This section was inspired by Jonathan Swift's (1729) "A modest proposal". It's occurred to me that we have problems today that are in many ways as perplexing as those that faced the Ireland of Swift's day. In the hope that I can, in my own small way, contribute to the dialogue that these problems evoke (at least those that attract sufficient notice), I'm going to take advantage of this site to put forward occasional modest proposals and comments of my own.

The most important feature of the proposal that I'm presenting here is that it would eliminate the elections themselves. However, the campaign would start out in the same way as heretofore: Candidates would announce for the respective offices and begin to solicit campaign contributions (not necessarily in that order, of course).

It's at this point that the first difference appears. Instead of the contribution going directly to the candidate's campaign, it would go into an escrow account. The candidates would presumably do no advertising, or at least whatever advertising they chose to do would be directed--not at the general public--but at potential sources of campaign funds. (And of course, it couldn't be paid for with funds in the escrow account).

At the appointed time--presumably the traditional election day--properly constituted authorities would certify the amount contained in each of the escrow accounts, and for each office the candidate with the largest account would be declared the winner. Then all of the money in all of the escrow accounts would be transferred to the Treasury--presumably to be applied to reducing the national debt.

This system appears to offer at least three advantages over the present one.

First, it would spare the nation the demeaning campaign process.

Second, it would make a considerable contribution to reducing the national debt.

Third, it would remove the present ambiguity about who the official's constituents are. Thus, the official would no longer be confronted with a dilemma about how to keep voters in some electoral district appeased while meeting the expectations of the contributors. In fact, it seems possible that districts might be eliminated altogether, although that probably shouldn't be undertaken without further study of the possible consequences.

The principal objection that I anticipate might be raised against the proposal would be that the public would be denied any voice in the selection of the governing officials. In response I would say:

First, the election process is unpleasant for the majority of voters. A large percentage of them don't vote at all. Many of those who do vote (who're often referred to as being more "conscientious") find it very difficult to evaluate the candidates (especially since their characters are more or less effectively disguised in the advertising agencies' efforts to "define" them for the purposes of the campaign) and feel genuinely burdened by the responsibility. Certainly many of this group would be relieved to be able to cast off the responsibility of struggling to avoid being outsmarted by people whose profession it is to outsmart them.

Many of the rest of those who vote appear to regard voting more as an outlet for venting feelings or an expression of solidarity with the supporters of a particular cause than an assumption of any part of the responsibility for the government of the nation. Voters in the last category might object to being denied a "voice", but it's hard to see the loss of their voices as a matter affecting the welfare of the nation as a whole.

Second, I would argue that the results to be expected from the proposed electoral system wouldn't be very different from those under the old system of voting. It's true that the role of campaign managers, "handlers", and advertising experts would be eliminated, and that these can have some effect. It's true that sometimes clever campaign strategists can come up with what are called "issues" that turn enough voters away from the richest candidate to swing an election. (I'm thinking of such issues as the so-called "mediscare" issue in the 1996 presidential election or the Willy Horton issue in 1988). However, I'm not sure that the role of issues in the choice of officials has played a constructive enough role in the past to justify the cost of maintaining the old system. In any case, the candidate with the largest campaign contributions will usually have the best experts and therefore usually the cleverest issues.

[Incidentally, I'd argue that the potential unemployment of the people who manage the campaigns shouldn't be a matter of concern. Advertising and other forms of opinion manipulation so permeate modern society that the demand for people with such skills is well-nigh insatiable (and if it weren't, they themselves should have the very skills that would be needed to manipulate that demand).]

How would such a change affect the role of the media? The media, of course, have attempted to give some reality to electoral campaigns by making them appear to be something like imitation sporting events. That is, they talk about who's ahead, which stratagems are proving effective, what the trailing candidate's strategists may be planning to attempt to improve their position, etc. However, I see no reason why the same kind of reportorial analysis might not be applied to money raising--which interests the candidates are seeking to represent--what kinds of promises they're making or hinting at, what kinds of problems loom ahead when they try to balance the interests of one big-contributor constituent against those of another. (In fact, this kind of focus might well give the public at large a better idea of whom the respective candidates will be representing than the present kind of coverage with its concern with strategies for lining up voters).

[In any case, I don't think any potential unemployment of people in the news media should be a cause for concern. They could continue to practice their customary analytical skills on jury trials, the legislative process, foreign relations, etc. If all of that somehow failed to be enough, they might be able to devote even greater resources to reporting sporting events themselves.]

There is one point that I haven't attempted to decide: namely, should foreign governments be allowed to make campaign contributions to U.S. candidates? In favor of allowing this is that it would provide another source of money which might further reduce the national debt. However, there is the objection that there are a few countries (although not many) whose economies are so large that their gross national product exceeds that of even the largest multinational corporations. To permit them to contribute would be to permit government to compete with the private sector (a "no-no"). We've been repeatedly told that it's not good to let governments interfere with the operation of market forces.

Maybe the best solution is to wait a couple of years more until the leading corporations have surpassed even the largest national economies. Then we can throw the door open wide, confident that the corporations will rule unchallenged.

Put on the Web 11 May 1997
Last updated 11 May 1997