A Tournament to Leaders

A competitive format application toward (s)electing leadership of our country

Part 1 A - The Purpose

Again, here, I will not apologize for my love of sports and its apparent dominance of this concept. Professionally and personally I have an easier time connecting with individuals who grew up participating in sports. In fact, I’d go so far as to say I prefer to connect with those people. Individual sports, team sports, or coaching of any kind...these individuals just understand the world differently. You learn to work toward a common goal. You learn the value of practice and dedication. You learn commitment, and loyalty, and teamwork. You learn how to “be the man” or you learn how to support the man. You learn how to play your part, and play it to the best of your ability, because the team is “only as strong as the weakest link”. You learn how to maximize your strengths while leaning on others to help cover your weaknesses. Everything goes out the window when you compete, everything goes out the window when you connect. Race, gender, sexual preference, socio-economic standing...none of these things exist when you are between the lines. If they do, you haven’t quite learned that sports and competition transcend. (I recommend you join a bowling league with your friends...or something of the sort).

That being said, I look to the greatest sports event that exists for inspiration: the single-elimination bracket.

You can put a lot of effort into convincing me that there are merits to other formats, and I may agree with you on points, but there is nothing as pure and essential to the essence of sports. As a basketball fan...nay, connoisseur...for as long as I can remember, March Madness has been the pinnacle of...well, existence.

So my bias, again, is obvious, but let’s look at why this format supersedes all others.

A single elimination tournament pits strengths against weaknesses internally. A singular match-up requires each participant to decide if they are going to play to their strengths, or prepare for those of their opponent. It’s a rarity to be able to focus on both. This inspires a strategy of knowing what you do best, and trusting all the work you have put into its improvement toward mastery. Every team has weaknesses, and it can be very tempting to try to exploit those of your opponent. Is there more success found in doing this than relying upon your own strengths? Unlikely.
A single elimination tournament is about matchups. This format pits individual strengths and weaknesses up against each other in an immediate fashion. If you have no answer collectively to an isolated strength, you may find yourself struggling to keep up.
A single elimination tournament is opportunistic. Getting “hot” at the right time, being led by one piece of the puzzle that is simply dominant, peaking as a collective unit, outlasting an unbeatable foe, beating all odds...everyone loves an underdog, and when the stars align, all can celebrate and appreciate that moment. It just takes one perfect extended moment. Now, everyone “loves an underdog” just as much as a great majority “hates a dynasty”. I’m trying to find ways to account for this in the following setup.
A single elimination tournament combines performance and preparation. The structure of the NCAA tournament combines games played in close proximity and games with a gap of time between them. This highlights some games as simply performing to the best of your ability on a given day and others as having time to prepare for your next opponent(s). Not only is strategy important, but sometimes it demands you simply do what you need to do to win, adjusting on the fly, and adapting in the moment. Those teams with an advantage of stamina and endurance, those with expert planning and preparation, those with a combination of the two, all are subject to the changing demands of their matchup.
A single elimination tournament is won by the most deserving team. How could one argue otherwise? With a melting pot of all the previously stated attributes and demands, requirements and expectations, dreams and realities, where is the support for saying “that team didn’t earn it”? Sure it’s about momentum, it’s about peaking at the right time, but isn’t that what sports are all about, playing your best when your best is required?

So, what does this all have to do with...anything...political?

My “recommendation” is a single elimination tournament bracket of candidates that would progress toward the highest of elected officials.

Now, slow down with objections and questions - there are probably a lot of both. I understand that. I will do my best to explain the constructs of this, but know that I am also actively thinking through the components and pitfalls. I will not claim it’s a perfect system because I know that it isn’t, but, as said before, it’s a hypothetical...it’s an idea.

Before jumping into the How and the Who, here’s a simple list of the Why in light of our enlightenment of the single-elimination bracket format.

Candidate matchups will focus on personal strengths, not opponent weaknesses.
Some matchups will provide time for preparation, while others will force candidates to “just be” in the moment.
Some matchups will involve individuals on the same side of an argument, creating appreciation and variation of primary messages.
Fundraising will not be as prominent a part of campaigns, and barriers to entry may be slightly lowered.
Affiliations will naturally arise within the personality of the individual, but they will be mostly representing him/herself.
The matchups may be manipulated in location and broadcast to maximize viewership and thus exposure.
Broadcast companies would obviously benefit from the televising of matchup debates/events, but allocation of a percentage of advertising dollars to a large number of organizations in need is possible. (Done behind the scenes and released at the end so that the dollars don’t drive any ratings-thus-dollars-thus financial biases for more marketable candidates...again, I’m still thinking this through).
If such a large number of US citizens fills out a March Madness bracket while knowing nothing about college basketball, this same baseline interest/investment/involvement (when they naturally fill out their Presidential Bracket) get politics in front of an even greater number.
Voters will have the luxury of focusing on matchups in small, chewable chunks. Instead of having to play “pick your poison” in the bigger picture, individuals will be able to prioritize strengths of candidates and face difficult personal “this or that” decisions progressively.

Are there negatives to this approach? Of course. Anytime there is human involvement in a process that awards power, control, stability, etc...there will be negatives. Questions like, “Who gets to be on the bracket?”, and, “Who chooses who gets to be on the bracket?”, and, “Who gets to choose those who choose those who get to be on the bracket,” are all natural and necessary. These are those “What ifs” that need to happen for us to grow.

Part 1 B will explore more deeply the Who of the tournament.