Supermarket Democracy
We live in a consumer capitalist society. Our people, it is said, vote with their pocket books. Forget about the widening ozone layer, goods made by child and slave labor, threats to our water supply, and insouciant service people. People want more for less. Too bad Sam Walton didn't run.
In our past presidential election, both the major parties offered to shell out the trillion dollar surplus and cut taxes. It seemed logical at the time. But, pass fourth grade math and revisit your American History since Reagan, and you know that formula just doesn't equate. So the winner was determined by the electoral college and not the popular vote. The spoiler, ironically, turned out to be the supporters of Ralph Nader, the guy who made his reputation as a consumer advocate. Some loose change (a little over 300 votes) got caught in the voting mechanism, creating a hamstrung election and marvelous opportunities for that group only a politician can love, lawyers.
What's most amazing is that almost half the electorate didn't even vote! I read in the Philadelphia Inquirer that someone propose we pay people $100 to vote. Not a bad idea actually. But I have a better idea. I propose we overhaul the whole thing next time, and let people literally vote with their pocket books and vote frequently -- at the supermarket.
A ring-up at the register would count as a vote for a candidate or issue. Grocery shopping is something people must do anyway. You've got a captive audience. Either they vote or they don't eat. In the 2000 election, about 19,000 voters were so confused with the labeling of the ballots in Florida, that they purportedly voted for two very different brands (Gore and Buchanan).
In the supermarket, if you pick up the wrong label, you can always leave it by the checkout. Consumer package goods marketing is a wonderful model of democracy at its finest. In the supermarket you have dozens of choices. The leader in a certain category, say OTC Pharmaceuticals is considered the Big Kahuna with maybe a 7% share of the market. In politics, on the other hand, we have basically two choices: the two big parties in the middle of the road, and your brand X's. The whole business of sales promotion is built around pushing up a couple percentage points in sales. Consumer package goods are already footing the bill for their product promotions, not to mention their various special interests. So why not have them foot the bill for bills they want passed, directly to the consumer-voter. The ramifications of buying/voting for the wrong product wouldn't have the devastating impact we saw in this last election.
If somebody makes a mistake and buys Kitten Chow (which perhaps would tout an issue such as protecting unborn kittens) vs. Dog Chow (which might push arthritis medicine free to senior dogs), no big deal. Just buy what you feel is important, next week. Shoppers show their support for the candidate with their purchases, directly at check out. For example, any number of package goods companies could say "Vote for George Bush. He's for putting food on the family."
Forget about box tops for education, or school vouchers for that matter...go directly to what American's care about most: what they're buying (or not buying for that matter.) In sales promotion, cross-promotion is an effective practice. For example, under the supermarket democracy system, Marcal, which uses recycled paper in their tissues, napkins and toilet paper, could get together with other companies selling recycled products and cross-promote them along with a political issue they support. Perhaps the slogan would be "Tissues for Environmental Issues".
Buy any of the products in the promotion and you're actually casting a vote for a stated issue. To that point, Marcal and its partners might urge you to send in a vote along with a peel-off cents-off coupon, that says something like "I support The Feds enforcing mandatory no-cost recycling in national parks areas. This sale will donate x% to the cause. Who could argue with that? Imagine how much money we would all save...not to mention some more of our forests. As anyone in consumer marketing will tell you,buyers buy mostly on a combination of price and whether or not they like the label.
My proposed system of campaign and election reform doesn't change anything drastically. It just makes a more efficient system, while redistributing the power and the cash. In-store promotions last n no more than a couple months at most, vs. lengthy political campaigns. This system cuts out the PACs, annoying advocacy groups, and fat cat lobbyists. Ballots are replaced by labels designed by professional graphic designers. Messages are done by professional copywriters, rather than some political hack. Celebrity endorsers might start minding their p's and q's a bit more. And the people busting their humps in the supermarket are suddenly empowered with deciding who gets the shelf space, rather than a handful of media execs.
Way back, when political leaders touted lofty ideals and people believed them, marketing and advertising people understood that the driving principle is "what's in it for me?" Forget about "family values" -- Republicans and Dems alike want "value". Now, shouldn't we bring this principle full circle and let the supermarket fulfill its destiny : let the people vote democratically — as they really want and we truly expect — with their pocketbooks!
