.
Feedback

Letter: Two Not So Modest Ideas to Improve Elections

Local resident Ken Glass writes in a letter to the editor that the current process of funding election campaigns creates an undeniable conflict of interest that could only be fixed by reforms — he's got two suggestions.

Editor:

I present an idea that I believe can help reduce the negative effects of money in politics: all elected positions be limited to one-term. The term would be sufficiently long (perhaps 6, 8 or 10 years) so as to ensure that the elected officials aren’t on the learning curve for most of their service.

This limit would apply to local, county, state and federal elected positions, though a phased approach beginning nationally and eventually including locally elected offices would be a big step forward.

What’s the point? To reduce the impact that donors have on officials, once elected. If there is no chance of re-election, by law, then there is reduced motivation to kowtow to one’s donors. Also, without the possibility of re-election, candidates would presumably be even more civic-minded than before (and less career politician minded).

Are there downsides? You bet. People who are great in their elected positions wouldn’t be able to stay more than one term – and there would still be lots of money flowing. Also, politicians could shift from one office to the next, with the help of the same donors that helped with their previous elections. However, I do believe the aforementioned positives outweigh these negatives. 

Is this realistic? Of course not – the currently elected politicians would be the ones required to begin the process to change the law – which simply won’t happen, as they’d be going against their own interests. Nevertheless, I write this proposal to encourage a debate on the concept and perhaps invite thinking that would result in other creative, more practical ways to address the problem.

As I finish, I’d also like to share an idea from a friend: To help reduce partisanship, demand, through legislation, that each and every district is 50/50 each time the congressional and state districts are drawn post-census. Realistically, if the odds of limiting all service to one term are negligible, then the odds of redistricting 50/50 are effectively zero.  

That said, it’s nice to dream, especially as another election season (thankfully) comes to a close.

(Signed)

Ken Glass

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mercer Island Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
William Kratz May 20, 2013 at 05:36 pm
I'll be a bit more direct than Jerry. The new site is a mess. Visually it's extremely cluttered.Read More It's slow, very slow. There appear to be no RSS feeds, a major negative. Following a few links sometimes sends you to a different community's Patch site. And what happened with the editing staff. Unless I missed something, suddenly there are new editors without any warning. No matter what the circumstances, normally such a move would be accompanied by an announcement of some sort. Venice may be the greatest editor ever, but it looks like she is splitting her time among several Patch sites, so the odds are stacked against her. Her "latest activities" list even suggests that she is editing a Patch site down in the San Francisco Bay area. With all due respect, Patch sites should be hyper-local, and the best route to that is a local (i.e. Mercer Islander) editor.
Jerry Gropp Architect AIA May 15, 2013 at 02:07 pm
The Jury is still out. I liked the "Old Patch". J