Election Reform Needed?

We are one year out from the next presidential election and we already have nearly half a dozen people scrambling to be part of the most expensive campaign in history.  This next election cycle could top $2 billion.  Without a doubt, before she even announces, Hillary is the only Democratic candidate.  I can't even foresee anyone opposing her.

This presents a problem for her being the only one on the ballot and being unopposed.  There will be no debates, no town meetings with other candidates where the voters can compare and contrast the opposing views as they do in most election cycles.  How will Hillary get the attention of the press? It's a big problem for her.  I wouldn't doubt it if Bill tries to work something behind the scenes to have some bozo democrat run against his wife.  The Democratic primary season will be very boring as will the typical "infomercial" convention.

On the Republican side, the money and candidates are lining up to take on the heir apparent, Jeb Bush.  Ted Cruz is in.  Chris Christie may run if he can drop a few pounds and keep attention off the traffic debacle. Marco Rubio may run and there are others. Ran Paul will be part of the show also. Jeb's problem is that in the primary cycle, he is not conservative enough on the hot button issues of immigration reform and Obama Care.  He will have to pander to the Tea Party and the right wing of the party to get through the primaries if he wants to get past the flamboyant Cruz.

With the primary season 1 year away, it's time to relook at how we elect a president.  Our system is the most convoluted, long, drawn out, loaded with money system on earth.  Other countries simply announce a presidential campaign and the process may take six weeks.  Other countries have a "no confidence" vote in the parliament and the very short election cycle begins.  I think we can find something better than our system.

Many other countries vote on weekends and take two days to do so.  This allows many more people to vote and the voters don't have to take off from work.  It is interesting to note that the US has the lowest voter turnout of virtually any nation on earth for a presidential election and we spend ten times the money of any other nation to elect a leader.  Which party would benefit by having more people vote?

I propose that we squeeze the primaries to a 60 day window where each region of the country be in their own block.  The nation would be split up into: The West Coast, Mountain States, Central, Southeast and Northeast.  Voting would take place on a Saturday.  By doing this, the candidates could and would be forced to focus on one region at a time and would visit more states within that region.  So many states get ignored the way the primaries are scheduled today.  States are constantly trying to leapfrog each other by changing the date of their primary to get the attention of the candidates.  This change would solve that problem.  In the end, the candidates would save money and time and the voters would be more likely to learn about a candidate and to vote.

The 60 day cycle would be in May and June of the election year.  That would leave July and August for the "Infomercial", sorry, the Convention and then the actual election campaigning would be September and October.  It might take an amendment to the Constitution to force such a radical change in our presidential election process, but the change is needed.  I think it is more likely that the state legislators would take this on before anyone in the Congress would.

Our presidential election process is out of control and consumes our legislative process.  Everyone is perpetually running for office.  They won't do what is right for their state or nation, but rather what will win votes for the next election cycle.

Indiana Shame

It is amazing that the Republicans in Indiana did not have the intelligence to understand the law that they passed.  As with most state legislators and the members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, the members generally do not read the bills they pass, but leave that responsibility to their aides who paraphrase the main point of bills and give the members a brief synopsis.  Had any member in Indiana actually read and understood the bill, hopefully, they would not have ever passed it.

Of course, some Hitlerian legislators may have read and understood that the bill allowed businesses to freely discriminate based on sexual orientation.  Let's say a business, a flower business, had a customer come in to buy flowers for a wedding and let's say the customer was gay.  Well, said business, under the bill, could have simply said, "We don't want your business."  This would have been totally legal.  Had the customer been black or a woman or a Jew, the discrimination would have been illegal, but for a gay person, the discrimination would have been just fine in Indiana.  Is this called religious expression?  It's not part of any religion I want to be a part of.

The last time I looked, under the 1st Amendment, freedom of religion meant that citizens can practice their religion without government intervention, but this does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of others.  In other words, if you want to have a public business, you must adhere to public laws. If a business thinks they can discriminate against gays then they need to put up a sign in their window saying so.  Let's see how many businesses do that.  

Watching the Republicans back peddle has been a real laugh.  As a long time Reagan Republican, I'm to the point of leaving the party.  Between the Tea Party Nazis holding up needed legislation to the constant drum beating against anything the President offers, the polarization of the Congress has further eroded confidence in our system.  They seem unable to get anything done. They have lost the art of compromise.  

The next Presidential election will be interesting.  Should Ran Paul or Ted Cruz get in, It might be time to move to Australia.