After the "Publicly Funded Elections" thread a couple of weeks ago, I started thinking about how the system could be changed. The system I have in mind is for congressional elections, but might be able to be adapted to other elections as well. IMO, it works best if elections are publicly funded so that the overhead can be managed and the media time and space can be purchased in bulk at the beginning of the election cycle (government has a contract with the media much like the NBA, NFL, and other big businesses have). In each district, you divide the district up into 10 or more sections. In each section, invite people who want to participate to pay their entry fee once they have enough signatures on a petition and they become eligible to compete for the seat. Each section's candidates compete in a series of televised debates and town hall meetings until it is time to send the best candidates to the next round. Constituents in that section vote (could be online, phone, or in person, but would probably be a combination of all 3) and send one or two people to the next round. The second round is an expansion of the first, with televised debates and town hall meetings followed by a vote by the constituents throughout the district with the bottom candidate booted after every debate. Once you get down to 4 candidates, those are the people that will be on the ballot against the incumbent (who could also participate in the debating but would not be eligible to be booted). This kind of thing might reduce the mudslinging prevalent in elections today (or it might not), but it would give more people a voice in electing officials. It would also make the process more competitive, as the candidates would have t omake impressions during the debates and town hall meetings. I personally would like it because the candidates would be forced to talk about issues outside of the 30 second sound bite ad. What do you think?
