American voters who exercise their franchise in a sane and constructive manner -- eschewing anger over and resentment of real and imagined slights -- are hungry, yea, starved for election reform. Enough, they say, of bought and paid-for candidates.

 

Unless, however, there occurs in November a political tsunami that sweeps away the obstructionists in Congress and the legislatures of the several states, reform will remain the much pursued carrot on the far end of an ever-lengthening stick.

 

Shame may be the only recourse.

 

In this case, shame would entail a kind of self-revelation of ignorance and conniving on the part of politicians coming and going in electoral cycles -- ignorance in particular of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and other of the nation's founding documents that pertain to given political offices.

 

Though the so-called liberal states have become a minority among the 50, there exist legislatures in which reason, honor and common sense occasionally prevail. Such bodies could introduce measures that would expand the list of requirements incumbent upon candidates running for township boards, local boards of education, village and city councils, county commissions, to legislatures themselves. Article I, Sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to make revised requirements mandatory for those running for congressional and U.S. senatorial seats.

 

Such requirements might include scoring at least a B-minus grade in examinations routinely written by students in 8th-grade civics classes and 12th-grade government classes.

 

Beyond that, a candidate for any public office could be required to compose a readable essay explaining the constitutional and/or statutory duties of the office being sought, together with a comprehensible statement explaining why election is being sought. In addition, a paragraph or two stating what the candidate, if elected, hopes to accomplish for the good of the People.

 

Arrangements could be made to submit the essays to local and regional newspapers as op-ed articles. Further, nonpartisan civic organizations would be urged to invite candidates to appear before their members to defend their essays, especially with regard to the constructive contribution those running for office intend to make -- again for the good of the order. A few academic historians and political scientists might be impaneled to engage candidates on the issues pertinent to the office they seek.

 

Audiovisual recordings of each forum could be archived with copies made available to the public. And should a given candidate go on to be elected, her or his time in office could be analyzed against that record. Should she or he mount a re-election campaign, the record would be available to measure performance against promise.

 

None of these proposals would prevent the election of a candidate to an office for which she or he was obviously unqualified beyond the basic requirements. At least, not at first. Yet such responsible, nonpartisan scrutiny regularly applied to officeholders could and probably would yield a positive effect. Even the most blockheaded politicos begin to wilt when public embarrassment begins to chip away at the cheap veneer of their contrived personae.

 

Eventually their political careers become burlesques, and they fade away into oblivion. It may have been big money that got them elected in the first place, despite the labors above described. In due course, though, fair and above-board public scrutiny would take them down one at a time.

 

This is no promise of a political utopia. Rather it is a proposal of how election to public office for governments Of the People, By the People and For the People may be a more rational process proper to a democratic society.