A Tournament to Leaders
A competitive format application toward (s)electing leadership of our country
Part 2 - The Bracket
As a writer, I would LOVE to build up to the grand reveal, but chances are I’d lose much of my audience before then. I get wordy, I know that, so please forgive the forward ness of the ultimate game changer of The Bracket: the Final Four candidates will comprise the entire leadership team. The “Winner” will become the figurehead, with the Runner-up filling that traditional “Vice President” capacity. The other two semi finalists, however, will also be extended roles in the everyday leadership of the country.
So what’s the point of The Bracket if the Final Four all “win”? Well, then we all win! A team of four individuals who have progressed successfully through four head-to-head matchups/debates will have either solidified their position in the eyes of the public, or, created for themselves a reputation that resonates with the majority of voters.
Structure Components to Consider
Rankings
Candidates will be ranked 1-60 based upon their credentials/CV according to its translation to national leadership, as determined by The Council.
Seedings
The Bracket will then be filled according to the final ranking, following the seeding for a single-elimination, 60 team tournament. This means the top four seeds will receive a “bye” in the first round.
First Round Byes
These will be given to the four candidates deemed “1-seeds” by The Council. After the initial Bracket vote, these four 1-seeds will be designated for the four individuals who made the Final Four in the previous election, i.e. the four currently serving in office.
Regions
This is an aspect that is still going through brainstorming. Like the NCAA Tournament, these could be literal geographic regions, focusing candidates initially within a tighter radius and giving slight advantage to the “hometown” candidates. Obviously, this could play out in multiple ways when we consider potential “voting weights”, but we will get back to that.
Regions could also be strictly theoretical. Considering The Council is selecting the 60 most-worthy candidates, requiring them to select from a particular region may compromise this principle.
Matchups
Head-to-head debates will highlight each individual matchup. I am a proponent of following a schedule similar to that of the March Madness tournament. The first weekend is composed of first and second rounds, with one day off in between debates. (A Thursday - Saturday or Friday - Sunday schedule). The third and fourth round matchups then take place a week from the first round, with a location change to a larger venue. Venue atmosphere allows for in-person audience and potential for townhall Q & A, but all matchups would be broadcast/recorded so that every voter has access to watching the contest. Our access to live-streaming and on-demand content makes this an easy aspect.
Host Sites
Hosting sites will follow the same concept as the NCAA tournament. Selected locations will host Rounds 1 and 2, with matchups from multiple regions. Rounds 3 and 4 move to a larger location, as the results of the Elite Eight matchups will determine the Final Four, who will ultimately make up the leadership team. The Final Four will then be held in a “grander” location, for the final three matchups to help determine the roles each of the Final Four will ultimately fulfill.
Wouldn’t it be great if profit from attendance also be dedicated to organizations committed to helping those in need? Lots of potential for this process to help in many different ways.
Campaigning
The Volunteered are announced a week before The Bracket is released. Candidates will have the opportunity to prepare a 15 minute introduction video to all be released simultaneously three days before The Bracket “selection show”. (For example, Sunday releases the list of 60 Volunteered, personal campaign videos go live Thursday, matchups unveiled based on rankings the following Sunday, one week from release of The Volunteered). Unveiling the videos before matchups are announced helps to encourage candidates to focus on promotion of their own value.
Candidates
Candidates are selected by The Council based on their experience and expertise. Ranking of candidates is also completed by The Council. (No thought has yet been given to how The Council would agree upon candidates).
Non-exhaustive requirements to consider:
Service to community/humanitarian efforts
The entire range of personal diversity
Length of time living in the United States (being born in the US not a requirement)
Professional skill sets and attributes
Personal skill sets and attributes
Now, are there any immediately disqualifying traits? Maybe? The idea of having The Council is to use their insight and wisdom to reason out each candidate’s past, present, and future, and determine if anything eliminates a potential candidate from participation.
Voting
Disclaimer: I am already rolling my eyes at the potential of being asked to “answer to” anything I write here. These are only ideas. Sometimes they are outside of the box, sometimes they are the outline of the box, sometimes they are inside the box, but, regardless, they are ideas on an undefined spectrum of ideas. There are so many phrases ingrained in us as soon as we begin to study U.S. History. “All men are created equal” is a lofty, optimistic, idealistic mantra that we have proven is more an aspiration than an action. It was written within the context of its own time; it requires an evolution at warp speed to catch up to the way the society that claims it has changed.
A quick personal note, which again is done in transparency but may draw ire and irk: I am not a voter. Now, personal knee-jerk reactions create immediate judgement and assumptions, but the reserved and intellectual of you will take a breath and read on for the “why”. I do not vote because I do not believe that everyone should have the same right to vote, but will not hold that belief and vote, and thus, in essence claim that I can, but others can’t, and imply that I am better than anyone.
This is a “working idea”...brainstorming. Stick with me, friends.
Weighted Voting
Whether you are an “everyone should have the right to vote” or a “select few should have the right to vote” kind of person, you have your reasons and your rationales. I’m not here to really argue one way or another. But what if there was a system of voting that allowed inclusion with weight based on merit, standing, and service?
