Comprehensive Campaign Reform

Goals for Voters, Candidates, and Journalists

The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.
Alice Walker

...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
U.S. Declaration of Independence

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.

Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal.
Henry Ford

Consider Your Goals

• The type of person I want making decisions on my behalf is ...
• As a voter trying to make an informed decision, I need ...
• The role of journalists in elections should be ...
• Deciding factors in elections should be ...
• I am most satisfied with my voting options when ...
• To get on the ballot, a potential candidate should ...
• Winning an election should cost ...
• To be considered a "serious contender", a candidate should be ...
• An elected representative should handle differences with others by ...

Some Possible Ways to Achieve Your Goals

• Reduce the cost of campaigning for candidates and ballot measures
• Reduce the influence of campaign spending by corporations, PACs and special interests
• Place all candidates on an equal footing
• Provide voters with concise, quality information about all candidates and issues
• Reduce negative campaigning
• Encourage honest, constructive discussion of common ground and differences
• Encourage candidates to explain how their goals can be accomplished
• Encourage candidates to demonstrate how they collaborate, and handle differences
• Promote consensus among our elected representatives
• Discourage ballot initiatives by special interests

Making It Happen

1. Build consensus
2. Share
3. Treat everyone equally
4. Play nice

• Each group has a fair share of power
• Elected representatives are approved by the greatest possible number of voters
• Governing bodies reflect the diverse interests of those represented
• The greatest possible number of citizens have at least one sympathetic ear among their representatives
• Discussions among representatives reflect discussions among those represented
• In local elections, all voters to have a say about every city or county representative (no districts). By extension, all representatives are accountable to all voters.
• Voting without fear of unintended consequences or strategic voting dilemmas such as:
  • Fear of "wasting" a vote on a preferred candidate that many say cannot win.
  • Inadvertently contributing to the election of the candidate a voter likes least by voting for a "long-shot" or other-party candidate.
  • Diluting the voting power of a party or interest group due to vote-splitting among several similar candidates.

• Reduce the cost of winning
• Discourage negative campaigning
• Reduce the influence of gerrymandering

It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. We cannot keep working within the same political system and expect significant changes. We need a new system and a new way of thinking.

We may never achieve perfection, but we can remove obstacles. Ultimately, any system is only as good as the voters. There may always be single-issue campaigns and single-issue voters who ignore everything but a candidate’s position on one issue. Long-term voter education, possibly starting in high school, could acquaint people with the problem-solving and collaboration skills needed to make the system work. If voters understand what’s involved, they’re more likely to incorporate that knowledge into their decision-making process as they vote.

If you’re not satisfied with the results of past elections at all levels (local through national), remember the adage, "If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you always got." Changes at the state and federal levels often begin with local reforms.

Facilitated Discussions

Outside of science, facts rarely determine anything. Context determines everything, and it changes.
Connie Rice

The person who frames the issue wins the debate.

We get what we ask for, not what we want.

Many elected officeholders must resolve disputes as part of their job. This is an opportunity for candidates to show voters how they frame issues and handle disagreements.

Let Candidates Prove They Can Play Nice

Candidates should have opportunities to demonstrate their communication, problem-solving, and conflict-resolution skills.

• Elected representatives often need support from others to fulfill their campaign promises.
• Representatives may believe they have a mandate from their voters to achieve a specific goal but need to work with others who have a mandate to do the opposite.
• Representatives may have been elected by a certain group of voters but represent many others. They should be willing to listen and understand the needs and concerns of all.
• Representatives may make decisions affecting many who cannot vote for them.

Voters get comprehensive, reliable information about all candidates, and candidates get free or very cheap advertising.

The process is quite simple: All candidates for the same office demonstrate their ability to collaborate by preparing a joint campaign statement of common ground and differences, fact-checking each other. Candidates can present differences in any way that all candidates agree honestly and fairly presents their positions. These statements would be printed and distributed at little or no cost to the candidates. Costs could be covered by donations, public funding, or whoever runs the election. New joint statements may be issued as information changes.

Once all candidates agree that all positions are fairly represented, no additional screening by those distributing the statements should be needed. If the document is poorly worded, confusing, or contradictory, voters may consider that as they evaluate the candidates. Candidates are free to seek editorial or facilitation assistance if they wish.

Political ads often end with a statement such as "I’m ___ and I approve this message". Ads by individual candidates can extend this by adding a statement from opponents certifying that everything is true. Candidates can say "my opponent supports single-payer health care and I support mandatory private health insurance" if it’s true. A candidate could not say "My opponent wants government death panels" and still get an opponent’s certification. Then it’s up to voters to decide the importance of certification by opponents.

