.png)
One of the more peculiar moments of the already bizarre 2020 Democratic presidential primary was when, in the first debate, upon being asked what her first call as President would be; then-candidate, spiritualist, author, and F.O.O. (Friend of Oprah) Marianne Williamson proclaimed:
While strange and out of place in a party primary debate, Williamson connecting herself with New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern (affectionately known as simply Jacinda) helps to emphasize another issue entirely from the one Williamson sought to highlight. Jacinda, it turns out, was going to be running in her own 2020 election. But while Williamson’s campaign ended in disappointment in January 2020 (not before I had the chance to hear her speak in Louisville), Ardern was not even allowed to start campaigning until August 2020. And while Ardern has already won her election, the presidency Williamson announced her candidacy for in November 2018, is still weeks on from election day some two years later.
With this in mind, any American will get a kick out of the characterization by all of the candidates and much of the press in New Zealand who called the campaign “grueling” and “seemingly endless” despite lasting less than 70 days. I know, right? You must be thinking: “New Zealand has no idea what a grueling campaign is.” Yet, while Jacinda Ardern debates her rival Judith Collins on actual policy in a two month regulated campaign period that limits spending and advertisement, the chosen party leaders in America only bicker about each other’s personal lives and make vague statements about positions on issues they hardly have a say in like abortion. All while spending billions on smear campaigns in that ugly tradition started by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. American elections are wars of character and emotion, fought by any means and at any cost. In stark contrast, the tame elections of New Zealand feature “sick burns” about differing approaches to foreign policy, rather than whether or not one of the candidates is a hermaphrodite, as was the case in the election between the aforementioned founding fathers. Ardern’s election seems decidedly more grueling, at least intellectually.
New Zealand (NZ) under Jacinda's leadership has been a model for many things lately. NZ’s ban on assault weapons following the Christchurch Mosque shooting showed how to deal with domestic terrorism. NZ’s reparations policies towards the Maori are a step in the right direction in reconciling a dark past with indigenous peoples. NZ’s generous and stable reaction to the tragic Wakaari volcanic eruption showed how to handle natural disasters. And the lockdown, heavy testing, and early and scientific response to eradicating COVID-19 showed how to stop a pandemic dead in its tracks. With these successes propelling it, the phenomenon often called Jacindamania, for Ardern’s legendary popularity, has conquered the world. Clearly, America has several lessons to learn from its younger and smaller cousin in Oceania.
While having our own Jacinda would go a long way, our election system may be incapable of allowing someone like her into the highest offices. Which young professional trying to put down roots for a family can spare two years of their life crossing states and congressional districts to gain the support needed to win an election? What fresh college graduate can put down $10 million to match the spending of an entrenched career politician? Some can, and the stories of leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who share many of the traits of Ardern, are indubitably inspiring. Yet these stories are exceptions, and most of them end in heartbreaking losses and major debt.
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez is but one of the 535 members of Congress and ran a campaign funded by a large number of people who chipped in a few dollars at a time to make a difference. In 2020, when joblessness is staggering, our economy is on life support, and wealth inequality grows exponentially almost daily, for the people who skipped out on a cup of coffee to help long shots on both sides of the aisle like AOC or Madison Cawthorn, such excise is no longer possible. I am calling for a change in our election system. I do not have the answer to what this change should be, nor am I confident there is only one. Regardless, continuing down this path that allows dark money, long and grueling election cycles, and a system rigged in favor of incumbents and careers politicians, can hardly be called representative democracy any longer.
On the other hand, New Zealand just re-elected its young and charismatic Prime Minister with the greatest majority for her party in over 50 years. With a system of proportional voting, her party’s spending was limited to just a few million dollars in a campaign limited to two months, including limits on television and outdoor advertising. Despite all of her flaws and her hardline position on certain controversial issues, she has still unified her country in that time to receive the largest majority for her party in over 50 years. And while I recognize New Zealand is a small island nation of but 5 million people, the beauty of the United States is that the states can reform their own elections to best fit their own people. While comparing the election system of New Zealand to that of the 300 million citizen United States’ system seems unreasonable, comparing it to that of the 4 million citizen election system of the Commonwealth of Kentucky proves it not only reasonable but illustrates the plausibility of a better elections system here in the United States.
Publicly funded elections, proportional voting, limited campaigning periods, limits on lobbying, stricter campaign finance laws, automatic voter registration, universal mail-in ballots, and the abolishment of the electoral college are just a few of the possible answers to the problems facing our election system, these should be up for debate. The question I no longer find up for debate is whether or not change is necessary. You would be hard-pressed to find an average American who looked upon our election system without at least an ounce of malice. Even as a student of politics, it is disappointing to see how our lives have been filled up with elections, how as soon as one election ends, the next has already begun. Instead of leaders, we elect candidates, and instead of leading, the campaign. They look at the issues they decide first through the lens of reelection, hardly sparing a moment to search for the practical solution. This is true for both parties, all ideologies, and it must end if there is any hope for the longevity of our democracy, and of our country. My hope for the future, as this election cycle draws to a close, is that the story of Jacinda Ardern, Jacindamania, and the nation whose system of elections allows her to exist, inspires our nation to look within, and work towards changes in our elections that can reconnect the citizens of our country to their identity as Americans first, with their parties lost somewhere else far behind. If we can begin to work towards this, America may finally be ready to say to New Zealand and the rest of the world what Marianne Williamson said best, “Girlfriend, you are so on.”