Responsibility #3
(written prior to July 1992)
To the people of the United States of America:
Article I Section 9 of our Constitution provides that "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Our founding fathers were very complete in precluding any foreign allegiance or obligation of our national government officials. Alas, they were not prescient enough to extend this to the domestic arena. Nor were they sufficiently sagacious to anticipate that the Congress (and the Presidency) would exempt itself from laws applicable to all other citizens.
Our Presidents and our members of Congress have taken upon themselves the privileges and trappings of an elite, an aristocracy. These Kings and Lords exact tribute (campaign contributions, honoraria, etc.) from their Nobles (political parties, lobbies and special interest groups). In return these Nobles receive access and support for their agendas, often at the expense of the welfare of the general citizenry.
It is intended that our elected (and appointed) officials be public servants, employees of the people. Isn't it high time that we treated elections as a hiring process?
No successful employer would begin hiring employees for his key company positions until he had determined what he wished each employee to accomplish. He would also be wise to define the characteristics requisite to these intended accomplishments.
Similarly, the procuring agency for a complex space or defense system would not begin to consider contractors until mission requirements and contractor evaluation criteria had been established. Such systems might cost a few million or a few billion dollars, spread out over several years. How much more important is the selection of our Congress and Executive Administration? They are responsible for an annual budget that now exceeds one and a half TRILLION dollars! More important, their governance is most determinative of our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; AND that of our children and our children's children.
How does our election process stack up against the hiring practices of employers and procuring agencies?
In Responsibility #2, the first shortcoming of the election process was stated to be "constituents' interests criteria are not established at the outset of the election process to serve as a screening means." The first formal document, against which any participant can be measured as to meeting individual constituent's interests, is each party's political platform. It is not available until the party convention by which time the slates are limited to the finalists. It does not necessarily represent the positions of each Congressional and Presidential candidate of that party. It is carefully orchestrated to not be specific and to not alienate the votes of any group.
What can be done to alleviate or eliminate this deficiency? We can emulate a pure democracy by establishing constituents' interests criteria at the lowest levels of our democratic republic. These would be fed up to the state level for formal determination of hiring specifications for the districts and the state. Every voter and every entity would be encouraged to cogitate, deliberate and prepare criteria. Any small or large social, religious, academic and business group could serve as a forum: schools, colleges and universities; debating, sewing, bridge, youth, women, men clubs; senior citizens activities; local fraternal, veterans, labor, professional organization chapters; political and moral, single-issue advocates; etc.
Timing? To meet the overall election process timing to be proposed, forums should plan their deliberations every two years during the fourth quarter prior to election year. Copies of their criteria would be provided to the appropriate level or levels of government by December 31st. Resolutions by town, city, and county legislative bodies would be forwarded to the state legislature early in the election year. The district and state screening criteria would be published by March 31st.
Any person, who is constitutionally eligible and may reasonably meet the published criteria, could apply or be nominated. Applications and nominations for the Presidency and Vice Presidency could be made in any and all states. Each state could prescribe the extent and format of materials which would constitute satisfactory applications (including, perhaps, video tape responses to specified questions by all applicants). Deadline for applications would be April 30th.
State legislatures would screen, deliberate and select final Congressional slates of four for each member to be elected that year.
In Presidential election years, four each selections would be made for President and Vice President. The latter would be forwarded to the U.S. Senate. These actions would be completed by June 15th. The Senate
would count the number of states having each candidate on its proposed slate. The four candidates with the greatest number of state nominations would constitute the final national slate. In the case of ties, the Senate would deliberate and vote to choose among the ties. U.S. Senate action and publication would be completed by July 15th.
What have we achieved through the election process changes proposed thus far?
1. We have created district and state level screening means for initial candidates for members of Congress and President and Vice President. These screening means reflect the consolidated constituents' interests criteria down to the level of the individual voter. After determination of the final slates of nominees for each position by the state legislature, the consolidated criteria would be used in conducting debates and other means of voters relatively rating the final candidates.
2. We would no longer be effectively limited to candidates, selected or supported by the Republican and Democratic parties. Persons, who might aspire to be leaders of our country, would not be limited to coming up through the ranks of, and otherwise paying "dues" to, the major political parties. We would have a much more democratic process. The electorate would have a greater opportunity to seek and find, nominate and elect, candidates who are best qualified to pursue the general welfare of the country.
The changes in the election process proposed above can not stand alone. Further significant changes must be incorporated. These will be identified and discussed in subsequent essays.
Publius IV
