And Now For a Totally Different Election Process

During this election cycle there has been quite a bit of talk about Voter ID laws. Some say these laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud where some people vote more than once. In some cases, people who are dead have apparently channeled their candidate selections to living people who are charged with being proxies at the voting booth. Soon we will be hearing about people who are not yet born horning in on the election process. In fact, if a significant number of this demographic begins voting, we may find Roe v. Wade being overturned.

On the other side are those who believe that Voter ID laws disenfranchise citizens who do not have a valid ID. However as one commentator said, you can’t even check out a book at the public library without sufficient ID. Why would you want to allow voting without proper identification? Perhaps those library cards could be used at the polls as identification. In fact, some states are already doing this.

Given all the controversy over Voter ID, I decided that if we really don’t care how many times a person votes, there is a much better way to hold elections. I call it Reality TV Elections (RTE). Currently, there is a huge interest in talent shows on TV. Shows such as American Idol, America’s Got Talent, The X Factor, The Voice, and Dancing With The Stars are going strong. Some of these shows have franchises around the world, so there’s no disenfranchising going on there yet. Here is my idea. Do away with the current election process and replace it with a reality show. Just to get the mental cogs turning, here’s a few suggestions for the name of the show: Presidential Idol, America’s President’s Got Skills, The POTUS Factor, The Election, or Cavorting With The Candidates. I’m sure you, gentle reader, can come up with even better names.

Just think about it. This reality show concept will not only solve the problem of voters being disenfranchised and others not being allowed to vote more than once, but other problems as well.

Campaign finance reform is something that many people want to see. They don’t like the idea of big money controlling big elections. All those PACs and SuperPACs are seen as corrupting the election process. Well, no more with RTE. The candidates will no longer have to raise money and be beholding to big money interests. In fact, RTE will pay for itself. Advertising fees would pay for the entire process. Can you imagine replacing the McCain-Feingold law with McCain’s Fine Gold ads? Totally awesome.

Our two-party system of politics has been increasingly under attack since there are a significant number of people who no longer like the candidates who run as a Republican or a Democrat. Yet these people are skeptical of voting for a third party candidate for fear they are throwing their vote away and possibly allowing the worser of two evils to get elected. This is not an issue with RTE. It would allow anyone in the country who is Constitutionally qualified to be president to show up at the tryouts to be held in major cities throughout the US. The judges would consist of all former US presidents who are still alive. Channeling of dead presidents is not allowed as it is with voters. If there is not a well balanced array of ideologies amongst the living presidents, then Howard Stern and/or Penn Jillette could join them to compensate. And remember, there would no longer be any political parties except those held by the judges after hours.

In the early rounds of competition, the judges alone would decide who makes it through to the next round.  However, to avoid any hint of partisanship in this process, the early rounds would be devoid of any ideological content. The judges could base their decisions on such things as who has a presidential look and speaks like a president. After all, you don’t want a president who wears a nose ring and dangles his participles. Well, at least not in our present culture; maybe someday in the future. After eliminating candidates based on these two criteria alone, the field of remaining candidates should be at a very manageable level. In fact, the number may be small enough to go to the live shows. If not, then the number could definitely be reduced to an appropriate level by asking questions such as “What are the three branches of the federal government?”, “Who was the first president of the United States?”, and “What was the first bill that President James Garfield signed into law?”

Voting by the TV viewing audience would begin with the first live show. At this point ideologies could be expressed by the candidates. I suggest that each of the live shows be themed. For instance, one show could be devoted to writing and delivering a speech. Each candidate would be put in solitary confinement for the day with a pencil and paper. No speech writers would be allowed. Also, no computer with an Internet connection would be allowed lest the candidates be tempted to plagiarize a Ronald Reagan speech. During the live show that evening, they would deliver their speeches. After the show, two hours of voting would begin. Everyone would be allowed to vote as many times as she is able to get through on the phone and the Internet. Don’t even say it. I know what you are thinking. Isn’t this method of voting disenfranchising those without a phone or a computer with an Internet connection? Well, it would be except that I hear that President Obama is personally passing out free cell phones to those without one. I assume this program will continue under future presidents. In fact, with voting at stake, it would be their patriotic duty.

Additional show themes could include such things as handling a simulated Cuban missile crisis, making wise decisions (bonus points for having this ability during the sleep deprivation episode), handling terrorist threats and attacks, and revealing which famous actors you would choose to fly into space with nuclear weapons to break up a comet fast approaching Earth. I would personally want to see one week devoted to the candidates imitating Elvis Presley. I believe every patriotic American citizen needs to possess this skill. The president gets no special exemption. However, this is the closest I ever want to see the US President pretending to be a King.

