Time for democracy
by: fatesrider (M/always ahead of you) 09/27/04 04:15 pm
Msg: 7 of 7
As a few posters have mentioned, it's way past time for the electoral college to go away. Although I shudder at the thought of what would happen if it does. And it also illustrates why there is resistance to the abolition of the electoral college.
Right now, there are ads being played in 'battleground' states. Those ads are directed at the few states whose electoral college votes are needed for either candidate to win. This is because several other states are already 'sure things' to the candidates. California for Kerry, Texas for Bush, etc. So the ads seen there are pretty tame and fairly infrequent.
Imagine if the candidates had to sway ALL of the voters? The ads would have to play to everyone, everywhere.
I'd love to see it, myself. Along with strict campaign finance control laws that prohibit all soft-money ads by third parties - or require that the cost of those ads be charged against the candidate who 'benefits' from the ad in the first place and that the spending for ads is capped at no more than, say 200 million dollars FOR THE DURATION OF THE CAMPAIGN. This means from the time the candidate throws his/her hat into the ring. And no campaigning prior to that is allowed at all. This gives a slight edge to an incumbent, but not much and they would not be allowed to make campaign speeches until they declare their candidacy.
Oh, and I would also charge each candidate a flat rate advertising fee for every speaking engagement covered by the press. A lot of free advertising (generally balanced in time) is given by the media, but the medial shouldn't be bearing that cost alone.
Finally, I'd get rid of all attack ads. They may be effective, but it's time the candidates ran basing their message on what they can do for US rather than what may happen if the opponent is elected or how bad the opponent is. Let the press dig up the dirt on a candidate. At least they have to have facts instead of spin. If getting rid of attack ads impinges on someone's idea of free speech, then I propose that the candidate who benefits from the ad must either endorse or disavow the ad at the END of the ad, rather than the beginning. If we can't have a 'clean' campaign, at least we can have one with accountability.
America professes to be a champion of democracy but does not practice it at the national level. This hypocrisy is glaring to countries which wish to emulate democratic values. If the champion of democracy has a leader elected by the manipulation of the democratic system rather than by the popular vote of the people, how much credibility does it give democracy in the first place? It's time for real democracy in the United States and, finally, to let the people decide who will lead our nation.
by: fatesrider (M/always ahead of you) 09/27/04 04:15 pm
Msg: 7 of 7
As a few posters have mentioned, it's way past time for the electoral college to go away. Although I shudder at the thought of what would happen if it does. And it also illustrates why there is resistance to the abolition of the electoral college.
Right now, there are ads being played in 'battleground' states. Those ads are directed at the few states whose electoral college votes are needed for either candidate to win. This is because several other states are already 'sure things' to the candidates. California for Kerry, Texas for Bush, etc. So the ads seen there are pretty tame and fairly infrequent.
Imagine if the candidates had to sway ALL of the voters? The ads would have to play to everyone, everywhere.
I'd love to see it, myself. Along with strict campaign finance control laws that prohibit all soft-money ads by third parties - or require that the cost of those ads be charged against the candidate who 'benefits' from the ad in the first place and that the spending for ads is capped at no more than, say 200 million dollars FOR THE DURATION OF THE CAMPAIGN. This means from the time the candidate throws his/her hat into the ring. And no campaigning prior to that is allowed at all. This gives a slight edge to an incumbent, but not much and they would not be allowed to make campaign speeches until they declare their candidacy.
Oh, and I would also charge each candidate a flat rate advertising fee for every speaking engagement covered by the press. A lot of free advertising (generally balanced in time) is given by the media, but the medial shouldn't be bearing that cost alone.
Finally, I'd get rid of all attack ads. They may be effective, but it's time the candidates ran basing their message on what they can do for US rather than what may happen if the opponent is elected or how bad the opponent is. Let the press dig up the dirt on a candidate. At least they have to have facts instead of spin. If getting rid of attack ads impinges on someone's idea of free speech, then I propose that the candidate who benefits from the ad must either endorse or disavow the ad at the END of the ad, rather than the beginning. If we can't have a 'clean' campaign, at least we can have one with accountability.
America professes to be a champion of democracy but does not practice it at the national level. This hypocrisy is glaring to countries which wish to emulate democratic values. If the champion of democracy has a leader elected by the manipulation of the democratic system rather than by the popular vote of the people, how much credibility does it give democracy in the first place? It's time for real democracy in the United States and, finally, to let the people decide who will lead our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comment posts have to be moderated. Intelligent ones (whether they agree with me or not) are posted. Spam, threats, trolling, flaming and people acting like a complete, moronic, on-line douche-bag will be ignored and/or dealt with by the appropriate authorities - unless I decide to play with their heads and ridicule their comments in a post.