Town Hall | 'You are not going to attract the best people with a selection process that puts a premium on pandering to public opinion'

Aug. 22—The prospect of a rematch in the 2024 race for president has prompted many to ask frustratingly familiar questions. Like: "Is this the best America can do?" and "What needs to change to convince others to put their names on the ballot?" Editor Jeff D'Alessio asked that of some of those with strong opinions on the matter.

LANDON PARVIN Champaign High and UI grad served as speechwriter for three presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush

"Years ago, I would go to the National Press Club in Washington once or twice a week to hear the various luncheon speakers. In the late 1970s, I went to hear the ABC News anchor, Howard K. Smith.

"He said that the political process was so broken that the only way to overcome the gridlock and lethargy was to go to a parliamentary system, which was a pessimistic message to hear. Not more than a year or two later, Ronald Reagan was elected, and the U.S. soon regained faith in itself again.

"So, I am skeptical about the need for 'change in the process.' At one point, I thought that the way to get the best candidates was to go back to an older system, before all the emphasis on caucuses and primaries, and give the party structure a greater role in selecting candidates.

"The party insiders know who the con men, the incompetents, the idealogues and the goofballs are. But the parties themselves have temporarily, at least, become captured by their wings.

"Democracy does not need 'the best of the best.' That is a meritocracy. We need well-meaning people seeking progress. All it takes is one leader to show the way. His or her success will serve as the template for the others who are coming along.

"I think leadership is more important than process."

ALEX KEYSSAR Harvard professor of history and social policy's book, 'The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States,' was a 2001 Pulitzer finalist

"First, our system of nominating candidates — or getting candidates' names on the ballot — is extremely complex and requires candidates to have access to very substantial financial resources.

"The rules for candidates getting onto the primary ballots vary from state to state, compelling a campaign to have an abundance of lawyers on its payrolls; and the state-by-state process also requires major funds for advertising, etc.

"Second, part of what this means is that prospective attractive candidates who don't have a substantial, or gargantuan, appetite for fundraising — for spending time and energy with donors, especially big donors — may be, and I think are, less inclined to run.

"Having good ideas and a bit of charisma is unlikely to yield a successful candidacy. If primary campaigns were shorter in duration, and more focused geographically, the burdens of fundraising would be lessened.

"Third, a more difficult problem to solve — but still a problem — has to do with the personality types drawn to presidential politics; or relatedly, the types who would be averse to getting involved in a process that involves so much scrutiny, such loss of privacy, so much public hostility.

"We need to ask if our system really selects for the 'best of the best.' It surely doesn't look that way."

MICHAEL STEELE First African American to chair Republican National Committee (2009-11)

"In short, we are where we are because the American people want to be here. The idea that somehow 'we the people' no longer control or have influence over our political systems or government is ludicrous.

"The founders explicitly gave us the power and control. This ain't a government of, by or for a particular branch or agency.

"In my estimation, we've grown lazy in our responsibilities and have relied too heavily on elected officials who have little interest in solving problems but rather promoting themselves. Again, something we allow because we don't un-elect them.

"If we want the best of the best, then we begin by eliminating the primary process, which has contributed precipitously to the decline in electoral choices — edging out rational candidates for extreme numbnuts — and replace it with Final Five voting or Ranked Choice voting.

"Secondly, we move off a gerrymandered system to one overseen by neutral bodies — commissions — which have little vested interest in which party controls but rather in drawing lines which offer the greatest representation of the citizens.

"Again, these tools can be put in place the moment we decide we want to change the game and start electing candidates who will actually serve the people."

STEPHEN KNOTT Emeritus professor of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College whose books include 2019's 'The Lost Soul of the American Presidency: The Decline into Demagoguery and the Prospects for Renewal'

"We have created a system of presidential selection that rewards those who practice, as Alexander Hamilton put it, 'the little arts of popularity.' You are not going to attract the best people with a selection process that puts a premium on pandering to public opinion.

"The ability to 'fire up the base' is not a prescription either for attracting talented candidates or formulating coherent policy.

"My solution would be to return to elements of the presidential selection process that prevailed throughout much of the 19th century, where party leaders played a significant role in selecting presidential nominees. These party leaders sometimes selected mediocrities, but at least these presidents did no harm, unlike a recent president.

"These leaders knew who the candidates were who possessed the temperament and the intelligence — and they knew who had drinking problems or other disqualifying issues — to be president, more often than not.

"We've democratized the process so much that you don't even have to be a party member to secure a party nomination, as (Donald) Trump demonstrated and Bernie Sanders almost did. It seems to me that at a bare minimum, you should be a member of the party you want to lead.

"The guard rails are all gone in terms of weaning out those who should be nowhere near the Oval Office.

"The old smoke-filled room had its drawbacks, but I'd much rather have that system back than the one that allows anyone with high name recognition to toss their hat into the ring. That's a situation that allows charlatans and demagogues to rise to the top.

"If Alexander Hamilton and other founders were to come back today, they would warn us that history proves that demagogues are a perennial threat to self-government."