Because of our winner-take-all electoral system, the viable choice that voters must make is between two candidates. Frequently, the choice voters make is for the lesser of two evils.
Voters should be able to cast two votes. These will address two questions. First, who will serve in office? Second, how much this invidividual should be paid? For members of Congress, I could envision a scale between 50K and 250K.
If one does not like their legislator (but is fearful of turning the chamber over to the other party), one could vote for an individual and for a salary that is at the bottom of the range.
Politicians will get the message and will retire if they get reelected and are awarded with a small paycheck. This will provide voters with more meaningful choices. At the same time, the best legislators will have no incentive to leave office and will not be forced out (a la term limits).
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
If the politician retires after they are reelected, who replaces them? Are you proposing that their replacement would not be an elected official?
No, I am not proposing an unelected official. A vacancy would activate the "regular" procedure for by elections. Thus, in the case of the U.S. House of Reprensetatives, there would be a special election. Hopefully, successful candidates would commit to fulfilling their term. However, I understand where you are going. If there are too many mid-term retirements, we could end up with a problem. Perhaps, the pay for reelected incumbents should be voted on prior to the general election (perhaps during the primary). It might also be necessary to establish a base pay that non-incumbents would be entitled to.
Forrest