After several weeks of intense competition and voting, the winner of the presidential reality TV show would be revealed. Tell us what prizes the winner gets, Don Pardo. Well, they include an all expense paid trip to Washington DC, a free four-year stay at the White House, free trips to points around the world aboard Air Force One, free food for the entire family, and an annual $400,000 salary plus $169,000 for various expenses. And that’s not all. The winner will continue to get nearly $200,000 per year for life as a pension. Not bad considering he will also be eligible to make $100,000 or more for each appearance he makes on the speaking circuit. The actual amount will vary depending on how well he performed on speech delivery night during the competition.

So what do you all think of my idea? If you like it, we can make this reality show a reality by banding together and demanding a Constitutional amendment that modifies the election process. I can’t wait. After all, since it is my idea, my royalties for the show will probably exceed by far the measly amount made by the President. His will be chump change by comparison.

People Over Profits?

After Mitt Romney’s speech tonight at the Republican National Convention, some of the commentators mentioned that a couple of people started protesting during the speech and were carrying signs that said “People Over Profits.” The question I ask is, “What people? Whose profits?” My guess is that the “people” they were talking about included themselves, and the “profits” they were talking about were those of others. But just what is the thinking behind such a statement?

Many years ago when I was in college, I had a professor who asked the class what the purpose of a business was. Answers such as, “make a product,” “create jobs,” and so on were called out. The professor finally stopped us and said we were all wrong. He then informed us that the purpose of a business was to make money. In other words, earn a profit.

Is this wrong? Is this immoral? Well, of course not. Who in his right mind would put either his own money or money he has borrowed at risk with no plan to make it all back plus more? He might as well just hang onto the money he has and play it safe. But the lure of making a profit so as to better one’s life and those of his family is difficult to resist. In the end, this is not putting profit over people. It’s a person placing such an importance on himself and his family (in other words, people), he is willing to take a risk.

If the business starts out very small, it may be run totally by the owner. If not, then people will have to be hired just to get the business started. In either case, if the business is successful, it is unlikely that it can expand without hiring more people. If it continues to be successful, it will be even more profitable. So, where does all this revenue go? Well, for sure it doesn’t all go into the pockets of the owner. He’s not going to be able to obtain raw materials, labor, utilities, and so on without paying for them. But for every purchase he makes and every person he hires, he is in essence helping to enhance the lives of other people.

Well, maybe the owner loves profit so much that he will only pay a pittance for supplies and labor. Well, not if his competitors have anything to say about it. If other businesses are willing to pay more for their supplies and labor, then the owner will soon find that he can no longer obtain goods and services or labor because they will all go to the higher paying competitors. In other words, it is difficult for a business owner to rip off other people as long as we live in a free competitive environment. However, it can happen in a society where the government so limits the choices of people they find themselves stuck in an unpleasant position with nowhere to turn.

So, the only thing I can conclude is that perhaps the phrase “People Over Profits” is referring to a business owner who, when times are bad and profits are down, is willing to lay off people to keep his profits up. But think about it. If you had money at risk and were working hard to make and keep a business successful, isn’t there some level of profit that you would deem a minimum? If a business owner can make more money working for someone else where he can work less hours and have no money at risk, he has a choice to make. Lower the cost of operating his business, which may entail laying some people off, or shut down the business altogether, thus laying off everyone. I sometimes get the impression that some people view businesses as having a magical well from which money can be drawn in times of crisis. Well, it just isn’t so. Running a business is tough. That’s why I decided earlier on that I just wanted to work for someone else so I could earn a steady income without having to invest any of my or others' money. I have never been much of a risk taker.

Speaking of working for a salary, what’s another word for salary? PROFIT. When I work for a business that I have not invested in personally, then all of the money I earn is profit. The business owner has to take all the money she takes in and then pay for such things as rent, utilities, raw materials, taxes, business licenses, advertising, shipping, and the salaries of individuals like me that are risk averse and work for others. After all those expenses, they hope to have enough left over for themselves to make all their efforts worthwhile. So, if a very important employee leaves a company to work for another one offering a higher salary, is he putting profits above people? It may seem that way to the company that he left. But not so for the company he moved to.

When someone complains about people putting profit over people, they are usually talking about others. I once heard of a person who complained about a guy who quickly went to a hurricane stricken area to sell water at a premium price since this was price gouging. Yet, just a few minutes later he was talking about possibly taking his chainsaw down to the stricken area to cut up residents' fallen trees because he was sure he could make a large amount of money doing so. Can you spell double standard? Personally, the thing I found irritating about people castigating the water selling man is that, had the man just stayed at home and never took any water to the devastated area, no one would have said a negative word about him. If you were in the aftermath of a severe storm and you could choose between having water quickly at a premium price or having to wait a few days for the charitable groups to get water to you, which would you choose? After all, you wouldn’t have to buy the water. You could just wait like you would have had the “price gouger” never showed up.

So, given the opportunity to increase one’s profits, whether through getting a higher paying job or creating and expanding a business, most people will do so unless there are some downsides that are too unpleasant. That’s our human nature. We want to take care of ourselves and our families and improve our lot in life when the opportunity arises. Each person has to decide for herself what she is willing to risk or give up in order to do this. No person or government needs to be making that decision for us.