PDA

View Full Version : Why would'nt this work.



TomAbbott
03-10-2004, 12:50 PM
I look at the current political system we have in America and started wondering how it could be better. Came up with a few ideas that seem logical to me but like any idea, there are always differing opinions so I invite anyone to shoot as many holes into them as you can.

1. Why are we electing all of our political leaders based on a system that caters to the richest candidate? Does becoming rich in dollars or being born into wealth equal an automatic ability to represent all Americans most of which are not wealthy? I listen to the amounts of money Bush has for commercials and how much the candidates have to spend in the current Presidental race and it astounds me. This ties in to the news and talking heads debates about special interest groups that run this government of OURS. Seems like a big mess with no end in sight. So here are a couple of what-ifs' I can't seem to see a down side to.

We have hundreds of cable channels as well as PBS (The begging for dollars channel) devoted to such important subjects as Guess Who's Coming to Decorate, Live From The Knitting Factory, and Hogan's Heroes but The Republican Party and The Democratic Party can’t afford their own channel? I know the FCC was worried about politically biased reporting affecting the masses back in the 70s and 80s when we had 3 major networks but times are different now so this is what I was wondering.
What-if …You give the Republicans And Democrats their own channel and let them say what they want.
What-if …Any other party that qualifies with X amount of members gets their own channel also.
What-if …They sell commercials on these channels like all the others which funds the costs.
What-if …The 24 hour news channels can keep them honest or an actual FAIR AND BALANCED Channel ”obviously not FOX” can debate all sides.
What-if …All political money for re-election of all public offices is funded only from the government. Same amount of exposure for all.
What-if …No more special interest money period is allowed or needed.
What-if …Everyone can vote from their phone or internet or livingroom on each issue or major bill….OK..OK This one needs a lot of work.

What-if … to be continued
:confused:

PhinPhan1227
03-10-2004, 02:38 PM
A couple of problems...

1) Deny people the right to support thier particular candidate and you trample on those peoples civil rights of Free Expression. And "support" has always inculded monetary support.

2)The average American can't even be bothered to vote, do you think he's going to bother to tune to the Republican channel?

3)What do you do about local races? EVERY candidate for EVERY race is going to advertise on these channels? What about the independant who only has a following locally? Surely not enough to warrent her own channel. Does she not deserve a voice?

4)Lastly, personal wealth has nothing to do with the races. With the exception of Ross Perot, all of the major candidates for the last several decades have used strictly public funding. In fact, if a candidate DOES use his own money, he CAN'T use public funds.

5)If people can't be bothered to get out and vote, they don't deserve the right. If you're a total quadrapalegic, there will STILL be someone who will come out to pick you up if you want to vote. If healthy citizens chose to give up that right, $crew 'em. Democracy isn't free...people fought and died for it. The LEAST people can do is to get in their car and drive to the polls. Someone too lazy to do that is almost ASSUREDLY too lazy to take the time to investigate the candidates and the issues. So the LAST thing we need is ignorant, lazy people having MORE access to voting.

DeDolfan
03-14-2004, 02:41 PM
I have pretty much always thought that any one person shouldn't be allowed to spent [on a campaign] any more than whatever the least amount of any opponent to level the field in that regard. So, if it comes down to Bush/Kerry, Bush should not be allowed to spend any more than Kerry has available and vice versa. i've always wondered just how many very intelligent ppl there are out there that could very well actually could perform the duties of an elected office mUCH better than the ones in there strictly because they lacked the funds.

27, I appreciate your "direction". Maybe there should be some kind of exam to qualify ppl to even be allowed to vote? Plain and simple, there are some ppl out there that have no biz whatsoever in voting at all. but that's where I sometimes have opposition to alot of polls. These very same "unqualified" voters that don't have a clue at all will vote simply because they were "told" to. Know what I mean?? ;)

PhinPhan1227
03-15-2004, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
I have pretty much always thought that any one person shouldn't be allowed to spent [on a campaign] any more than whatever the least amount of any opponent to level the field in that regard. So, if it comes down to Bush/Kerry, Bush should not be allowed to spend any more than Kerry has available and vice versa. i've always wondered just how many very intelligent ppl there are out there that could very well actually could perform the duties of an elected office mUCH better than the ones in there strictly because they lacked the funds.

27, I appreciate your "direction". Maybe there should be some kind of exam to qualify ppl to even be allowed to vote? Plain and simple, there are some ppl out there that have no biz whatsoever in voting at all. but that's where I sometimes have opposition to alot of polls. These very same "unqualified" voters that don't have a clue at all will vote simply because they were "told" to. Know what I mean?? ;)


Again, it comes down to expression of support. If people want to donate money, they should be allowed to. Again, they aren't using their own money. As for testing, I'd love it if it were feasable, but standardized tests have always been discriminatory in some way or form. As it is, at least the only people who vote are the ones who can drag their a$$es out to do it.

DeDolfan
03-15-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Again, it comes down to expression of support. If people want to donate money, they should be allowed to. Again, they aren't using their own money. As for testing, I'd love it if it were feasable, but standardized tests have always been discriminatory in some way or form. As it is, at least the only people who vote are the ones who can drag their a$$es out to do it.

True, but I've always thought that because someone has the ability to raise more money doesn't mean he'll make a better leader. Too much money donated, particulary from fewer sources, potentially fosters too many biased decisions.

PhinPhan1227
03-15-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


True, but I've always thought that because someone has the ability to raise more money doesn't mean he'll make a better leader. Too much money donated, particulary from fewer sources, potentially fosters too many biased decisions.

"Per Person" limitations also reduces that danger, which is why no individual can donate more than $2000. Candidates are getting around this by having "cheerleaders"; people who go around and get OTHER people to also donate. As for the rest...does being able to give a good speech make a President a good leader? Does the ability to debate, or create a sound bite? Does personal appearance? Those are all elements which have been critical to the election pf a President. Look at it this way..."Leadership", and "Politics" both translate as roughly the exact same thing...."the ability to make pople do things they probably don't want to do, because you want them to". Now, getting people to GIVE you their money sounds like a decent measure of "leadership" o m... ;)