The Presidential Election of 2048 will be here before we know it. Let’s get ready for it now!

As always, the best way to get ready for the future is to survey the wisdom of the past.

When looking for guidance from the ancients on governance, the best possible source is Aristotle.

In Politics the Greek philosopher Aristotle wisely wrote that we human beings should strive to achieve happiness and that the most important factor in that equation is the correct political formulation leading to the best government.

Aristotle’s simple but profound realization was that the number of people in the ruling body (One, a few, or many) does not determine the value of any form of government.  The correct way to proceed is to determine whose interests the governing body would serve. For Aristotle, a ruling body of one might be a “true form” (Monarchy) or a “defective form” (Tyranny). Likewise, government by a few could assume either a correct and beneficial form (Aristocracy) or be destructive and flawed (Oligarchy). Finally, a governing body of the many could be acceptable (Polity) if it works in the interests of everyone, or unacceptable (Democracy) when it functions based on Majority Rules and not the overall Common Good. By Democracy, Aristotle had in mind a government that only serves the needs of the poor, but his same arguments apply equally to a government that only serves the needs of the rich.

Here in America, we elect a President every four years, not a monarch and certainly not a tyrant. We do this by popular vote. Editorial Note: If you think the votes are not counted in the best possible manner, just work to rearrange the way we count votes before the next election; but don’t try to do this retroactively, in a naked and obscene power grab. That would not serve the Common Good.

We can’t change the way we elect our President overnight, but we can start to make positive changes now.

Proposal one: Let’s fix this mess by the Presidential election in 2048.

Proposal two: Get rid of Popular Elections! Popular elections in which people vote their own limited self-interest are flawed elections. We need instead election processes that favor the candidate who best stands for the policies that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.

Policies matter, and policies can be evaluated on whether or not they support the Common Good. We could, for instance, elevate policies that promote efficient spending and avoid profligacy and waste. Furthermore, we could emphasize policies that promote the entrepreneurial spirit and competitiveness as well. Those are just two examples. Once a list of policy objectives, such as those, have been established, we will have a firmer footing on which to stand.

Proposal three: Stop limiting the field of candidates to just the two hand-picked by the two biggest political parties. We don’t need an arbitrary litmus test, and we don’t need the quadrennial circus known as the Election Campaign.

Before 2048 announcements of a commitment to run could be made well in advance. Voters could Like or Dislike. As a matter of convenience, only the top twenty in terms of Likes would move on to the final contest. This preliminary stage would eliminate all frivolous and ridiculous candidates.

A month before the election, the surviving candidates could make their case in a video for us to watch. They should be required to answer a set of Common Good policy questions, going on the record and establishing a platform.

Candidates would get high marks for promising to work within a fixed budget. That would be good. Candidate who come up with viable and manageable plans for eliminating social discord would be good. Candidates who clearly enunciate a plan for foreign aid and foreign involvement would be good. With today’s technology the candidates could also be given a sincerity rating to help us evaluate our level of trust in their platform statements. If we want, we could keep the current citizenship and age requirements. The candidate with the best Common Good platform and highest ratings would win.

Proposed four: Stop trying to jigger the process by the use of arbitrary and secondary election bodies such as the Electoral College. The only deciding factor we need is the Will of the People!

Conclusion: The Presidents must exemplify inclusiveness and promote moderation, qualities that have not always been evident recently.

The Republicans are absolutely correct to put the brakes on spending. Fiscal conservation is the only way to right the ship of state for the Common Good.

The Democrats are absolutely right to support policies that lend a helping hand to the disadvantaged and the poor. Noblesse Oblige! We must remain united! A moderate stance on social issues is a very necessary step forward.

We, as voters, need to ask ourselves only one question before casting our ballots: Which candidate will best defend the ideal of governing in the interests of the Common Good.

Stop arguing and seek the middle ground my friends.