Fixing Elections

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jan 29 2007, 07:00 PM) [snapback]382602[/snapback]</div>

I see a problem here: If you don't like a candidate you send him a contribution for $1 and then you send him an annonymous letter informing him that so-and-so had donated $1 to him. Under the above provision, that candidate would be executed.

Come to think of it, maybe that's not such a bad idea after all. All the politicians would be executed, and everybody would be afraid to run for office and government would disappear. The whithering away of the state.

Seriously, you have addressed only half the problem: The buying of the candidate's support for a specific legislating agenda by lobbyists.

The other half is the use of big money to buy campaign ads by groups who want to get politicians of known leanings into office.

I prefer a different approach: Free speech is not absolute and never has been. The old bit about crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I would place campaign advertising in the same category and outlaw it entirely. Instead give every candidate half an hour on TV every week for the 2 months before the election, and every day for the week before, plus a column in each city's major newspaper on the same schedule. And then severe prison terms for anyone violating the restriction on political advertising.

 

I've got a better idea.

No money at all.

Not to candidates. Not to political parties. Not to any for anything remotely political. Not candidates, not issues.

Each candidate gets the same set amount of money to run. Oh, and you can't use any of your own money. So everyone has only, say $10,000. That's it. No commercials, no advertising, no mailers, no flyers. With those restrictinos $10,000 should be plenty. Pretty much just to support you as you go around shaking hands and making speeches during a SHORT campaign. Make it work.

As for the propositions, you read the for and against in the voters pamphlet and that's it. No commecials, no advertising, no mailers, no flyers.

What we need is as even a playing field as possible. So newspapers and TV news better be VERY careful what "news" they report.

 

I agree with Godiva on the no-money part. But in a nation our size, personally shaking hands and giving unreported speeches is insufficient to allow all the voters to learn about a candidate.

That's why I advocate limited and equal TV time and newspaper space to all candidates. TV time, however, may not be used for produced commercials. It may only be used to show the candidate speaking. Debates should also be held and televised and reported as printed transcripts in the newspaper. But every debate must allow every candidate for the office in question to participate.

 

Where we agree, is that meaningful election reform is very unlikely. But I think a reform that punishes candidates for finding out who their contributors are (even if the punishment were less draconian than you suggest) is less likely than real financial reform, because the lawmakers are themselves perennial candidates, and they're not going to pass a law that could punish them.

Bottom line: With the exception of the occasional socialist revolution, governments have always been run by the rich for the benefit of the rich. In the 18th century someone decided that democracy was the morally correct way to run a country, so the rich had to come up with mechanisms that would allow them to keep their power while giving the people the impression that leaders were being popularly chosen. To give credit where credit is due, they have built a system that assures their control over government while leaving the majority of the population fooled into thinking they have a real say in public matters. No small achievement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Feb 2 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]384398[/snapback]</div>

I think that is true moreso when there is a Democratic President like Clinton - he fooled everyone :lol:

Who was that someone btw who decided on democracy in the 18th century - i missed that one in history class? Would you have preferred sharia law or perhaps monarcy rule?

And how do they do that with fooling the people on election day that they actually voted for the winner or the loser? Do you think the moon landings were fake too?

And finally, I guess you are assuming the elections last year were meaningless - I mean with the Dems taking control of the Congress. That could be true given their lack of conviction and honesty.