presidential | Geographical Perspectives

Ending the Civil Cold War: Two Ideas for Moving Past a Partisan Democracy

Like many Americans I’ve been following the Presidential election cycle fairly closely. Also, like many Americans, I find the tone and tenor of current politics nearly unbearable. In my lifetime there’s been a noticeable shift away from doing what’s best for the country and toward doing what will help one of the two political parties achieve greater power. The system is broken and I think more time should be spent fixing the system rather than fighting over who deserves tax cuts and who deserves government benefits. I don’t like to complain about a situation without also offering a solution. So, here’s my proposal to help move our country beyond partisanship and toward a more effective democracy.

I contend that the election system itself is driving the trend toward polarization and deeply partisan politics. We have a winner take all Presidential system that leaves nearly half the country angry at the end of each term. And, we have a party nomination system that often produces extreme candidates who “appeal to the base” of angry voters who tend to be further removed from the center (and, often, reality). Everyone seems to know that candidates have to campaign by moving far to the right or left during the nomination process and then by veering to the center during the general election. I believe that if we fix these broken pieces of the electoral puzzle we will find ourselves solving more of our problems and less time debating and fighting over issues. So, how can we fix the electoral system?

First, we should eliminate re-elections at the Presidential level. A President should be focused on doing what’s right for the country not on campaigning for re-election. A new system should allow a President to govern and not allow the President to spend time on the campaign trail.

Second, we should find a way to encourage the election of highly capable individuals who will help lead us to compromise and unification rather than ideologues who will create further polarization.

Third, we need a system that doesn’t require hard stops every time the Oval Office changes hands. The leadership transition should be seamless. Along the same lines, we should have a system in place that guarantees a President won’t have to learn how to govern on the job. The first 100 days of a Presidency shouldn’t involve a mad dash to demonstrate how different they will be and how their supporters will be rewarded. Rather, the first 100 days should demonstrate, almost effortlessly, that a new administration will continue to lead America in a consistently competent manner assuring financial markets and world leaders, not to mention ordinary citizens, that they need not be concerned about surprise overnight changes in policy.

So, how do we address these problem? Here’s my plan in 2 relatively simple steps.

1. Instead of electing or re-electing a President every 4 years, let’s elect a Vice President. This person will serve 4 years as VP and then 4 years as President. The individual would be guaranteed an 8-year term to cement a legacy of doing what’s best for the country without fear of retribution in an upcoming election. At the end of 8 years, they would no longer be eligible to hold public office. This would elevate the position of Vice President (currently a fairly limited role) and guarantee hands-on training for anyone who would become President. Let’s say that instead of choosing Obama or Romney, we simply agree that Romney will become the new VP. Obama will continue as President for the next 4 years and Romney will become President in 2016. Instead of a whole new cycle beginning in 2014 to elect a new President, everyone will know that Romney will be President and the electorate will begin to choose who will become Vice President in 2016 and ultimately President in 2020. This would end Presidential re-election campaigns and allow the sitting President to focus exclusively on the business of running the country and making meaningful progress on tough issues. This system would also ensure a far more smooth transition each 4 years. Rather than knowing who will be President 3 months in advance we’ll know 4 years in advance.

The VP role would become far more important. Perhaps the office of the VP would be primarily tasked with setting the agenda – submitting budget and policy proposals and negotiating with congress. This would free the office of the President to focus on executive management of the country, both internationally and domestically. The President would retain veto power but would no longer be required to spend huge chunks of time on policy debate. Instead the focus would be on making decisions and reacting to challenges and crises. Imagine if Obama was able to stay focused on managing his Cabinet officials, containing political unrest in the Middle East, negotiating trade policy with China and fighting the housing and jobs crisis instead of traveling to swing states, raising money and giving stump speeches or preparing for debates. I suspect his job approval ratings would skyrocket. There’s a good model for this at most large corporations where you typically see a CEO and a strong Chief Operating Officer (COO) at the helm with the COO poised to assume CEO responsibilities when the time comes.

2. We need to dramatically change the nomination system. Rather than selecting 1 nominee for each party, the primary process should produce up to 3 nominees from each party (presumably 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats and a handful of independents, perhaps a libertarian, a green party candidate, etc – a minimum number of signatures on a petition or primary votes would be needed to get on the ballot). The general election would then require a 2-step process. Step 1 would be a “Super Primary” in which all voters are eligible to decide on which 2 candidates should face one another in a run-off. Voters would be permitted to select 2 candidates instead of just one. The top 2 vote getters would then face-off before Step 2, a final vote where a winner would be selected in the traditional electoral college approach.

