Stephen Richer
10/1/08
“May the best (wo)man win”
This past weekend brought us another glorious round of college football. The Michigan Wolverines made me the winner of a couple bets by beating Wisconsin, and they proved that there is no “big” team in the Big 10 Conference (also, there are 11 teams, so the conference doesn’t live up to either part of its name. And please don’t write me a nasty note saying Penn State is really good—they will lose soon enough). Elsewhere, Alabama took another step toward Southern hegemony by besting Georgia, and the BYU Cougars and Utah Utes (both from my home state) held their spots atop the Mountain West Conference (I realize this might sound like a joke, but the MWC is better than the ACC and Big East this year).
In many ways, college football epitomizes the American spirit. Football combines the speed and the strength of players like Beanie Wells and Taylor Mays with the tactical genius of USC’s Pete Carroll (until last week). Likewise, our nation is fast (I have no idea what this means), strong, and smart. But more than anything, football is the ultimate meritocracy—the best players play and the best teams win. It doesn’t matter if you know the right people, and it doesn’t matter where you were born or who your parents are. If you can run the 40 yard dash in 4 seconds and manage to catch the football, you’re going to be given a spot on the team. Similarly, when the game starts, it’s all about merit. The two teams do direct battle, and the scoreboard (a perfect and impartial judge) clearly decides the day’s better team.
I wish the same could be said about the United States presidential election system. I know that we consider elections as American as baseball and apple pie, but elections are actually about as American as synchronized swimming (sorry Liz and Shayna!). It’s nearly impossible distinguish the performances of the two teams; a good deal of the points are awarded based on glitz—smiling and wearing bright, shiny sequins, and the real effort of the match goes on underwater where the judges and fans can’t see (you draw the political parallels).
Actually, the current electoral system most resembles American Idol. Winners are determined by millions of amateurs. Most voters have no real knowledge of music, and many vote based on something unrelated to vocal ability, like looks or personality. The person with the most votes wins, regardless of who the better singer is.
If we wanted to determine who is truly the best singer (and I know this isn’t necessarily the point of the show), we would somehow have the two contestants sing against each other. If this weren’t possible, then a panel of experts would be appropriate. After all, despite my enthusiasm for singing Disney songs in public, I have no business separating the good singers from the great singers.
While we might spare American Idol from going under the knife, our electoral system deserves reform because it IS supposed to choose the best person. Again, the ideal scenario would pit opponents against each other in a game meant to prove presidential merit. When USC beat Ohio State by 10,000 points, nobody doubted that USC was the better team. Similarly, in our hypothetical model, Mitt Romney, and all of his executive skill, would destroy populist politicians like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin, thereby leaving no doubt that Romney would be the better President.
But what system could test presidential ability? I propose that we assemble the nation’s top presidential scholars along with the nation’s best computer game programmers. Together they will create a “Sim City” type game that determines the player’s presidential acumen. Using conventional means, we would narrow our list of prospective presidents down to a pool of 64, then they would use the computer game to face off in a March-Madness style single elimination bracket.
If this computer program cannot be invented, then we should at least take up our second best option: a body of experts. We used to be more sensible in this regard. Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, senators were chosen not by the people, but by bureaucrats and politicians who understood politics. This system should be reestablished for senators, and it should be used for the presidency as well. After all, if experts can more capably choose the better singer, shouldn’t the same hold for the president?
Undoubtedly some lover-of-a-true-as-possible-democracy will respond, “But unlike college football, presidential elections directly affect our lives and therefore we need to be able to have a say.”
Disagree. First, I assure you that Tulane football affects my life much more than the results of the 2008 presidential election. I would gladly give up my electoral vote to be able to vote one point onto the scoreboard.
Secondly, yes it affects my life, but that is exactly why I should put the decision in the hands of an expert. If I play the violin, the violin I purchase will affect my performance—but I would much rather have an expert tell me which violin to buy than choose one after myself after researching for an hour or two.
So what would our current presidential election look like if such reforms were made? As suggested earlier, the Republican candidate would be Mitt Romney. How can you doubt the ability of the man who turned Bain Capital, Massachusetts, and the 2002 Olympics from disasters to successes? There are probably only a handful of better executives in the country. The Democrats would of course be running Bill Clinton for his fifth term (George W. Bush would never have been president). “But what about the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms?” Ah, well that would of course have to go. In a meritocracy—which we profess to be—the most qualified candidate should win even if he or she has won before. There are no rules preventing LSU from winning the National Championship for the second year in a row.
So if this is a system that seems more reasonable to you. Speak out and sign my petition.
Citizens For Choosing Wisely (Thus spoketh the knight in The Last Crusade)
Stephen Richer
October 4, 2008 at 2:06 am |
We already have a system in place that could use such people to pick a President: the Electoral College.
Unfortunately, the Electoral College has merely become a state-by-state sounding board for the majority vote in each state. However, the legislature of each state can determine how the electors are chosen.
Ideally, in my view, each legislature would mandate that the voters of each state and Congressional district would choose electors directly (1 from each Congressional district and 2 statewide, so that each voter would choose three electors). These electors would meet in each state, as required by the Constitution, and cast their informed votes for President and Vice President. The names of the electors, rather than the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, would be on the ballot.
This way, the electoral college would resume the role that it was probably intended to have: a collection of state delegations of electors where each delegation would independently indicate its preference for President and Vice President by vote — repeatedly, in case of national deadlocks. It would thus serve as a buffer between the Presidency and informed and uninformed voters alike. JMO.