Every day, after leaving my bright, cute, young, everything-in-front-of-them daughters at school, I drive away down the hill with all the other parents, and I think about the call. If I got one. That one that says: ‘shooting.’ And how fast I would drive, where I would park, how I would avoid law inforcement’s cordon (set up to avoid risk, but I would not be avoiding risk), how I would get in the school, where I would look: everywhere, no matter what, for my daughters. Every day, I swear to you, I think this. And then I think …. how life would be if I were the one. Whose kid didn’t make it. Tonight, in abject empathy, in deepest horror, for the 20 sets of parents who are facing that unthinkable thing …. and in survivor-guilt, for myself and all the rest of us who aren’t? We need to be understanding how we are responsible for it not happening again. To someone. Who might be us. Let’s find a solution, fellow parents. Before the unthinkable is ours, not ‘theirs.’ [[tears]]

So: after a month to recover: do you, too, think we need American Election Culture Change? 

Here’s my “strawperson” ready for darts.

Divide the election into two simultaneous parts:

1. The Circus.  This is sort of like what goes on now (gamesmanship, advertising, rallies, debates, blogs, devastation of differently-minded families), with one difference: no candidates are allowed to be involved.  Not present, not debating, not approving messages, not on stage, not paid and not fiscally supported.
2. The Substance.  This is a highly regulated, entirely and solely federally-funded process whereby candidates are administratively reviewed, given the opportunity to demonstrate their approach, viewed online and in person, and elected.  It is divided into four (or so) portions.  The first is a minimal requirement for recognition and approval as a mature and serious candidate (e.g. personally-collected signatures from 10 people in all 50 states – or something not impossible but difficult enough to dissuade the casual).  The second is a lengthy, publically and nonpartisan-academically-reviewed statement of principle and vision, based on the scope for a President.  The last is a verbal defense of said statement.  The latter would occur NOT in a ‘debate’ format (the President of the US, as far as I know, is never called upon to publically debate a rival in the course of his/her job; why would we want to make judgments on such a performance?), but rather a simultaneous opportunity for multiple questions to be answered by the candidates (of which, we can assume, there would be far more than two), in a simulcast which would never have them speaking to each other, but only to questioners.  In fact, it would be better if they couldn’t hear each other (thus being unaware if – horrors – what they said actually coincided with another).  The final step is, of course, election.  This occurs over a period of one month, like advance voting does now.  No bunting.  No signs. No fuss.  And the first day of the subsequent month: a noontime announcement, on the basis of instantaneous electronic summation of results.

My friends’ darts at this construct so far: they suspect the methodology violates the First Amendment in multiple ways, that it subverts the significant economic boost from electioneering (all that bunting, tickets, and Air Force One fuel), and frankly a lot of them like the gaming aspect of the current version (My Team! Your Team!  WhoooWhoooWhooo!).  I don’t.  And at least, from a personal perspective, thinking this through sustained me during those red/blue wars at the tail end of quadrennial daily life in a swing State.  It also got me through the Day After  (Victory/Abasement/Analysis Day…..almost worse than Election Bowl Day).

What about you?