A voluntary system preserves everyone’s rights. Possible incentives to participate are

1. Informed voters and journalists may lose interest in candidates who decline to participate.
2. Special mailings or websites requiring full compliance with the system would reduce campaign expenses. These could be publicly funded or paid for by non-profit groups. A single source for comprehensive, reliable information makes it easier for voters to ignore ads from sources such as corporations, PACs and special interests. If candidates do not have to spend time or money countering false or misleading claims, it could significantly reduce the cost of campaigning.
3. The system is like an audition, and an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate how they will collaborate and handle differences. If candidates can’t deal constructively with differences among opponents during the election, they probably won’t deal constructively with differences among their colleagues or citizens if elected.

Reducing the cost of elections opens the process to candidates who do not have deep pockets or wealthy backers. Special publicly funded mailings or websites requiring certification by opposing candidates could be as simple as an extra section in the sample ballot, but ideally would include a website and an extra mailing to two before the sample ballots are mailed so voters are clear about which candidates are using the voluntary system and which are not. A single document with reliable, comprehensive information about all the candidates could lead to better informed voters.

A wealthy candidate can still do unlimited advertising but may voluntarily submit each ad to opponents for certification. An honest presentation of differences is a bit of free advertising for opponents. If an opponent refuses certification that refusal could be documented. The ultimate significance of this is up to the voters. Bickering can be a powerful message in itself. If candidates cannot or will not collaborate, an enterprising journalist might investigate and help clarify the nature of the dispute. Such reporting might encourage the candidates to develop an informative joint statement.

The voluntary certification system will be difficult at first for some candidates, and they may need help agreeing on much more than "We’re running for ___". People can’t apply skills they haven’t learned yet. Many people do not know how to deal with differences other than by intimidation, appeals to authority, trading concessions, speeches at 20 paces, "you have to be wrong so I can be right", or voting on a "compromise" that doesn’t satisfy most supporters. Perhaps knowledgeable journalists or volunteer mediators could help candidates develop the skills they need to collaborate on comprehensive joint statements. The links page lists resources on facilitating and getting along without giving in. A possible starting point is each candidate mentioning general characteristics of a good officeholder such as flexibility, good communication skills, organizational skills or whatever is appropriate for that office. These should be general qualities, not directed at any particular candidate. Candidates might follow-up by listing their own qualities that apply to the office they seek.

The process can still work if some candidates opt out. Participating candidates should not speak on behalf of other candidates, but can ask neutral, open-ended questions.

• How can such ambitious promises be achieved by one person working alone?
• If others must cooperate, how could those others be inspired to cooperate?
• How will new programs be funded?

If enough people ask such questions, more candidates might be inspired to participate.

Public forums would use the same principles. Candidates could meet in advance, possibly with a facilitator, to work through factual questions and refine honest statements of differences. The facilitator could be the moderator for the event and perhaps read statements prepared jointly by the candidates. Hopefully, candidates’ answers to audience questions will be consistent with the principles of this system, but if not, the facilitator might help clarify common ground and honest differences.

Journalists can help too. Rather than just report "This one said ____ and then that one said ___" a journalist should encourage candidates to jointly clarify common ground and honest differences. If candidates can’t or won’t engage each other in a constructive way, that should be part of the story. If candidates can’t deal constructively with differences among opponents during the election, they probably won’t deal constructively with differences among their colleagues or citizens if elected. If the candidates themselves agree that their positions and differences are fairly presented, that’s a good sign the reporting is fair and balanced.

The same principles could apply to ballot measures, but it should begin with collaboration on the text of the measure. The ballot measure could include a list of all groups that were involved in drafting the measure, which of those groups support the final text, and which groups requested inclusion but were denied the opportunity to participate. Voters could then decide if a ballot measure crafted by one interest group without considering the needs of others deserves serious consideration. Providing lists of participating and excluded groups isn’t much different than providing disclosures about funding.

The goal of encouraging strong communication, problem-solving, and conflict resolution skills is potentially very challenging and very rewarding. Candidates’ skills should be a significant issue during campaigns. This requires joint efforts by voters, candidates and journalists. Candidates should demonstrate their abilities to work things out with those who may disagree. Candidates should also demonstrate their ability to present common ground and differences to voters in a clear, respectful way. If candidates can’t deal effectively with differences during a campaign, they’re not likely to deal effectively with differences on budgets, health care, retirement benefits or other divisive issues after they’re elected. The same is true for candidates’ abilities to clearly and respectfully communicate to voters their common ground and differences on divisive issues.

Example Joint Candidate Statement to Deal with Homelessness

• Pat Pomegranate wants to create a civilian service corps anyone can join. The corps will provide basic needs and training, and expect appropriate work from all who join.
• Sandy Squash wants tax cuts for business owners and corporations, believing this will encourage hiring, resulting in more jobs and higher incomes.
• Terry Tomato wants each person to get a guaranteed minimum $30,000 annual income paid for by eliminating tax deductions for corporations.

