Several "takes" are needed for the candidate to achieve an acceptable television advertisement. Candidates must look good and look like they are sincere, mature, and able. Many candidates get professional help just to develop and to maintain their preferred image.
While such make-believe imaging and false advertising falls under freedom of speech, the net effect is that political campaigns have become far too expensive relative to the social benefits achieved. Wealthy candidates have an advantage since they do not have to spend time raising money, and the entire political system is skewed by the constant need to raise money.
Analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has verified that the candidate who raises and spends the most money is likely to win, although this is not guaranteed. Incumbents have too spend much of their terms raising money to get reelected.
This campaign financing feedback is interesting, but it easily leads us astray. Based on such feedback, the most popular answers to the campaign spending problem simply involve limiting spending. There are well-meaning people thoughtfully developing various financial incentives and specifying maximum contribution amounts. They want to have new campaign financial rules, making things more equal through legislation.
The objective of these campaign spending schemes and the associated legislation is "to level the playing field." While well intentioned, they are overly complex and artificial. For example, Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold recently introduced campaign finance "true reforms" bill. They want to have free broadcast time, to reduce political mailings, to specify special advertising broadcast rates, and to define other financial limits for candidates. Keeping track of and enforcing all of the related details that accompany such legislation might be possible for some campaigns, but there are many campaigns in which it would not be practical. Such legislation also expands government and regulations unnecessarily, especially when there is a more efficient way to do the job.
From a technical systems perspective, the approach of applying legislation to respond to the feedback signal (i.e., well-financed candidates win) is an erroneous approach. The financial management legislative approach ignores the important underlying principles of representative government. In particular, it does nothing to promote personal integrity and basic advertising fairness. If legislation needs to be passed to improve the campaign funding problem, it should be directed at encouraging a better campaign process, rather than artificially constraining the distasteful results of the process.
Encouraging a better process is not only more effective, it is less expensive. Most conscientious voters try to watch the political debates and read whatever information is available on the candidates. While televised debates and news media documentation of debates have their problems and limitations, they produce valuable information for the voters on a comparatively level playing field. These forums are often not especially financially challenging to the candidates.
Debates are able to achieve level four status when properly led by a moderator and when candidates are required to have validated facts. However, too often we have level one and off-the-level debates that are not much better than the fabricated advertising campaigns. It is the debate process that needs to be refined and encouraged. This is where the system feedback is needed. The voters and the news media merely have to focus on which candidates are attempting to debate at level four. Compare those candidates and ignore the others. Under Technidigm-2000, political debate and the associated feedback is encouraged because everyone will want to be viewed as a level four leader. It will not be legislated - it will be expected.
Since one-sided campaign advertising is not consistent with level four debate, under Technidigm-2000, candidates who use one-sided advertising place their candidacy in jeopardy. If a candidate wants to produce and pay for a 60-second television advertisement, that candidate should invite at least one of the competing candidates to share that time equally, if necessary at no cost to the other candidate. With 30 seconds each and sitting next to each other, both candidates could be represented much more fairly, and neither candidate would have an advantage caused by financing. Again, this would not be legislated - it would be expected.
Of course, such an approach is the same as campaign fund sharing, a concept that is so different from the current paradigm that many people will consider it impractical. However, if we really want a political culture change, new concepts will have to be explored. We should not keep asking for level four changes and then casually turn them down at level one. Our "level one reactions" to level four changes are predictable. One effect of level four solutions is to produce changes in level one opinions through success, which requires implementation and feedback just like any other program. This is deep thinking, but Technidigm-2000 makes it rather obvious and readily understood.
As in longer debates, fairness in television advertising would be ensured by an independent moderator. Each candidate would have to work with the other to develop what each is going to say during the recording session. They need not agree, but they need not have any surprises. If the paying candidate invited two other candidates to such a mini-debate, each of the three candidates would have 20 seconds, each statement would be shared in advance, and the order of candidate presentations would be determined by the moderator.
The moderator is expected to be a level four leader and may decide to seek the advice of a fairness jury. Multiple "takes" on the advertising would be discouraged since all of the candidates would be bound by the moderator's decision. With such a process, we would have significant improvements in television advertising as well as in campaign financing. From a systems perspective, we would be focusing on the true objectives of the political system and the election process rather than artificially manipulating its output. Whatever the source of campaign money, it should be spent on getting to level four decisions, not stirring up level one opinions.
Even this approach to reducing the campaign financing problem would not be without its problems, but these problems would be what engineers refer to as "second-order effects". Second-order effects are results that are unimportant relative to the primary results. When we make important decisions based on minor issues, we are "letting the tail wag the dog" or "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
We can always state level one opinions that detract from level four solution systems. For example, it is easy to come up with the level one opinion that speculates, "If candidates share the costs of the 60-second television mini-debates, it will be more likely that only the richest candidates or the best financed campaigns would be represented." Based on this possibility, the entire concept might be dropped even though it has potential to provide a vast improvement over the current approach.
It is at level four that all concerns can be placed into their proper context. Also, it is at level four that we can create solution systems that are based on the right principles, that have the best possible objectives, and that have the necessary time to work out the initial problems.
Changes always bring problems, many of which are caused by a failure to change rather than by the change itself. In the television debate example, there are probably more than just two highly candidates who must be debated. If the shared cost approach were implemented, a rich candidate might try to achieve an advantage by only debating noncompetitive candidates rather than the most competitive. Under the Technidigm-2000 approach, a candidate who consistently avoids debating other candidates will experience a credibility problem. If a candidate is off-the-level, it will be apparent.
Another compensating fact in this second-order arena is that there are only two major political parties. After the primary elections and party conventions, one-on-one is usually the most appropriate debate format. Again, such concerns are of less consequence than the basic objective of getting the candidates to debate at level three, displaying their leadership and knowledge regarding real issues.
Addressing issues such as campaign financing is only one example of how powerful an on-the- level systems approach can be in resolving fundamental problems. Each member of the Technidigm-2000 community can easily enforce high standards of integrity in politics. No legislation is required. When we focus on our principles and identify our true objectives, it is much easier to establish systematic processes that lead us toward those objectives efficiently.
When a political campaign activity has no redeeming principles or objectives, it should not be done. If unfair, distorted, or wasteful political activities are identified, the responsible people are automatically discredited under Technidigm-2000. Once discredited, it is very difficult to recover one's level four leadership position.
It is worth repeating a key benefit of how Technidigm-2000 impacts problems such as campaign reform. No legislation is required. When principles are involved, enforcement flows from the people as soon as those principles are stated and applied publicly by a single candidate. Other candidates are forced to catch up with the leader or be left behind.
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page