Proposal for cleaning up Presidential Politics

#26
#26
It could consist of 1 question:

Would you reelect this man? (check yes or no)
george-bush-on-phone.jpg
 
#29
#29
VOLatile said:
Wouldn't have enough people to vote in a lot of precincts across the country.
Click to expand...

(Sighs)

Sad but true, and I think it's getting worse.
 
#30
#30
VOLatile said:
Remove corporate ties from politics all together. I would love to see the weekly debates rather than commercials, but the public is too lazy to watch them.
Click to expand...

Why did you just say corporate ties? Unions, environmental groups, feminist groups, and any of 100's of other special interest groups have as least as much of a detrimental effect on Washington politics as corporations do.

I am not saying that people could not contribute btw. Campaigns still have to pay staffs, buy gas, pay phone bills, etc. Ads, signs, speeches, et al would still go on. The thing I would like to see limited to a large degree and replaced by debates is mass media advertising.

In a genuine sense, the parties would be nominating people who had to lead to even get elected... They would have to communicate the vision and philosophy of their party then defend it directly from criticism. Rather than depending on marketing tricks, media manipulation, manipulation by the media, and the other tools that allow someone to win because they "ran a good campaign", we would have a system where someone had to convince the country of a direction. They would have to win on merit and substance.
 
#31
#31
Electric Orange said:
If you want better presidents, then educate the voting population more so they quit voting for such awful presidents.
Click to expand...

How would you suggest going about that? Right now every word has to be crafted so it cannot be taken out of context.

For instance Boehner recently said that if budget cuts caused some of the 250K or so new bureaucrats to lose their jobs then "so be it". Pelosi jumped on that comment and used it in a way that suggested the Speaker was indifferent to unemployment as a whole. Sometimes a politician doesn't even have to say something for the press to brutalize them with it. Palin never said she could see Russia from her back yard or whatever... but many people think she did and Dems have beaten her up for something she didn't even say.

Right now you have a sizeable percentage of the public convinced that Palin is the devil at worst or an incompetent idiot at best. I happened to be out at lunch yesterday and caught a call from a "liberal" on the Limbaugh show. The guy asked him something to the effect of "are you going to defend Palin?" as if she were some kind of evil person and politician. Limbaugh simply asked him for one specific thing he needed to defend her for... the guy couldn't do it. Not one thing. He had simply been indoctrinated to believe something without ever considering the truth of it.

On the other side, the media definitely ran interference for Obama in the last election. It was so bad even Hillary complained about it.

So what would YOU propose that allowed a candidate to state his/her case without it being corrupted by media filters and the other side?
 
#36
#36
Electric Orange said:
If you want better presidents, then educate the voting population more so they quit voting for such awful presidents.
Click to expand...
This is the main problem. A lot of the masses are ignorant to what actually goes on.

Give the people a quiz on the issues, you don't pass you don't get a vote.

Obama wouldn't be in office had this happened.
 
#38
#38
Cartervol said:
This is the main problem. A lot of the masses are ignorant to what actually goes on.

Give the people a quiz on the issues, you don't pass you don't get a vote.

Obama wouldn't be in office had this happened.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The quiz should have positions without attaching a name to them. Voters should have to correctly assign at least 8 out of 10 positions to each candidate.
 
#39
#39
sjt18 said:
Agreed. The quiz should have positions without attaching a name to them. Voters should have to correctly assign at least 8 out of 10 positions to each candidate.
Click to expand...
This makes too much sense and their counter argument would be it costs too much money. The last thing they want to do is educate the masses on politics, would be conflict of interest with both parties.



I
 
#40
#40
Cartervol said:
This makes too much sense and their counter argument would be it costs too much money. The last thing they want to do is educate the masses on politics, would be conflict of interest with both parties.
Click to expand...

it would also be unconstitutional
 
#43
#43
utvolpj said:
it would also be unconstitutional
Click to expand...

It might not be if crafted correctly. Tests were declared unconstitutional because they were designed with the intent of excluding minorities and immigrants.

Perhaps we could have the weekly debates and require voters to watch a percentage before voting?
 
#44
#44
There are two major issues I would like to see addressed. I like the idea of more open debates (in lieu of rehearsed political speak), but would also like to see the following changes...

1). Candidates should have to spend more time/money on communicating their own positions in key areas, rather than allocating a majority of their ads aimed at their opponent. Personallly, I would much rather cast my vote "for" someone, than to cast a vote "against" someone which seems to be the case in most recent elections.

2). Unless you are wealthy, or have a wealthy supporter, it is nearly impossible to run for a significant government position today. In just the last 5 years, election spending has increased over 100%. Further, the incumbent's typically represent 80 - 90% of total spending (among all candidates). It's no wonder so many politicians keep getting re-elected.

