Let's abandon reality TV and reform the presidential nomination process
Published March 11, 2016
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, March 11, 2016.
If there is one conclusion to be reached from this year’s reality TV presidential circus it’s that we must change the way we select nominees. Big money, television and consultants have hijacked what is a most important and serious decision-making process.
What we’ve evolved into is made-for-television debates, nauseous interviews with political operatives and incessant analysis, all hyped as “breaking news.” This might serve network ratings but certainly doesn’t serve the electorate, leaving us to question where the candidates stand on important issues like education, healthcare, infrastructure, defense, jobs and commerce, and what candidates hope to do if elected. Instead we get posturing, bragging and framing opponents, but little specificity. We’ve created television personalities, not statesmanlike leaders.
We don’t advocate yesterday’s backroom bosses deciding who becomes the party standard-bearer but, come to think about it, that couldn’t be much worse than what we’ve experienced this year.
Maybe the national parties are irrelevant and unnecessary. In recent years, the nominee has been determined before the national party conventions, leaving them as yet another rubber-stamp TV event. Many remember the days when the party convention was exciting, must-see TV and we hung on state-by-state roll calls to determine the nominee.
Today states line up to be first, or at least early, in holding primaries. Serious candidates with value to add to the discussions are effectively winnowed out before the rest of the states have a chance to vote. Candidates that are the most bombastic, spew the most vitriol or repeat carefully rehearsed, focus-group tested sound bytes get the most TV coverage and those not winning these early beauty pageants are forced to drop out when donor money dries up. What we’ve ended up viewing is more like American Idol, The Amazing Race, Survivor or The Biggest Loser, where winners move to the next round, instead of a thoughtful, deliberative selection process.
Let’s consider some options to reform this process to serve voters instead of serving the candidates and networks. Why must we be limited to only two national political parties where candidates to pretend to cling to one or the other party? Those parties have become little more than money laundering machines fed by lobbyists, wealthy individuals and special interests, but seldom representing mainstream America.
We’ve enjoyed this year’s Town Hall format, where one candidate at a time submits to vetted questions from journalists, then takes questions from the audience. Town Halls help us learn more about the candidate, what he or she believes, how they respond in unrehearsed settings and what each hopes to accomplish. Regional or state-by-state Town Halls could be aired on networks and online, helping voters make better-informed decisions in lieu of the constant inane debates.
Why shouldn’t all states have the same date for presidential primaries? Candidates would be forced to go to all states, then the top two or three vote getters go to the national conventions, make their cases and let the all the states select the nominee. Or perhaps we do away with the conventions altogether, allowing the General Election to be the opportunity for voters to choose the next president. Maybe there are other, better solutions.
We vote to change the process. It can’t be any worse than the disgusting and disgraceful performances we’ve endured in 2016.
March 11, 2016 at 9:11 am
Richard L Bunce says:
Tom, here we go. We have political parties, more than just the two major parties, and how they select their candidate to run in the general election should be their choice and they should organize it, run it, and pay for it. No government intervention required. They should decide whether to have an open process or just a party member process. Now what government can do is remove the barriers to the general election ballot access that the two major parties have constructed over the years. I will again be voting for the Libertarian Party candidate for President this year. I do this because that candidate will be by far the closest to my governing principles but also to maintain that third parties ballot access in NC.
March 11, 2016 at 1:38 pm
dj anderson says:
Fine, well written piece and fun analogy with reality TV, which we know is far from reality. What the story didn't add is that the voters get just what they deserve. The voters drive the product presented to them. The old motto to "vote, vote, vote" without any emphasis on the voter enlightening themselves on who or what they are voting for is showing its ugly, ignorant effect.
The good thing about this primary has been the busting of the power of the two parties status quo, leaving the average voter to wonder who is in charge? Maybe the uninformed voter can still just vote for the party and hope for the best, but how well has that worked in the past? Not to well, as I see it.
Then, there's the press, the media, which fuels all this, but has it lost confidence in being able to steer the snowballs they set in motion? I hope so. I think they should be learning that they feed the monsters that will one day devour them. The media should report without bias, without favor, as priests of information, and stop telling the voters what they just heard said by candidates.
