But Constitution, not so much. Nor most of the biz leaders that FastCompany polled in a piece called “How We Should Elect our President in 2016“. It dates back to before the election in November and I just found the page that I ripped out of the magazine. Yes, it does seem that it is rather left leaning but as a former small biz owner, I just wanted to share how well they know how things should work (or in this case, how it SHOULD work in their Progressive world). I disagree that ANY of this would “fix” the system – it is clear that none of them know what the Constitution says nor the ramifications would be to their “solutions”:
How We Should Elect our President in 2016
Hard to believe, but this bonkers election cycle is nearly over. Here are some ways that entrepreneurs and educators would fix the system.
In a few short weeks, this bizarre, seemingly interminable election cycle will come to an end. And no matter who wins, one thing is certain: Our process for electing the president of the United States is ripe for disruption (Russian hackers notwithstanding). So we asked Fast Company’s influencer community to offer solutions. More than 50 of them weighed in with ideas. Here is a sampling (emphasis mine).
“We need to move to a form of voter registration like Oregon’s—everyone is preregistered unless they opt out.” —Jack Harrison-Quintana, director of Grindr for Equality, Grindr
Right – as we have seen, getting people on the rolls that don’t have the interest to do so themselves is SUCH a recipe for above-board elections.
“Have one independent candidate every cycle that receives public financing and participates in the debates. That would allow for greater diversity of viewpoints and force candidates not to simply cater to their parties’ bases.” —Andrew Yang, founder and CEO, Venture for America
Riiight. And how will that “independent” candidate be chosen? Does Congress do it, does the President “nominate”? Or an “appointed Committee” do that (and how are THEY put on that board)? Or even worse, an election to determine who citizens want? Can you say “recursive”?
“I’d prefer a parliamentary system where the chief executive is elected from the majority party in Congress. That would ensure that legislation could pass and voters would vote out administrations whose legislation they’ve seen fail.” —Matthew J. Schmidt, professor, national security and political science, University of New Haven
Waiting for your Constitutional Amendments, sir. But it is clear that Matthew should live in another country – plenty of those have such systems. The purpose of the Constitution was to chop up Power to keep it from being abused by any one person (which, as we have seen to our detriment, that all the participants MUST guard their own jealously (which they aren’t)). That is to say, checks and balances. He’s very much willing to throw that out the window for the sake of “Progress” – be careful of what you wish for.
Besides, the American people just kicked out the failures, thank you very much.
“Dismantle the electoral college and go with the raw popular vote.” —Olajide Williams, president, Hip Hop Public Health
Yeah, let’s go full on Direct Democracy – it’s worked out so very well in the past.
“Vote from our phones.” —Moj Mahdara, CEO, Beautycon Media
Now THAT’S a great way to not have fraud….I own my phone, and then buy a few burner phones…..and get a couple of StingRays and be that “voter in the middle”.
“Have a bipartisan group develop a list of yes-or-no questions that cover major policy and social issues, and require all candidates to answer with a simple yes or no in order to get on the ballot.” —Scott Belsky, partner, Benchmark
Selected, not elected? Sorry, but the Constitution has no such requirement. Besides, there are a LOT of people who do just that and make that information public. PLUS, as we have seen in this election, there is now very few issues that overlap at the ends of the political spectrum – what is important to me is of no account to a Democrat Socialist (and visa versa). So once again, we need a “filter” because we all are too stupid to Google or Bing for themselves?
“Use public matching funds to boost the power of small campaign donations.” —Daniel G. Newman, president and cofounder, MapLight
WHY would I EVER agree with the idea that MY tax monies should be used to support someone that runs 180 degrees counter to my philosophy and my conscience? And no, I would NEVER want someone at the other end of the spectrum to be forced to support the candidate that I support. That’s unconscionable – it would be like the Federal Government mandating that I purchase a product or service that I otherwise would not simply because I’m alive and a citizen…
…oh wait, they already did that.
A version of this article appeared in the November 2016 issue of Fast Company magazine.
I did leave out a few but they were rather in-line with mainstream thought.