A former President once argued for a ban on all political contributions by corporations, and also proposed a public financing system for all federal candidates. Yes... it was in 1905 and President Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In response, the United States Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907, named for its sponsor Senator Benjamin Tillman, banning corporate contributions. Further regulation followed in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted in 1910, and subsequent amendments in 1910 and 1925, the Hatch Act, the Smith-Connolly Act of 1943, and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. These Acts sought to:
  1. Limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections;
  2. Regulate spending in campaigns for federal office;
  3. and Deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.

What a great concept!
 
#45
#45
Why just silence corporations? Why not unions? Why not special interest groups?

The only one of your points I agree would be effective is #3.


I have two other ideas that would return the federal gov't more to the people in addition to weekly presidential debates:

- Repeal the act that made for the direct election of senators. That act created a situation where senators are VERY insulated from the people of their state and MORE dependent on money to get elected. The money invariably comes from those expecting something in return. When they were elected by the legislatures, no senator was more than one person removed from every voter in the state. You probably can't get a personal audience with your US Senator but can without much notice with your state rep or senator... you may even know them personally or have a good friend who does.

- Increase the HoR from 435 to at least 1700 seats. In 1910 when it was last expanded there were 92 million Americans. One rep for every 212,000 people. IIRC, that was double the ratio when the country was founded. Today the ratio is 708,000:1.

This simply means that reps have to raise more money to get elected and could never win a seat simply by visiting people. If we got that ratio down to 181,000:1 then the reps would be much closer and more responsive to the people. Considering that about 20% of that number would be under voting age, another half aren't registered, and at least 40% of the rest do not vote reliably... around 20,000 votes could win an election. To put that in perspective, 100 campaign events averaging 200 people where the politician could easily talk with everyone there would win an election.
 
#48
#48
sjt18 said:
Why just silence corporations? Why not unions? Why not special interest groups?

The only one of your points I agree would be effective is #3.


I have two other ideas that would return the federal gov't more to the people in addition to weekly presidential debates:

- Repeal the act that made for the direct election of senators. That act created a situation where senators are VERY insulated from the people of their state and MORE dependent on money to get elected. The money invariably comes from those expecting something in return. When they were elected by the legislatures, no senator was more than one person removed from every voter in the state. You probably can't get a personal audience with your US Senator but can without much notice with your state rep or senator... you may even know them personally or have a good friend who does.

- Increase the HoR from 435 to at least 1700 seats. In 1910 when it was last expanded there were 92 million Americans. One rep for every 212,000 people. IIRC, that was double the ratio when the country was founded. Today the ratio is 708,000:1.

This simply means that reps have to raise more money to get elected and could never win a seat simply by visiting people. If we got that ratio down to 181,000:1 then the reps would be much closer and more responsive to the people. Considering that about 20% of that number would be under voting age, another half aren't registered, and at least 40% of the rest do not vote reliably... around 20,000 votes could win an election. To put that in perspective, 100 campaign events averaging 200 people where the politician could easily talk with everyone there would win an election.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Point 1 of 3 specifically mentions special interest groups. And... I have no problem including unions on the list; I was simply quoting Roosevelt's plan at the time. The "points" you are referring to (I think) are not mine... but Roosevelt's; so you are not disagreeing with me. Unless, that is, that you disagree with the first points 1 and 2 which I'm assuming is not the case.
 
#49
#49
Yes. I disagree with #1... and adamently disagree with #2.

As long as unions can "suggest" that their members do volunteer work, anyone running against a union backed candidate will need more money. If someone has name recognition then a challenger will need to spend more money.

FTR, I have very little use for Teddy or FDR.
 
#50
#50
sjt18 said:
Yes. I disagree with #1... and adamently disagree with #2.

As long as unions can "suggest" that their members do volunteer work, anyone running against a union backed candidate will need more money. If someone has name recognition then a challenger will need to spend more money.

FTR, I have very little use for Teddy or FDR.
Click to expand...

Okay... still confused, but I guess I'll try one more time. Following is my #1. What do you disagree with? You would prefer candidates spend more time slinging mud at their opponents than communicating their own positions, values, and experience?

1). Candidates should have to spend more time/money on communicating their own positions in key areas, rather than allocating a majority of their ads aimed at their opponent. Personallly, I would much rather cast my vote "for" someone, than to cast a vote "against" someone which seems to be the case in most recent elections.
Click to expand...

And here is my #2. Again... unclear as to what it is that you disagree with.

2). Unless you are wealthy, or have a wealthy supporter, it is nearly impossible to run for a significant government position today. In just the last 5 years, election spending has increased over 100%. Further, the incumbent's typically represent 80 - 90% of total spending (among all candidates). It's no wonder so many politicians keep getting re-elected.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top