Election Reform: My Simple Proposal
For many of the most recent federal elections — and this is long before I became so cynical as I am — I've been excessively irritated by the election bean-counters: those people who tote up how much each candidate has spent and simply presume that the prize will go to the one who spent the most. Apparently, in this scenario, we're expected to vote with dollars in some sort of game-show version of the electoral process.
I'd much rather vote with my vote, thank you, and I'm still naive enough, and enough of a democracy idealist, to believe that it's possible to vote for someone whom I think will do a better job running the government rather than a better job raising campaign money. (Being basically a thrifty mid-westerner, I'm inclined to see money spent on campaigns as a big waste anyway.) I am also dismayed when I see people working for the better candidate lose their hope when they realize that their candidate can't raise as much as the opponent.
And we know what this mindset has led to: an escalation in campaign spending that becomes more ridiculous and more corrupting with every election.
What to do to break the campaign funds race? Who will blink first?
It's up to the electorate to take the first step — candidates surely never will: the first ones to do so would be foolhardy.
Here, then, is my simple proposal:
For every office, in every election, vote for the candidate who spent the least money on the election.
I believe that, if implemented by a large segment of the electorate, this simple device would quickly lead to major, self-imposed and far-reaching election reform.