All three candidates gather for a private discussion. During this private discussion, candidates Tomato and Pomegranate want to pounce on candidate Squash’s plan, claiming candidate Squash wants to sacrifice poor people to make rich people richer. Candidate Squash insists that’s not the intention and won’t agree to that wording in the joint statement. Candidate Squash wants to claim that candidates Tomato and Pomegranate just want to perpetuate laziness and discourage people from developing a strong work ethic. Candidates Tomato and Pomegranate deny this and won’t agree to that wording in the joint statement.

All three candidates agree that

• Money must come from somewhere.
• Benefits will go to some people.
• The homeless must ultimately help themselves but some need a push to get started and ongoing help to sustain their efforts. The type of push and ongoing help needed varies among individuals.
• Those receiving assistance should have a say in how that assistance works.
• Some will try to take advantage of the system for personal gain.
• Some will resist offers of help.
• We strive for perfection, but it is a moving target. There must be a way to make adjustments along the way.
• Any plan requires support from fellow representatives to become reality.

Candidate Pomegranate acknowledges that some may join the corps for the benefits and try to avoid work but believes that most will value the opportunity and willingly participate. Candidate Squash isn’t so sure but accepts that candidate Pomegranate believes it. Candidate Pomegranate acknowledges that candidate Squash has doubts, and that careful monitoring of this grand experiment may lead to adjustments such as limiting privileges of those who avoid work obligations or requiring an extended service period for those receiving specialized training. The corps may be able to earn money from public works projects or by providing low-cost childcare for the community. Candidate Pomegranate acknowledges that some outside funding might be needed at least at first, but this could replace other homeless and addiction-treatment programs and people from the community might donate money or time. Candidates Tomato and Squash want it known they are skeptical and want to see evidence it could work before embracing it but agree that if it works it could provide a safety net.

Candidate Squash believes that creating jobs is the best way to reduce homelessness and only businesses create jobs. Candidates Pomegranate and Tomato are concerned that businesses might just use a windfall for executive bonuses, stock buybacks, or shareholder dividends. Candidate Squash acknowledges that once businesses have the money, the businesses decide how to spend it, and each business should have the flexibility to use the money in a way that is best for that business. Candidate Squash is open to refining how tax cuts might work, perhaps reserving the biggest cuts for businesses that offer job training, apprenticeships, healthcare, or relocation expenses for new employees. Candidates Pomegranate and Tomato like the idea of everyone being able to find a job and accept that candidate Squash believes tax cuts will solve the problem. Candidate Squash accepts that candidates Pomegranate and Tomato are skeptical and want to see how the poorest citizens benefit before agreeing to support tax cuts for businesses.

Candidate Tomato believes that most people will use the $30,000 responsibly to pay for housing while between jobs, to relocate to find work elsewhere, to get training needed to find work, or even start a small business. Candidates Pomegranate and Squash are concerned the money might enable those with addictions. Candidate Tomato acknowledges that it could happen, and some additional safeguards might be needed such as finding a guardian to receive the money and use it to pay for treatment. Candidates Pomegranate and Squash agree that candidate Tomato believes it will work, and candidate Tomato acknowledges that the concerns expressed by candidates Pomegranate and Squash need to be addressed. Candidate Tomato is willing to be flexible on the source of funding as a total elimination of all corporate deductions could have unintended consequences. Candidate Tomato believes this minimum-income program will eliminate the need for some other programs and gives people the flexibility to meet their own needs in their own way. Candidates Pomegranate and Squash like the concept of people having some control over their own destiny, but want it known they are skeptical and want to see evidence it can work before providing money from any source.

They all sign the agreement and post it on their websites. Local newspapers agree to print it as a public service instead of individual interviews with each candidate. The local jurisdiction agrees to include the signed agreement with mailed ballots instead of individual candidate statements. Some local non-profit groups agree to share the cost of mailing a postcard to all registered voters. The postcard says that all candidates posted the signed agreement on their websites, explains the purpose, and encourages voters to read it. The candidates agree to meet again to review the agreement, which also becomes the basis for discussions at candidate forums.

So far, none of the candidates have spent any money on publicity.

During follow-up discussions, the candidates want to bolster their cases and look for evidence of previous efforts involving their preferred method of dealing with the homeless. One candidate asks another "How can I independently verify your claim?". The discussion turns to which sources are reliable. If they cannot all agree on a source, they will need to find a way to present how each candidate evaluates each source of information.

