HOW TO BETTER ELECT A PRESIDENT

With only a few weeks left until both parties begin their primary process for choosing the next leader of the free world, it's appropriate to review that process and recommend possible improvements. Certainly no method devised by man could ever be perfect, but the current system has major problems that require attention. This cycle of campaigns began earlier than ever, and yet the electorate is still largely uncommitted or persuadable on both sides. The Democraps are faced with an array of candidates who are virtually identical on the issues. Their substantive differences are few and minor. The GOP candidates vary widely on policy, but the Republican primary voter is still largely unsatisfied with field. Improvements to the process are long over due and would help voters and the entire nation choose better leaders.

The first step should be to remove Iowa and New Hampshire from their dominating positions. I'm sure the citizens of both states are good folks, but their routine has grown tiresome. Why should every potential President have to pass muster with them first? Why not Virginia or Ohio or Hawaii or Texas? Now the state legislatures are competing with each other in setting the earliest primary date possible. The process is now compressed and will result in a snowball effect for winners and runners up in both early states. Why not rotate who gets to be first, or would that be too fair? As much as I am loathe to support Congressional involvement in light of their reverse Midas touch, the insanity of the state assemblies may force a legislative resolution. That should properly only be done by Congress, hopefully before the courts manafacture a remedy. In any event, the tired old dogs of Iowa and New Hampshire Presidential primaries always coming first should be retired permanently. There are fifty states in the union, not just two.

The debates in both parties have been painful to watch. The complete lack of focus on substantive issues and instead on sound bite one liners does not help differentiate the prospects from each other. The GOP debate hosted by PBS in Iowa this week, planned to be the last, was so bad the party may schedule another. The sheer number of candidates on both sides inhibits free debate. Organizations running these hootenannies need to pare down the numbers as time goes along. Anyone not garnering at least ten percent in national polls is wasting valuable speaking time. The GOP field should be down to four by now (Thompson, Romney, Guliani, McCain), and the Dems could be down to three (Billary, Hussein Obama, Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards). That would allow for deeper discussion of the issues and a higher degree of definition for voters. The inclusion of fringe candidates like Crazy Dennis Kucinich and Fossil Ron Paul does nothing to enhance the process or debate, and in fact is a major distraction and annoyance. Fewer participants would also mean more free duscussion instead of each person getting thirty or sixty seconds to explain a position on policy vital to our country. I would go even further. Can the YouTube nonsense and let us hear the candidates interact with each other. One of the plethora of debates conducted before voting even starts should involve prospects answering questions proposed live by candidates from the other party. Can you imagine the heat and tension? How we got from Lincoln-Douglas to here is beyond me, but the current Presidential debate system is a mortally wounded beast that should be put out of it's misery as soon as possible.

The media coverage of Presidential primaries is simultaneously too much and not enough. Their liberal slant is equalled only by their selective reporting. Most of that substandard reporting is plain horserace coverage with little regard for the issues. Coverage of live events is sparce and best and usually reported as shallow sound bites. Someone should launch a POTUS channel for coverage of stuff like this as well as Presidential history. Even Fox News is squeezing campaign coverage in between Drew Peterson and the weather. It's too superficial and more like a racing form. Who's ahead is more important than stance on the issues. And when the media get behind a candidate, it matters. Just ask Mike Huckabee. Serious media outlets should provide more serious coverage of the ultimate choice for American voters, and consumers should force them to do so by voting with their feet.

Americans in both parties should recognize the importance of improving the process of electing a President. Changes like the ones suggested are not some nefarious design to hamper the Dems. All of them can only help the voters of both parties in every state. In choosing a President of the United States, the deeper and more detailed the better. We're not choosing the next local dog catcher, we're choosing our CINC and representative to other nations. Improving the process will improve the result.

JINGOCON