Another alternative would be longer terms. Like 10-year, 20-year, or life-long terms?
I'm trying to think of an honest solution to the problem you've raised and I haven't found one that seems better. Maybe donors should be more humble, and be okay with an aid-to-the-legislator calling them for money?
A high emphasis on fundraising is risky: a candidate who wins on donor money is going to be beholden to those donors (or won't get the money next election). I think there's a non-partisan case in favor of the state funding political campaigns, and limiting how much money goes into them.
And thus we invoke the principle of explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
And I mentioned a few examples of good dictators in that parenthetical, which suggest some of the requirements necessary to get a good one.
There is a very obvious solution: publicly funded elections.
The problem with publicly funded elections is that it gives the two major parties another way to lock-out independent/3rd-party candidates. There's usually some limit on who gets campaign money based off of past performance-- and if there wasn't a limit on who gets campaign money, then people would figure out how to run for Senate, and then spend their government-granted 10mil buying ads on their friend's podcast network.
It also runs into problems with free speech & Citizens United. Michael Moore tends to get noisy every election-- and in the most recent election he was able to explicitly say: "I prefer Clinton". In previous elections, before Citizens United, he would focus on political footballs that are highly partisan, so that his support for an issue was an easy proxy for support for a candidate, but it did not violate campaign finance laws. But it did violate the spirit of the campaign finance laws at the time, since he was raising money for a film that supported a candidate by proxy? But we should also be okay with that b/c free speech? You get yourself tangled real fast.
Secondary and tertiary side-effects. :-/
> The problem with publicly funded elections is that it gives the two major parties another way to lock-out independent/3rd-party candidates. There's usually some limit on who gets campaign money based off of past performance
This is already a major barrier because the federal government provides tens of millions of dollars in funding to political parties whose presidential candidate gets a certain minimum percent of the popular vote (I don't remember if it is 5% or 15%). This publicly funded party infrastructure is what makes raising millions of dollars for a campaign possible by centralizing critical information like constituent data and donor lists. As far as independent/3rd party candidates themselves, publicly funded elections actually help them because it puts a hard limit on how much other candidates can use their financial advantage. It's a lot easier to compete using a volunteer ground campaign when your opponents aren't dumping millions into TV and radio ads as fast as they can raise it.
> and if there wasn't a limit on who gets campaign money, then people would figure out how to run for Senate, and then spend their government-granted 10mil buying ads on their friend's podcast network.
This happens all the time and there are already laws against it in many cases because its campaign finance fraud. It doesn't matter whether it's the tax payer or private donors. Publicly funded elections are worth the cost to the taxpayer of a few cases of fraud if it leads to better governance (which would lead to better protections against this kind of fraud).
> It also runs into problems with free speech & Citizens United.
That's not a valid criticism of publicly funded elections as a solution, only specific implementations and their feasibility. If federal publicly funded elections were implemented as a Constitutional amendment it would override the first amendment in a variety of ways depending on how it was worded. At that point any relevant precedent would be open to review at every level of the judiciary until the Supreme Court makes further decisions interpreting the new amendment's effect on precedent.
Don't know why it is absurd. Monarchies and dictatorships are forms of governments that either have been tried / still in power.
Longer terms is a possible solution. Think of house vs senate (2 vs 6 years). The house basically spends 50% of their time campaigning, because election year is every other year.
>Maybe donors should be more humble, and be okay with an aid-to-the-legislator calling them for money?
The largest donors aren't just humble, they're aggressively donating/investing their money into parties/people. Your suggestion to this is meant for people like Sanders who gains his donations from "normal" people instead of the rich.
There isn't a solution I can think of. To the first point, when we talk about gov't and politics, we talk about power. The pull that power has on people, the wealth that can be attained, and human greed. There are pros and cons to different types of gov'ts. Single decision makers can change directions quickly, get things done faster, but fail faster too. Democracies are made to be slow with checks and balances, but sometimes it's too slow, can't adapt quick enough, and just because there are more people doesn't make it immune to corruption.
There can be some reasonable arguments made for this to be the case. The future ruler could be educated in proper statesmanship, wouldn't have to pander to the masses, would arguably be more difficult to bribe, could focus on governing, etc.
But the failure mode of such a government seems to be much worse than a democracy's.
