First, if replacing political parties is a normal feature of western democracy, then the winning party should be allowed to get out of a “bad deal.” Otherwise there is less need to hold an election.
Second, in these days of just about anyone can set up a Google or Facebook campaign and put ads to promote their favorite, tighter restrictions on campaign finances will be meaningless. Using France as an example, the French are not exactly happy with their political choices either — even though the candidates spend less than American candidates.
Third, western politicians are already paid reasonably well. If they are living paycheck-to-paycheck, it is because they can’t handle money, which means they shouldn’t be in politics in the first place. Raising the salaries will not entice many business leaders into public office. And many business leaders are not suitable for public life anyways. Rather we should be attracting people who are more interested in service to humanity than a big paycheck.
Fourth, lengthening the electoral cycle will only inculcate a level of frustration from the public. Elections are an opportunity to vent — and are a much better mechanism to effect change than violent protest. Besides, who will decide the length of the electoral cycle.
Fifth, if a legislature does not have experienced politicians who know the ropes, the bureaucracy will run roughshod over amateur politicians. Each legislature needs a combination of political experience and new blood. Having a few members of Congress with 50-year terms of office is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sixth, political parties do a terrible job of vetting their candidates. We have had alcoholics, embezzlers, wife-beaters, crooked businessmen, etc. in politics. All that really matters is whether the candidate can win the election.
Seventh, the gerrymandering in the USA is a problem. But however you draw up the constituencies, there will always be some safe seats where the preference for one political party dominates so much that that party could run a dead dog and still win.
Finally, forcing people to vote won’t solve much. Is Australia much better governed than the USA? Judging from the apathy, contempt, and distrust of Australians to their own government suggests not.
All of these reforms are urgent at a time when liberal democracy is increasingly at risk.
“Liberal democracy?” How about western democracy?
Yes, it is at risk. But it can’t be fixed with these suggestions. In fact, I would say these suggestions are only SMOKESCREEN for what really ails western democracy, that being the institutions of THE POLITICAL PARTY(IES). All these suggestions will keep the political parties well in place, along with the vested interests and inflexible ideologies that back the parties. These suggestions may give the appearance that the system can/will/should be reformed, but there won’t be much reform happening.
I wonder how many people reading this post will have the courage to read about a new way. Tiered Democratic Governance gets rid of the political parties and their political messiahs. This new system will be built BY the people, not the elite. When it matures, it will be FOR the people, not the elite.