Red flags flying all over the place right now, and I understand that, but, let’s just entertain the idea. Should there not be a little more value in the vote of someone who has committed him or herself to service-of-country? Should those with a record of improving their communities not have a slight, fractional advantage of input over those who have been deemed detrimental? This is obviously a very sensitive subject and can fall off the thin line to either side with even a gentle breeze. (To be honest, I feel a little gross putting it in words). But, if there was an objective, universal scale, could it not work to our advantage?
I almost went the route of an imaginary voter comparison. I can’t do it. People are people. Good people are good people. People with a history of caring for others, and a track record of service to others, are proven assets to a society. Even if they play the long-game and put in service to others just to increase the weight of their vote...isn’t that a win for their immediate community? Fake it til you make it, right?
Age
As a Montessorian, I recognize the end of the latest developmental phase as 24 years old. Rental car companies have it right. I’m not going to dive into the statistics they use; they’re on the internet if you’re really interested.
Exceptions to the rule/things to consider:
Military service - I would find it difficult to not allow someone giving service to the country the right to vote. Maybe a minimum of a year of service, or completion of commitment, but this is not something that can be overlooked.
Community service - Like with military service, there are certain professions or acts of selflessness that should be acknowledged. A combination of requirements could expose the true heart of an individual as one who would be capable of considering the bigger picture of voting. Be it hours logged of quality community service at any level, being a firefighter or postal worker, etc., this is something that could be explored further.
All of this would require applying for early votership, but I don’t see anything wrong with including those who are committed to making our country a better place on the personal and local level into the national stage.
Citizenship/Residency
This is a country of open arms, or was meant to be. Should people who have lived here for 15 years, but aren’t citizens, have a say in the leadership of the country? Why not? Should they have the same amount of input? Maybe. Is there anything damaging about including these people in an election? No. There is no “born in” clause for The Volunteered, so there definitely is not going to be one here.
Service Industry
Doctors, teachers, political office, school board members...should we not acknowledge and reward a life dedicated to others? Should those who enlist in the armed services not be recognized for their commitment to our country?
Disclaimer: There really is so much to consider once diving into this rabbit hole. I am not the expert, or the mind, or the right person to consider all of the variations. Am I the right person to write down the idea? Sure, why not. I’m not saying that some people’s votes count double their neighbors, but simple decimal points. Should The Bracket be organized regionally, with regional votes counting as more until the Elite Eight? Should same-industry votes get a tenth of a point vote? Should prisoners have a tenth of a point less? It’s a way to give everyone a vote, which I am under the impression is the purpose of a democracy, but also attends to the differences that inevitably come up in a democratic society. Do our differences give us different worth? I’ll be the first to say that my vote, should I choose to exercise it, is not as valuable as many, many others’. The resource of information on candidates is available to me, it is a privilege, as is my ability to process and consider at a certain level. The resource of time to be used to research candidates is a luxury. The resource of having candidates “like me” is also a luxury. These thoughts are all in hopes that those resources are offered to all, making it possible to inform all voters while inspiring all voters to use the resources.
Act of Voting
Do we really not yet have easy, accessible voting for everyone yet? It’s 2020. Obviously we are all now very aware of the possibility of tampering if it's electronic, but, really? Is there not some sort of tech industry superpower that will funnel resources into developing a system that allows everyone who is voting-eligible to take part? We have rings to wear that will give you a heads up that you are about to be sick...we can’t tag everyone and electronically track this?
Retroactive disclaimer: “Tag” is probably not a word I should have used...government tracking, Big Brother, all that jazz. Sometimes I wish we could think about how to better society without having to consider the very probable “what if someone wants to take advantage of something to harm us”. Sigh.
Fulfillment of Election
In the event a candidate makes the Final Four, his/her service term is for the year, after which the candidate may opt out of being placed on The Bracket the following year. If the candidate decides to remain in the running for the following year, he/she will receive one of the four first round byes.
The Logic
These individuals have been drafted into a position of service. There is potential for it to be the worst year of their lives. I cannot imagine requiring any more service from them if they are not up for it. Some may find that they are made for the position, some may want to try to stick around to see grander visions through. They also may want to return to their civilian lives and professions. Consider a professional athlete missing a year of his/her career to serve the country. A return to the court/field may be the perfect medicine after a year of toil and patriotism. A single-year commitment may also motivate the Final Four Elect to work cooperatively and quickly to see goals to fruition.
Things to consider:
Continuity - If all four opt out of returning, there may be a lack of continuity in office. This doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing, but, The Council may need to provide a bit of that consistency in the consulting role.
Service cap - Is any number of consecutive or non-consecutive years too many? If a candidate is able to make it through that many elections of head-to-head matchups, year after year, and they want to continue, he/she must be doing something right.
Part 3 will be a Disclaimer aimed directly at The Bracket release. I want to give one more buffer of inspired distance before the names of the 60 Volunteered grace your screens and spark all sorts of associated emotions and thoughts.
Then on Saturday, July 4th, I will release an example of The Council and a complete version of The Bracket.
Following that will be a host of closing thoughts, fears, loopholes, and second-guessing. I’m sure a lot of you will be left scratching your heads, finding inconsistencies, or seething at the desecration of tradition, and I want you to know that I’m in a similar boat.
Ideally, we will finish then with a chuckle, a smile, and an appreciation for all that we do have, including the opportunity to think out loud and come up, and express, ideas freely.