President of Ohio

November 5th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Have you heard the candidates mention your state during the debates? How about the entire time during the campaign? Nope. Me neither.

Now of course I’m in the lowly state of Alabama with only 9 electoral votes, but chances are most Americans live in a state that simply doesn’t matter to either of these campaigns: CA, NY, WA, OR, TN, TX, OK, IL, GA…

How can you run for President of the United States of America and only have to convince a handful of states that you should be the next President of all the states?

…the actual share of voters nationally who are up for grabs is probably between just 3 percent and 5 percent in this election, polling experts say. The Obama and Romney campaigns are expected to spend on the order of $2 billion, in part to try to sway this tiny share of the electorate.

This NY Times piece goes onto describe how the campaigns are only targeting small groups of voters within counties of swing states:

A senior Romney aide, who requested anonymity discussing strategy, says the campaign’s microtargeting has identified specific swing-voter-rich counties in swing states: In Virginia, for example, a large number of swing voters are concentrated in Fairfax County, just outside the District of Columbia; in Ohio, by contrast, undecided or persuadable voters are scattered throughout the state. In some cases, demographic patterns emerge: In Arapahoe County, Colo., just outside Denver, the majority of swing voters will probably be women, the aide said.

These winner-take-all, divisions reinforce all the terrible tactics we’ve seen from both campaigns. In this digital age of advanced micro-targeting and micro-messaging the campaigns don’t need a broad message to lead the entire country, and they definitely don’t need to bother convincing anyone from across the aisle.

Supporters of the current Electoral College system argue a direct popular vote would unfairly favor big cities over rural areas, but isn’t the tyranny of Ohio worse! The candidates should be forced to appeal to as broad a group in the electorate as possible, by campaigning and appealing to all 50 states.

By building a national consensus around issues we can move past the simple answers we keep hearing on the campaign trail. One example from my state is the renaissance of car manufacturing going on here in the south. Mercedes-Benz continues to expand their plant here in Tuscaloosa. VW built a new plant in Chattanooga, TN. BMW has a plant in South CarolinaHyundai is building cars in Montgomery, AL. Stop telling me how amazing the auto-bailout was for Detroit! That’s not the only place cars are made in America!

This pandering to swing states leads to simplistic answers at best and outright terrible policy at worst. Newt Gingerich’s overt pandering during the republican primary is the strongest case for why the system is flawed. Ethanol for Iowa. Dredge the Charleston for South Carolina. Space funding and a moon base for Florida.  Basically, take money from all the other states whose votes don’t matter in the primary and give it to key states through federal spending. Thankfully, Newt lost in the primary.

The Big Picture

My biggest complaint throughout this campaign, compared to the 2008 campaign, is the lack of a big picture of what the candidates want to accomplish. Give us a meta-narrative! Tell us a story of why your vision, your party, deserves my vote.

In 2008, Obama’s slogans were hope and change, but he also painted a broad message of how we’re better together, than divided. From that belief sprang the healthcare law the administration spent much of their political capital on. The process of passing the law was less than ideal, but the goal of insurance for all was not a surprise based on the goals stated in the campaign.

That’s just one example from 2008, but tell me what the broad message is this time?

Obama: We’re getting better, because I helped stop the crisis. Everything is going to be ok. I killed Osama.
Romney: I’m a businessman. Did I mention I’m a businessman. I want to cut taxes to create more jobs.

With such a broad and diverse culture we need ideals and goals that unite all 300+ million of us instead of pandering to tiny percentages through divisive micro-messaging. After all this time of campaigning and billions of dollars spent, neither candidate has addressed most of the pressing issues that we face in the next 4 years:

How will you resolve the housing crisis?
What will you do about the unprecedented consolidation of Wall Street banks?
What will you do to reform immigration?
What can be done to address the meteoric cost increases in higher education?
What about the continued rise of costs in healthcare?
What can America as a nation do to remain competitive on the global market?
How can we fix the skills gap that continues to leave 20 million Americans unemployed?
Will we continue a foreign policy of bombing and killing our way to peace?
What will you do about the continued detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?
How will you form any sort of consensus in Congress to start working again?

Call me naive for thinking census matters, then you can call me cynical for believing 95% of the votes cast tomorrow won’t matter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Upgrading the Presidential Debates

October 8th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

Watching the presidential debate last week, reminded me how inefficient verbal debate is for comparing and supporting ideas with facts. Why does it seem like we’re still watching debates from the 1850′s instead of the 21st century? Why are we judging the future leader of America by their rhetorical skills, when most of the problems they face will be far more complex? The key quality both candidates continue to support is the role of the president as a wise technocrat - someone who can manage budgets, and make a myriad of decisions based on the best available information.

Nixon Kennedy debate 1960

Romney Obama debate 2012

Has the format of the debates substantially changed since 1858? No. The candidates have shorter periods of time to respond (the debates in 1858 lasted up to 4 hours), but the only real modern update is that they’re broadcast. Even now the only real difference between listening on the radio or watching the debate on TV, is seeing the non-verbal communication like body language, but the presentation of facts or sources remains purely verbal.

Where else in modern America do we expect to be persuaded by verbal arguments alone? Even pastors use church bulletins with sermon notes or big screens to structure their speeches. It’s a basic improvement, but when I argue through problems with other people I try to use a whiteboard to draw out more of what the key the differences are.

We Have the Technology

Technology has made huge advances since the first debates in 1858 and even the 1960′s. President Obama uses an iPad on a daily basis to read the news. Why can’t we use something like an iPad for the candidates to interact with facts as they debate, compared to the empty verbal tricks we get now?

Visual Communication
Give the candidates and the moderator an agreed upon set of common tools and figures. If the topic of the debate is the economy and the federal budget, let each candidate show how they would change it. For example, they could use this great graphic from the Congressional Budget Office and use a touchscreen (like the Microsoft Surface CNN loves to use) to show how they would change the share of spending if elected:

Limit the options so that the focus is still on the debate and not on the technology. They could use a whiteboard (or chalkboard) for all I care. My point is, by adding some form of visual communication as the candidates debate the budget, they can show back and forth what elements they would cut or expand.

Cite Your Sources
Require the campaigns to live tweet the sources cited during the debate so everyone can read more and verify the accuracy of each claim. The teams prep the candidates with facts to cite throughout the debate, why not post those live to Twitter as they talk about them or in a full wrap up at the end of the debate? As it stands now we’re left to sort through 3rd party sources 0r the biased spin of the campaigns.

If you failed to show your work like this in English class you would fail! How can you run for president without backing up the claims you make to the nation? You know they’re gathering the sources now, just show your work!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with 2012 Presidential Campaign at Ben Goertz.