NationStates Jolt Archive

After listening to radio pundits griping (as they always do) about low voter turnout and the lack of interest Americans generally have in politics, it occurred to me that maybe it's time for a format change:

Imagine a reality TV show where the candidates get eliminated, one at a time, each week, like in American Idol only we'll call it "American President."

Im kinda being serious here. Think about it: Each week the least popular candidate gets voted off by the American public. That way, there's none of this 3rd party interference crap like we've had in several recent elections. We just weed them out until we're down to just two, regardless of Politcial Party, and pick the one you like.

Benefits:

-It would have nothing to do with the 2 party system, and thus impede their dominance
-It would encourage voter participation
-We could add some whimsical segments, to let the candidates show some personality, like a musical number or comedy. (This is serious. A President needs to have a light side. That's one of the few things I liked about Bill Clinton. He wasn't afraid to just laugh his ass off when something struck him funny.)
-Money otherwise spent on campaigning can be used to actually do something constructive.

What do you think? Silly, but maybe not the worst idea ever?

After listening to radio pundits griping (as they always do) about low voter turnout and the lack of interest Americans generally have in politics, it occurred to me that maybe it's time for a format change:

Imagine a reality TV show where the candidates get eliminated, one at a time, each week, like in American Idol only we'll call it "American President."

Im kinda being serious here. Think about it: Each week the least popular candidate gets voted off by the American public. That way, there's none of this 3rd party interference crap like we've had in several recent elections. We just weed them out until we're down to just two, regardless of Politcial Party, and pick the one you like.

Benefits:

-It would have nothing to do with the 2 party system, and thus impede their dominance
-It would encourage voter participation
-We could add some whimsical segments, to let the candidates show some personality, like a musical number or comedy. (This is serious. A President needs to have a light side. That's one of the few things I liked about Bill Clinton. He wasn't afraid to just laugh his ass off when something struck him funny.)
-Money otherwise spent on campaigning can be used to actually do something constructive.

What do you think? Silly, but maybe not the worst idea ever?That's horrible, and not only because it disenfranchises everyone with a phone. Plus, how would you manage to prevent multiple votes from one person or allow votes from multiple people sharing a phone? Not to mention how do you make sure someone is old enough to vote when they call.

Replace "voted off" with "selected for public execution", so that only the most dedicated candidates would apply... ;)

That's horrible, and not only because it disenfranchises everyone with a phone. Plus, how would you manage to prevent multiple votes from one person or allow votes from multiple people sharing a phone? Not to mention how do you make sure someone is old enough to vote when they call.

I don't think those technical challenges are insurmountable. Maybe at the polling locations phones can be provided for those who haven't got one. Maybe each registered voter has a PIN# they use to vote to prevent duplications and minimize fraud. That's certainly no less secure than they sytem we have now, where in some jurisdictions you don't even need an ID to go vote...

What do you think? Silly, but maybe not the worst idea ever?
It's direct, it's concise and it's probably as democratic a method of selecting a single individual for political office as you're likely to get.

Two points.

1) Someone has to run it. Airing a show like this requires a completely independent broadcasting body, which is a pretty hard thing to establish. Especially in consideration of funding. How do you get the money to keep it going without relying on advertising and sponsorship revenue?

2) Encouraging voter participation has its side effects; especially when the increase in voters comes entirely from the sort of people who watch a lot of TV. Although it's true that many may be more informed about politics as a result of increased coverage, it's also true that it would become considerably easier for those who aren't to latch onto a favourite and blindly vote them through to victory. This is not necessarily a problem in a democratic society, but it is something to consider.

You mean a runoff system. It very well could work. I mean, the whole reality show concept is rather silly, but the concept of a runoff is a good one.

And I like the idea of making candidates perform - like the SE Asian Diplomatic Conference. They actually make all delegates do a piece - "they make us sing for our supper" Madeline Albright said.

