How could I be outvoted if I never voted? 'I' am included in 'We', am I
Maybe if 'We' had a chance to vote he would have been. Aren't you making
an assumption that the voters in Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire et al. are
representative of the country?
Doesn't it upset you that only a few states get to decide the fate of the
country? To get a vote I shouldn't be forced to move to Iowa.
Those that don't have the money to stay to the end, lose. I know I'm
stating the obvious, but it is still wrong. Why can't all the states vote
within a small time frame like the general election? Wouldn't this level
the playing field more and give it back to 'We"?
It's democratic enough, if you're a multi-millionaire. I'm starting to
slant towards the Brit system, with a 90 day limit on campigning
before the election--actually, I started tilting that way years ago,
and this frigging two plus year campaign puts the seal on it.
We probably need to stipulate, too, that any candidate who uses more
than xx,xxx dollars of his own fortune cannot get money from anywhere
The problems we see with the Electoral College are those created by
money, not built-in lack of choice, IMO. When it costs more than a
quarter billion dollars (this time around, one helluva lot more) to
win the Presidency, it's time to cheapen the process in just about
every way possible. Sort of like making all Senators, Congressmen and
upper level bureaucrats ride in nothing larger than Chevy Impalas.
Part of the point being that if the hotshots can't ride in taxpayer
supplied limos, they might act a touch more like people instead of
bloated plutocrats, not make them easier to assassinate.
AFAIK, only a few o fthe limos are bulletproofed anyway.
But I agree, there should be a way to make the House and Senate critters
work for the good of all, rather than this narrow-minded I'll do something
for your little group, but I expect you to do something back ...
$100 per year maximum to any candidate(s) or ballot issue or combination
of his choice. This means no PACs, corporations, unions, church groups,
bar buddies, etc.
"But HOW can I possibly be elected with so little money?!", he wailed.
Well the entire campaign process lasts two weeks for the incumbent and
four weeks for the challenger.
This means that I have as much access to a candidate as anybody. Oh and
understand that the millionaire candidate can donate up to $100 per year
to himself if he wants.
This makes too much sense to ever be enacted.
How about an intermediate step? Disallow all campaign funding except from
individuals. I see no reason that corporations, PACS, unions and other
organizations should have any part in the elections. They don't get to vote
Shorten the campaigning to two months for primaries and three months for the
general election. And include ALL campaign advertising, including the
"issue" ads that seem to sneak by the election reform laws.
Who speaks for minorities in all of this? If the only source of
campaign funding is individuals and they can only pay a fixed amount
then the majority will always have the power--like minded individuals
who are in a minority won't have the option of banding together to
support candidates who favor their interests.
Imposing the same low limit in those entities as on a natural person
I have as much a right to tun an ad for whatever I want as
any politician , party, corporation, or PAC. Just not as much
Sort of like it being just as illegal for a wealthy man to sleep
on a park bench or under a bridge as it is for an indigent.
This is one of those ideas that sounds good on the surface, but when you
look at it in more detail, the end result will be to allocate an even
greater amount of power to the main stream media elite crowd since they
will be the only people by law allowed to publish "news" about these
candidates and their positions. Now, I suppose that is OK if you are one
of the "right-thinking" people who agree with the perspectives of Pinch
Solzberger, Dan Rather, or Chris Matthews and want to make sure the
majority of voters aren't exposed to any other facts or viewpoints that
might possibly interfere with their right-thinking conclusions and mess up
the election possibilities of their chosen candidates who support those
positions. This will assure the election of the "right-thinking"
candidates while suppressing the views and opinions of the majority of the
citizens since multiple studies have shown that the media hold views
significantly left of the mainstream of the population.
Yeah, let's make sure the voters have very little time to delve into
details about the person who is going to lead the country for the next 4
years. I spend more time than that deciding what kind of table saw or
router to buy -- and those tools aren't going to try to "re-distribute" my
income by taking it from me at the point of a gun.
No, what it means is the candidate(s) are going to focus the short amount
of time they have on those places with the largest electoral results. This
will lessen, not increase candidate access.
Our first amendment grants all citizens the right to assemble and free
association as well as to petition the government for redress. As the
country has gotten larger than in the early days, the ability for one
person to interface with all constituents has become unachievable. PACs,
lobby groups, etc, are a means by which citizens with similar grievances or
interests can pool their resources and provide a single point of contact
with a candidate or government official. I would postulate that for almost
any given issue, there is a group that would represent your interests, so
rather than grousing that these groups exist, find those that support those
interests you hold most dear and join with others who hold those views.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
You can certainly join any group you see fit and to pool your $100 fees.
I am sadly not surprised when people advocate a system where vast sums
buy access to a candidate. We seem to agree on most points except on
what the dollar cap should be. My point is that if it is low enough,
then Joe Sixpack has a shot at making a difference. Or at least to feel
that he is.
We can boost the cap to perhaps $250 although this is above a lot of
budgets. Extend the time limit? OK but understand that elections
should be more important than the last minute electioneering (read
cramming). Keeping up with current events and your elected politicians
between election times is not all that difficult. An hour or so per day
with a decent newspaper or the internet should more than suffice.
Again, the issue here is the definition of "decent newspaper"; you have 3
news organizations (Reuters, AP, and AFP) providing every newspaper in the
country with the newsfeeds they use -- i.e, 3 organizations (in Great
Britain, BBC could be added) are determining the news that's fit to print
and how it is presented. It's been pretty obvious that all of those
organizations have a specific bent, message, and agenda and they will mold
the facts to fit the agenda. In many cases, the only recourse many people
have is through the various PACS and other issue-driven organizations that
can provide the alternate viewpoint to that of the "right-thinking" people
in the media.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
In the first place, PACs /parties/unions etc. cannot vote. Joe six pack has
as many votes as Bill Gates, which is to say one more than all the groups.
He needs to exercise his franchise, and under current law has the
opportunity to expand his influence by attempting to convince others instead
of staying home drinking and reading the paper. All the shot anyone should
It's not money buying candidates that troubles me so much as candidates
buying votes - with _my_ money.
Please, you're kidding yourself. All we get is "My health care plan this
..., his health care plan that..." We could get these 'details' mailed to
us in a brochure or given in a few 60 minute debates. They don't need to
tour around the country like some kind of hippy rock band to give us the
'details' we need.
Did we get all of the 'details' on W? Like the 'details' of his foreign
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.