The cost of elections

The electoral commission must run a better web page, with links to all parties and independents and their policies. Its links include summary pages on issues, for comparisons, and an ongoing debates page specifically for all claims, counterclaims, and a page for corrections of misinformation in the media, regardless of its source.

All political candidates’ web pages must be listed in the papers and on TV. If they are barmy - then all the more debate is needed and possible.

The open record of the government must include a summary of the legislation it passed; the income made from selling off public assets; the costs of selling off the assets and who profited from these costs; how much total foreign debt has increased by government sales (profits, interest and more private debt pays higher interest); and what benefits government actions gave to the major funders of its political party. A brief summary of the record of the opposition when in government takes more account of findings of royal commissions than of its sledging.

All claims made by one party against another should mean that the other party gets an automatic right of reply.

Peaceful freedom of speech in public places during elections is not prevented, as long as pavement or road traffic is not impeded. Advance notice may be given courteously to authorities for anything larger than say a folding card-table.

A legal requirement is necessary for the content of political parties’ electoral statements to be factually correct. Lies do not lie down however much they are nailed down, so the media should surely have a responsibility to set out the facts when lies are repeated.

The party in power cannot put any advertising material on a government-funded website, even under the guise of “press-releases”. For eight weeks before an election, “government” letterheads, departmental funding and helicopters should not be used in campaigns.

The Parliamentary record of other parties and independents can also be published. Print media will set this out in a consistent place and layout so that voters can collect and refer back to it when preparing to vote.

The media can set up definitions of terms, e.g. asking candidates to explain what they mean by “growth”, and what sort of “jobs” they plan.

Pictures do not focus heavily on leaders, as if we were already a dictatorship.

Journalists should be eligible to win awards for clarity and good style in their political reporting, and points deducted for putting a spin on the facts. An independent body should make these awards. This adds to journalists’ motivation.

There should be no polling of voters’ intentions. This has the effect of push-polling. Every interviewer who asks anyone who they think will win should be fined $100 on the spot. This leaves huge amounts of money, space and time for the media to spend on important issues and increases excitement about outcomes. Open-ended surveys concentrate on what voters want and what they do not want - more useful to everyone.

Winning government candidates put up a bond on their election, to be paid back or not as their promises are kept - or not. This could stop candidates making false promises. From the date of the election, the media keeps a running record of promises, like a batting list. Afterwards this promise list must be periodically reviewed.

Much trouble and comedy goes into convincing the public that they are not to be harassed by politics. The satirists and comedians play a part in this as well; the effect of Yes, Minister is to make the situations it satirises become even more common. But we could have comedy about politics that made it more interesting, not more despicable.

All this would make elections vastly more interesting. It is also plain that these innovations would not entirely solve the problem of money influencing elections; there are ways and means for money to speak loudly. Television companies and the advertising business would complain. But the media would have a lot more to interest readers. And every election could be scored out of 20 for how close it comes to being democratic, and the ideal would remain.