The benefit of this approach would be that extreme candidates on either end of the political spectrum would have a more difficult path to winning the nomination and more moderate candidates would likely receive votes as many people’s “runner up” choice. Would Rick Santorum be likely to make it to the run-off? How about Sarah Palin? Would George W. Bush or Barack Obama have been elected? Would Dick Cheney have been Vice President? My guess is no to all five. Candidates would no longer need to pander to the extreme elements within their party because moderate positions would become more attractive to voters in the Super Primary. In addition, VPs would know that they’ll be required to cooperate with the President. This would help unify the country and lead to more policy compromise.

How would this have played out assuming the system was in place beginning in 2000? I think Al Gore would have served as President with John McCain as his VP. John McCain then would have taken office in 2004 perhaps with VP Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark takes the helm in 2008 with VP Hillary Clinton and currently we’d have President Hillary Clinton and about to elect VP Mitt Romney. Obviously this is complete speculation. Who knows what would really happen. But, we would be *highly* unlikely to see the likes of Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney in line for the Presidency. We would also see more moderates entering the fray and 3rd party candidates getting a more level playing field. All of that, in my opinion, would be a terrific step forward for America.

These ideas may not be the ideal solution – I’m no political scientist – but something will have to give and I’d rather not see us continue the Civil Cold War that we have today…or worse, see it escalate into civil unrest and violence. I guarantee that no one with power to wield in the GOP or the DNC will embrace these ideas. They have too much to lose if the status quo goes away. Change will have to come from a groundswell of grassroots support. As citizens we have that power. So, if you like these ideas, please share, retweet, mark as favorite, etc. If you don’t like these ideas, please propose your own thoughts and share them or comment below and suggest changes that would lead to improvement.

I feel like America has become the equivalent of a “job-hopper”, someone who is always looking for a new gig (or policy portfolio) and never focusing on the job they’re being paid to do.

Let’s end the Civil Cold War. Let’s move past extreme partisanship. Let’s stop job-hopping. Let’s get back to work.

Journalists Reporting on Polls and Forecasts Should Be Required to Pass Statistics 101

Political Science professors from the University of Colorado recently published a study describing a model they constructed to forecast the result of the upcoming Presidential Election. They used various economic indicators, e.g., national and state unemployment rates, along with a handful of other variables to account for factors such as home state advantage and whether or not a candidate is an incumbent. I read the paper and, while I’m no political scientist, I think it’s a reasonably good piece of research. In the paper, the authors state that “the model successfully predicts every Electoral College victor“. This is a fair statement. However, in the Denver Post article the authors are quoted as saying ” it correctly forecast every winner of the electoral since 1980” and in the Huffington Post article the quote reads, “ has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980“. I realize that the differences are subtle but the quotes used by the Denver Post and the Huffington Post can lead to a complete misinterpretation.

In the research article the authors make it clear that the model was calibrated so that it successfully predicts the outcome of each election going back to 1980. But, the news articles from the Denver/Huffington Post reports the model’s accuracy as if it’s been in use since 1980 and has never been wrong in previous efforts to report election results. This is dangerously misleading.

If you’ve built a predictive model before you realize that, within reason, you can use a few tricks here and there to have the model work just the way you want it to work. Now, I’m not saying that the authors from the University of Colorado wanted a model that would forecast a Romney victory. No. What I’m saying is that the authors wanted a model that accurately forecast the winner of every previous election in their study. In other words the historical accuracy of the model wasn’t an accident (“Hey, it turns out that our model – produced in a vacuum – has worked for 30 years!”); rather, the model was developed in order that its forecasts would have been accurate. Now, the authors of the research don’t make such a claim but the journalists who reported the story fail to clarify how the study should be interpreted.

So, what’s the point of this blog post? Well, this type of reporting is potentially dangerous just like early reporting of exit polling results can be dangerous. This information may influence voters – they may choose not to vote (for either candidate – a supporter may think his candidate has the election in the bag and doesn’t bother voting or may believe his candidate doesn’t stand a chance and may not vote). In any case, journalists who report on predictive models, and polling results for that matter, need to have a better understanding of statistics so that they are able to report these studies with greater precision and with appropriate context. They do their readers a disservice when they report forecasts too loosely.

In addition, I think the researchers have a responsibility, especially in their capacity as public employees, to clarify how the model was constructed and what they mean, exactly, by stating that it has been correct going back 30 years. They were clever to publish a study that would garner plenty of media attention and I commend their effort to do salient applied work rather than something more theoretical and obscure. That said, they should be certain that their research is properly understood by the public they are paid to serve.