I don't think those technical challenges are insurmountable. They do constitute an unnecessary complication of the process.
Maybe at the polling locations phones can be provided for those who haven't got one. How's that different from going out to vote? It will end up inconveniencing anyone without a phone.
Maybe each registered voter has a PIN# they use to vote to prevent duplications and minimize fraud. You really think that's going to work?
That's certainly no less secure than they sytem we have now, where in some jurisdictions you don't even need an ID to go vote...And that's stupid as well.

It's direct, it's concise and it's probably as democratic a method of selecting a single individual for political office as you're likely to get.

Two points.

1) Someone has to run it. Airing a show like this requires a completely independent broadcasting body, which is a pretty hard thing to establish. Especially in consideration of funding. How do you get the money to keep it going without relying on advertising and sponsorship revenue?


Well, I was thinking that it would be hosted by an existing network, with the cost covered by the candidates and/or Government contributions.

Then again, why not have advertising and sponsorship?


2) Encouraging voter participation has its side effects; especially when the increase in voters comes entirely from the sort of people who watch a lot of TV. Although it's true that many may be more informed about politics as a result of increased coverage, it's also true that it would become considerably easier for those who aren't to latch onto a favourite and blindly vote them through to victory. This is not necessarily a problem in a democratic society, but it is something to consider.

I think that would be balanced by increased attention paid by those who don't normally watch much TV. Plus, the idea of picking a favorite and pushing them through isn't vastly different from the Primary process, in a way.

Isn't all up to the electoral college in the end, though, guys?

They do constitute an unnecessary complication of the process.

I disagree there. Look at the process we have now... Between primaries, campaigning, Caucases, debates, Election Day ane the Electoral College... To me this seems WAY simpler.


How's that different from going out to vote? It will end up inconveniencing anyone without a phone.

I don't see a problem. As it is, EVERYBODY has to go out anyway. Heck, this system will keep people from having to miss work.


You really think that's going to work?

It's no worse than the current system, like you said here:


And that's stupid as well.

Isn't all up to the electoral college in the end, though, guys?

Yes and to many people, that's not a good thing.

Well, I was thinking that it would be hosted by an existing network, with the cost covered by the candidates and/or Government contributions.

Then again, why not have advertising and sponsorship?
The point is one of impartiality. How do you broadcast it on an existing network such that everyone will both watch and trust it? You can't pick, say, Fox, because then everyone that dislikes its politics will be skeptical of a bias, but neither can you deliberately pick one of Fox's competitors, because then its watchers will be skeptical of bias.

As for advertising and sponsorship, it would be more than a little dodgy to have your Presidential Elections brought to you by corporate interests. Admittedly, that wouldn't be a change from the current setup, but institutionalising it is perhaps not a step in the right direction.

I think that would be balanced by increased attention paid by those who don't normally watch much TV. Plus, the idea of picking a favorite and pushing them through isn't vastly different from the Primary process, in a way.
True, it's not much different. I suppose the problem is more with the fact that you're voting for a president, which never really sat well with me.

Replace "voted off" with "selected for public execution", so that only the most dedicated candidates would apply... ;)

You are clearly someone who knows how to get things done. The only question is...public beheadings?

Why not? I was thinking of using a guillotine...

Sounds like you're well qualified to oversee us Yanks.

The point is one of impartiality. How do you broadcast it on an existing network such that everyone will both watch and trust it? You can't pick, say, Fox, because then everyone that dislikes its politics will be skeptical of a bias, but neither can you deliberately pick one of Fox's competitors, because then its watchers will be skeptical of bias.


True... true. But supposing the chosen network had only broadcast rights, but not any involvement in the actual production of the show? Like, say, the Superbowl?


As for advertising and sponsorship, it would be more than a little dodgy to have your Presidential Elections brought to you by corporate interests. Admittedly, that wouldn't be a change from the current setup, but institutionalising it is perhaps not a step in the right direction.


Hmm... good point... So maybe no commercials then. I think though that the cost of a show like that is low enough that even if the Government paid the whole bill, it would still save money over the existing system.


True, it's not much different. I suppose the problem is more with the fact that you're voting for a president, which never really sat well with me.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...?

You are clearly someone who knows how to get things done. The only question is...public beheadings?

Why not? I was thinking of using a guillotine...