No one could have predicted what has come about this primary season. The Clinton machine may fail again, falling to an independent socialist independent, 'old white man.' The Republicans are stabbed in the back by a rich guy who is savvy on media manipulation. How about the last two Republican candidates for President attacking Trump in unison! ...and to little effect.
I don't know if this is theater or soap opera, or if this is entertainment. I can vote for Bernie or against Hillary, or just stay out of it. Then, after the primary, comes the election, then comes a new president, and then it gets serious.
At least, for the first time, it seems it's true -- anyone can become president.
March 11, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Don Pierce says:
Tom, I suggest for President establishing 6 parties along the political spectrum - each with open primary with candidates of their choosing. Then the six candidates 90 days before the general election; A. Submit a general platform B. Give 3 speeches and C. take 3 written exams - each on international policy, social policy and economic policy- not graded but answers posted on line for voter review. D.Have three debates - again international social and economic policy. No other campaigning allowed and to mitigate incumbent advantage limit the Presidency to one 6 year term but allow running again after one term out of office. All structure paid for by Federal funding and any transfer of money to a candidate or family as well as employment thereafter for ten years would be a crime. If one can't choose among 6 then you can write in a name with the same chance of winning as Ralph Nader or Tommy Smothers had. All this requires a Constitutional Amendment and of course won't happen.
March 11, 2016 at 3:38 pm
Walter B Bull Jr says:
The people are far ahead of the political expert class. Trump is a movement to weed out the victim based system and replace it with performance measurements that cheers capitalism and competition. Watch out world-here comes America! WBBJr
March 12, 2016 at 7:45 am
John White says:
Tom,
The greatest threat to democracy is the Citizen United Supreme Court decision. I have just finished reading Dark Money, a book on the NY Times best seller list. Now I have appreciation for how our system works--on money from a very small group of super wealthy people.
Regretfully, we have no statesmen in Congress who will push for reform. So the small group will continue to exert more and more power over elections, buying judges, etc.
In North Carolina, we face the Koch brothers and Art Pope financial empire. And it is difficult, perhaps impossible for you to discuss this subject in writing or on the program.
But please continue to shine a light where possible.
Most sincerely,
John White
March 12, 2016 at 9:33 am
Richard L Bunce says:
USSC CU decision was correct... persons do not lose their First Amendment speech or press protections when speaking or performing press functions in a for profit corporation structure using corporate resources. The real money problem in politics is candidates promising large groups of voters government benefits and services to be paid for by other smaller groups of voters. Straight out vote buying that is beyond comparison to a voluntary donation to a candidate to pay for a TV ad.
March 13, 2016 at 11:20 am
Norm Kelly says:
Well that's a very biased comment.
No mention of Soros or any other demon contributor? No mention of the 'green' people who despise free enterprise and is the new home of socialists? No mention of union money? No mention of teacher unions? I know, I've mentioned unions twice. Because not only do they steal money from union members in the first place, but then they contribute that money to whichever candidate promises them the most, not the candidate that would be best for their members.
There are more wealthy contributors to demon pols than you may be aware of because not only do they work very quietly, but the media is in the front pocket of demon pols so they rarely document the money being contributed to the chosen, preferred candidate. I say 'front pocket' because there's no way these contributors and the demon pol recipients would let it be a 'back pocket' situation. 'Back pocket' is reserved for small contributors.
Doubt that the media in general is in the pocket for demon pols? Read the N&D for a week and you will be convinced that you are only getting part of the story. Which may explain why your comment only recognizes 1 side of the story.
Perhaps the 'democratic socialist' will solve the money problem.
March 13, 2016 at 11:01 pm
Richard L Bunce says:
Folks do not like the outcomes of elections because their candidate did not win. They have to blame someone. Cannot put the "blame" where it belongs though, on the free choice of the voters, because you need those voters in the next election. So campaign money, corporations, districts (although they often criticize the US House and Senate even though the Senate "districts' are fixed), no straight ticket voting, etc. They will not be happy until they have total control of the elections to get the exact result they desire. Hence the new standard for disparate impact is not enough Democratic Party candidates being elected.
