So you think that elections are fair?

When magicians want their audiences to believe in magic, they use a technique called distraction – focus the audience on one hand, while the other is doing the trick.

The current distraction is the Voter ID battle. Generally, the Democrats don’t want it and the Republicans do. Why? Because the poorer people are the ones without the IDs, and they vote Democrat, looking for a government (taxpayers) handout. So that’s the distraction. What’s the other hand doing?

Lots.

The reason that its very hard to be elected is because of familiarity and money. The more familiar your name is, the more likely the vote. Generally speaking, incumbents names are familiar to the public and people tend to vote for people they know. Familiarity breeds contempt content.

As the general public does little to no research on candidates, the only name they know is the incumbents or actually some do. So while congressional approval ratings barely register on the meter, and people want change (“that they can believe in…”), they want the voters everywhere else to vote their incumbents out… except for their own. That’s problem number one.

The resolution to that problem is simple. The government mails jumbo postcards or letters to every voter before the primaries and general elections directing them to each candidate’s website. If it’s easy to just click to a website, the voters may do it. The jumbo postcard could even have a single government web address, that will link the voter to every candidate on his or her ballot depending on the voter’s district.

Will it happen? Not likely. Why? Incumbents don’t want voters to know who’s running. It will mess up the “fair” elections.

Speaking of ballots, have you wondered why the word Incumbent is listed next to the name of one candidate in each contested race? Or that the party affiliation is listed? It’s to nudge the voter to vote for a specific candidate, the incumbent. People like to vote for the winner, so they’ll gravitate to the incumbent.

It does suggest that most have no idea who is the incumbent or which party affiliation a candidate has, so they need help. It’s sad that the public is manipulated by magicians and have no idea.

If just those hints were left off ballots and the candidate’s name order scrambled it would dramatically change election results. Will that happen? No.

Why hasn’t this been done? The incumbents make the rules. They don’t want to get voted out. The public hasn’t figured out that the elections are biased. Only I comment on it.

If you don’t believe it, the next time you go out to eat ask someone at the adjacent table who is their congressman and his district? If they know (which I doubt), ask them what he or she has done for the past two years. You’ll be shocked at the what you hear. They won’t have a clue.

Okay, so how about the number two problem – money? Under the current rules, incumbents get to keep all of the money they raise during each election and post-election cycle to establish a war-chest, so even if a wealthy person wants to challenge an incumbent he’ll probably have millions to fight the challenger off.

The problem is that most challengers aren’t rich, and based on observation, don’t become so until after they’ve been in office for a decade or two. I’ve read that Vice President Joe Biden isn’t rich and the writers wonder why. What’s wrong with him? Why isn’t he on the gravy train?

So the challengers spends a great deal of time trying to raise (grovel for) money. They find out that it’s really, really hard. Why? Because donors don’t know if you’re going to be elected, so would rather wait to donate until after the election so that the then incumbent can do favors. That’s why incumbents get money thrown at them once elected. If the seat is vacant and only one party is active in that district, after the primary and before the general election.

Favors.

The resolution to that problem is simple as well. Just force everyone to give left-over funds to charity after each election. At the moment, candidates can loan themselves unlimited funds and just pay themselves back once they’ve scared off other challengers. If the money is a one way street, and once in the campaign coffers is gone forever, the loans and other financial games will end.

In this way, everyone starts are zero. I know that an incumbent will still have an edge, but it will be far smaller than today.

So will the system change? I doubt it, without a congressman forcing the issue.  That’s what I’d like to do. Force the issue and make the playing field level. It isn’t.

Vote for me in November. I’ll tell you the unvarnished truth. You may not like it but it will be the truth, not rhetorical noise you hear from the other flag-waiving politicians.