Democratic reform

Amid the speculation about election shenanigans in New Hampshire and voter apathy, I would like to suggest a reform of the US electoral system that is as profound as it is wide ranging.

First let us look at the urgent need for democratic reform. Many think that the current system for choosing presidential candidates is outdated with a few hamlets in New Hampshire shaping the way the country views prospective presidents and the popular vote counting for less than the states' votes. Others think it is downright dishonest, in a country where anyone can become president, a presidential candidate must have millions of dollars to even get their name on the list. Some even think the process is corrupt, a BBC article pointed out the inadequacies in the last election which made front-page news in every country except the US at the time and there is concern now over the use of electronic voting machines.

The turnout at elections has been falling, with many voters feeling disenfranchised or just plain apathetic. Clearly a new approach is needed that will allow the electorate more access to the candidates and that will make voting more user friendly and transparent.

After much thought and consultation with my friends and colleagues in the know about such matters, I have devised a new system that, I think, will address these issues of concern.

The new system must be popular, allow access to the candidates, be beyond reproach, be fair. Such a system seems almost impossible to conceive and implement but, in fact, the solution has been staring us in the face for many years now, the technology is tried and tested, the system trusted worldwide.

Ladies and Gentlemen. I present Presidential Big Brother. Yes, you heard. All of the candidates are locked in a house, for the sake of argument it could be white. They are isolated from their spin-doctors and policy shapers, and more importantly, are isolated from the news. Each week they are given a challenge, some policy matter to address, or possibly a scenario to test their performance in a crisis situation. The challenges could be based in reality, or not. It wouldn't matter as they would not be aware of the outside world. After the challenge, the people speak and the worst performer is eliminated (and thus freed to become a pundit on the panel of observers). After the required number of weeks, which would probably be extended due to immunities won for quick challenges like being able to name the leaders of America's greatest allies, the victor would be the only remaining candidate.

The people would be empowered, but would the candidates do it? I think the answer is simply "Yes". There is very little these people wouldn't do to become president, and it has to be better than kissing babies.