04 election raised only half that amount. One needs to look at the industries that profit from all this money. Obviously some goes to pay staff, office supplies and such. But that amount is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of money that is funneled for printing campaign material or to ad agencies, newspapers, radio and TV advertising. Is it a wonder that the guy spending the big bucks on media advertising gets the most favorable press?

In addition, think of the millions of dollars spent by the states and counties for their roll in conducting the elections. Such direct costs include not only the purchase of the voting machines but the computers, materials and staff needed to run the election.

After the infamous “hanging chad” fiasco of the 2000 Bush – Gore election, counties in Florida quickly moved to purchase new automated voting equipment. Most purchased state of the art touch screens that were not only simple to operate, but cost effective and reliant. Then a year ago the State mandated that in addition to the electronic count of votes, the machines must furnish a paper trail. Since the touch screens could not accomplish this added task, the counties spent millions replacing the machines.

It is my opinion that in this automated, electronic, 21^st century that we live in there has to be a cheaper procedure for holding such an election. From seeking qualified candidates that may not have the financial resources or star power to rise to the top, to one’s ability to campaign and conduct an election more economically, a solution should be found.

For example, think how simple and unsophisticated the voting is for shows such as American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. Millions of votes are electronically cast each week to choose winning contestants. Obviously such systems as currently set up are not fool proof since they allow voters to cast multiple ballots for their favorites. Yet I’m sure with American ingenuity such issues could eventually be overcome.

Instead of the long drawn out primary process we now endure, the political parties could hold a series of televised debates for their candidates. The debates would focus on the pertinent issues with each candidate being given an opportunity to state or argue their position. After several debates an elimination process would begin where each week, the candidate collecting the least amount of votes, would be eliminated. Once each party has selected their candidate a new series of debates begins to select the ultimate winner.

Such a solution is probably too idealistic and not doable since it eliminates those who make their riches off the election process. Yet I can certainly think of better, more charitable ways to spend 750 million than on a political candidate. Investing such money in cancer or heart research are two points that come to mind.