A new kind of election

As we complete the final day of our extended election period, I realize that almost everyone hates partisan elections. We hate not only partisan politics, but the actual election process that pits one person against another (or against three others). It’s a difficult process to be a part of. After all, the human spirit is drawn toward kindness, compassion, and peace. The current system of elections does not support these values. A political campaign is a war. One must defeat one’s opponents or die politically. Fighting is not a happy state for anyone. At the end of any campaign, the candidates typically call for unity, simply because the process itself is so divisive and dis-unifying and wounding. Deep down, the world has grown tired of the whole partisan politics election thing. But we don’t know any other way. Perhaps it is time to recognize, that the party system, while having served the needs of democracies for years, is not conducive to the kinds of relationships and communities we need to build into the future.

Is there a better way to elect leaders? What could be changed about the electoral process that would maintain a democratic system designed to select individuals that are well-suited for leadership, while also maintaining the unity of the community?

Over the past two decades, as old governments died, and as new countries were born and were drawing up new constitutions, the United Nations drew their attention to a system of elections that could serve their nations well. As far as I know, none of these new nations adopted this new system of elections. Perhaps it seemed too radical, too unlike the familiarity of divisive party politics, too strange to accept. But I wholeheartedly believe that it is a system that during the next century or two will be adopted by communities and nations, weary of the political war waged by our present system of elections.

In this proposed system, there are no candidates. That’s right. No candidates. There are no nominations. At every level of government, from the village on up to the national (and even international) level, people would quietly go to the polls on election day, would be given a ballot that simply says, for example, “Governor” or “Mayor” or “Two Senators,” and would write the name of any registered adults that they feel best qualified to serve in that position. There would be no candidate’s names on the ballots, because while no one is specifically a candidate, everyone is effectively a candidate, eligible to be elected to office. As a voter, your conscience would guide you. These simple steps, in themselves, bring forth many people who would have no interest in running for office, but who are well qualified to serve.

The process, though not adopted by any government, is in place and does work in many communities and groups around the world today. One of the keys to its success is to refrain from naming individuals and from discussing one’s intended vote. Thus, the unity of the community is maintained, and individuals elected have the obligation to assume their posts as an act of service and duty to their communities. But it takes a disciplined, restrained and selfless electorate for this system to even begin to work.

In such elections, money is not spent on campaigns, consultants, strategists, rallies and all the rest. No one criticizes anyone else. No one is disenfranchised as a result of the election results. In fact, no one is even running. But anyone duly registered can be elected.

This system may sound crazy at first, especially in light of the culture of contest that we have grown used to. I suspect it will take many years for us to evolve to the point of being able to institute this system at a governmental level, but does it not sound more consistent with the values of the human spirit? At the very least, is it not a system that can be instituted within our community organizations: our clubs and schools and boards and civic organizations?

Thinking of our current system of elections, I am reminded of one of my favorite quotations that extol the virtues of change:

“If long-cherished ideals and time-honored institutions, if certain social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs of a continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated to the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a world subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be exempt from the deterioration that must needs overtake every human institution? For legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or doctrine.”

Let us view our current system of elections as a step along the journey of humanity’s social evolution. It has served us well. But it is becoming increasingly clear that eventually we will implement a better way – a way more in keeping with the values we embrace and with the aspirations of the human spirit.

(David Khorram, MD is a board certified ophthalmologist, and director of Marianas Eye Institute. Questions and comments are welcome. Call 235-9090 or email eye@vzpacifica.net. Copyright © 2005 David Khorram.)