It Takes a Village to Raise a Politician

A new candidate, Drew Date, enters the race. Candidate Date is wealthy and distributes weekly campaign ads denouncing the plans of candidates Pomegranate, Squash, and Tomato as stupid and irresponsible. Candidate Date demands that the joint statement be revised but refuses to approve any mention of the plans of the other candidates. A journalist asks candidate Date about this refusal. Candidate Date says that any mention of such "stupid and irresponsible plans" will just confuse voters. Candidate Date has not yet proposed a solution to homelessness but says details are coming soon and claims to be the only candidate who can solve the problem. The journalist prints candidate Date’s statements along with the joint statement of the other candidates. Some voters return candidate Date’s campaign mailings with a note stating "You have the right to say what you want, and I have the right to ignore you. I will vote for a candidate who demonstrates the ability to collaborate as passing any plan requires working with other elected representatives." Someone starts a petition asking candidate Date to work constructively with the other candidates. Candidate Date denounces these efforts as undemocratic and intended to prevent candidates from speaking freely.

The village should also acknowledge successes and desirable behaviors by candidates and elected representatives. Acknowledgement can be done in many ways such as directly thanking the candidates or representatives, letters to the editor, or recognition or awards from local groups. Public acknowledgement strengthens relationships between representatives and those represented, and helps make future interactions more successful. A good relationship increases the chance a candidate or representative will listen and respond to concerns about other issues.

Reducing the Influence of Money on Elections

It Takes a Village to Raise a Politician

We get what we ask for, not what we want. If our request is unclear or incomplete, others may give us what they want us to have. It is easy to request a representative who promises ____. What if the person elected lacks the skills to collaborate effectively with other representatives and inspire those other representatives to help make it happen? Should that be part of the request?

The links page has more potential reforms, some of which depend on legislation. This is something we can start now while we wait for that legislation.

We recognize that reform is a moving target. We need to constantly reevaluate our own goals and solutions. The solutions involve a long-term effort with a grass-roots movement pushing from the bottom, candidates pulling from the top, and journalists squeezing on the sides. Voter, candidate and journalist education is an important part of any change as people are more likely to support options they understand.

Reforms, like politicians, often start locally and work up to the state and federal level.

Can’t Decide Who to Vote For?

• What are the routine duties?
• What’s the most important decision or action that might be required?
• What’s the worst that could happen following a bad decision or inaction?
• How are decisions usually made in this office?
• Are others involved in decision making, and if so, how?
• What knowledge or experience is important for making good decisions?
• What distinguishes an outstanding officeholder from one who is merely competent?
• If you could appoint anyone to this office, who would you select and why?

None of the Above

Sometimes no candidate seems very appealing. Before giving up and not voting, remember that you are delegating the decision to those who do vote. Let all the candidates know what kind of person you want to vote for. Ask them how they plan to represent the interests of people like yourself. Give them a chance to show you what they can offer. If you do not get a straight answer, ask again. Return campaign literature with a note saying, "I will vote for someone who ..." Circulate a petition. If enough people ask the same questions, it could inspire candidates to shift their positions or inspire others to run.

We get what we ask for, not what we want. What should we ask for?

• How much should representatives know? Is just having an opinion enough?
• How should representatives handle conflicting information? How should they decide what to believe? How should they process new information? Is there a difference between being open-minded and being empty-headed?
• Should candidates explain how to make their promises a reality? Can they do it alone? If others must be involved, how could those others be inspired to cooperate?
• If a representative is committed to a particular issue or course of action, how should that representative work with others who are equally committed to doing the opposite?
• How far should representatives go to get what they want?
• How should representatives prioritize issues?
• Should representatives consider those outside their district who could be affected by a decision?
• How should representatives balance the opinions of those represented with the representative’s own carefully researched conclusions? How much should voters trust the judgement of their representatives?
• How should representatives treat those who voted for someone else?
• Your concerns here.

Afraid of Wasting Your Vote?

Step back and think about your goals:

• Were you consulted by those who declare which candidates are "frontrunners"?
• How many candidates discuss your concerns during the campaign?
• What if everyone follows the examples set by the "frontrunners"?
• What message do "long-shot" candidates hear about running?
• What message do winners hear about their chance of re-election?
• If someone you really like is considering running, how much support might that potential candidate expect?
• What message do you want your elected representatives to hear about your own needs and desires?
• What are the trade-offs between immediate needs and long-term goals?

Suggestions for Journalists

1. Place quality and service to the voters above entertainment value or attention-grabbing headlines.
2. Place the burden of proof on accusers. The accused is not expected to prove innocence. Before reporting an accusation, ask what specific first-hand observations or speech the accused should explain, and question all concerned to learn the full context of the situation.
3. Candidates are entitled to a private life. Limit reporting to actions or speech that are relevant to official duties.
4. Report fairly, with equal quality for all sides. Insist on reasoned, verifiable arguments. Ask sources appropriate questions, placing the burden of proof on yourself and your sources.