7 ms·

Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other

Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Candidates obligated to participate in debates? Are you suggesting candidates have to become slaves to the process in order run for office? On top of that, you expect government officials, the same ones put into office by this process to be the ones deciding whether someone is "biased" or not and who "didn't deliver" a campaign promise. Your proposals, if enacted, would probably generate a horribly corrupt government, where every politically motivated person would take every chance to destroy opponents through legal processes until an establishment party has so permeated the government they're basically a dictatorship. As much as I'd like to believe this post was made in jest, I feel like you're taking cues from Hugo Chavez.

Volpe 14y ago
While I agree with your points, I also think there are problems that should be resolved. - Historically, the majority of presidents have been rich and white. How do you fix that? - Candidates make heavy use of propaganda, there is no accountability to what is said. Is censoring information (i.e What China's PRC does) any different from glutting all forms of media with YOUR information so other information is harder to find? This (among other things) was how Berlusconi came to power, and stayed there in Italy. - Industry getting involved in matters of state... is this any different from Church and state? Should the same 'fix' be applied?
- corwinstephen 14y ago
  Pretty sure that's what he was trying to fix when he said candidates should be awarded a lump sum of money and nothing more can be used. It levels the playing field.
MichaelApproved 14y ago
As a citizen, you're allowed full freedoms but if you're running for office, it's reasonable to ask you to adhere to certain restrictions so the process doesn't get corrupted. We ask people who hold certain positions in government and the public sector to give up some freedoms while holding their job (CIA, military and Pentagon personnel, certain contractors, etc.), I think it's fair to ask people to give up some restrictions while trying to run for public office. A job that has a lot of power that can easily be exploded. What those restrictions are, I don't know, but I do know that we should be able to brainstorm without being accused of taking cues from Hugo Chavez.
- refurb 14y ago
  Who gets to decide whether or not candidates adhered to these restrictions? Can you imagine if an "election oversight board" penalized a candidate for "unfair communications"? Jesus, that would be tied up in courts for years.
  - MichaelApproved 14y ago
    They've done it in the UK. I'm not saying it's exactly how we should do it here but it's something that should be considered. "The consequences, the judges made immediately clear, were serious. “Allegations of an illegal practice in elections,” they wrote in their full judgement, “have what are in effect penal consequences.” As such, the May election Woolas won by 103 votes was declared void, and he was barred from the House of Commons and any elective office for three years." http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woolas-judgement-lying-about-other-candidates-banned-in-uk-elections http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woola...
    - ewillbefull 14y ago
      Do you really think the UK is a good example of free speech or effective governance? Free speech is extremely broken in that country. It's so bad there that they have to work to repeal crap like this: http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/
robomartin 14y ago
No, it wasn't made in jest. Obviously arriving at a systems that could work well would require intelligent discussion of all kinds of proposals point by point. I am more than prepared to accept that some aspects of what I rattled-off in five minutes of typing could be bad ideas. It's not like I spend every waking hour of my life thinking about this. It's almost exactly the opposite. My point is that what we see today is an abomination. Perhaps the system put into place when this country was founded made sense at that time and for a number of years after that. I really think it makes no sense at all today. The Obama and Romney spent TWO BILLION DOLLARS in their campaigns and who knows how much PAC's spent. This is obscene. Particularly at a time when so many people in our country are suffering. Today you can't run for office unless you can raise a billion dollars. Period. That's what it takes. That means that there are a lot of truly intelligent people with great ideas that are financially banned from the process. Want to talk about the 1%. About wealth inequality? Let's talk about the 0.01%, the handful of people that can raise a billion dollars and, effectively, try to buy the presidency. Sick. Candidates ought to be restricted to presenting their platform and ideas. They should not be allowed to trash the other candidates with impunity and, yes, lie right and left. What we end-up with today is something I see in my house every day with my little ones: "Daddy, he broke the flower!"; "No, I didn't, she pushed me"; "Nooooo, he said a bad word". Oh, please, stop it! I'll self-appoint as an intelligent voter. I think you might be one too. The problem is that not everyone is. And the system we have in place allows candidates with money to use drive-by media techniques to cause outrage and indignation on the average voter with the aim being to gain a vote and take it away from the competition. This is criminal. There are other issues here. If you are not "cool", speak well and present well you have zero chances of getting elected. Before someone goes off thinking that I am attacking Obama, stop it! This is a general statement that is party and candidate agnostic. Steven Hawking --or someone like him-- could never become president. Never. That is wrong. Is being president about looking good and speaking well? Not at all. It shouldn't be, anyway. It should be, among other things, about their ideas, track record, experience and ability to make tough decisions. I want to get down to an election system that removes all the five-year-old crap from the process and focuses on ideas and accountability. If you can't guarantee that you will come through with a promise, then don't promise it. State it as you idea and explain the challenges you might face making it happen. Hugo Chavez? Please, stop it. We should be able to discuss an issue like the failings of the electoral college system without resorting to insults, right?

Volpe 14y ago

While I agree with your points, I also think there are problems that should be resolved. - Historically, the majority of presidents have been rich and white. How do you fix that? - Candidates make heavy use of propaganda, there is no accountability to what is said. Is censoring information (i.e What China's PRC does) any different from glutting all forms of media with YOUR information so other information is harder to find? This (among other things) was how Berlusconi came to power, and stayed there in Italy. - Industry getting involved in matters of state... is this any different from Church and state? Should the same 'fix' be applied?

corwinstephen 14y ago
Pretty sure that's what he was trying to fix when he said candidates should be awarded a lump sum of money and nothing more can be used. It levels the playing field.

MichaelApproved 14y ago

As a citizen, you're allowed full freedoms but if you're running for office, it's reasonable to ask you to adhere to certain restrictions so the process doesn't get corrupted. We ask people who hold certain positions in government and the public sector to give up some freedoms while holding their job (CIA, military and Pentagon personnel, certain contractors, etc.), I think it's fair to ask people to give up some restrictions while trying to run for public office. A job that has a lot of power that can easily be exploded. What those restrictions are, I don't know, but I do know that we should be able to brainstorm without being accused of taking cues from Hugo Chavez.

refurb 14y ago
Who gets to decide whether or not candidates adhered to these restrictions? Can you imagine if an "election oversight board" penalized a candidate for "unfair communications"? Jesus, that would be tied up in courts for years.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  They've done it in the UK. I'm not saying it's exactly how we should do it here but it's something that should be considered. "The consequences, the judges made immediately clear, were serious. “Allegations of an illegal practice in elections,” they wrote in their full judgement, “have what are in effect penal consequences.” As such, the May election Woolas won by 103 votes was declared void, and he was barred from the House of Commons and any elective office for three years." http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woolas-judgement-lying-about-other-candidates-banned-in-uk-elections http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woola...
  - ewillbefull 14y ago
    Do you really think the UK is a good example of free speech or effective governance? Free speech is extremely broken in that country. It's so bad there that they have to work to repeal crap like this: http://reformsection5.org.uk/ http://reformsection5.org.uk/

robomartin 14y ago

No, it wasn't made in jest. Obviously arriving at a systems that could work well would require intelligent discussion of all kinds of proposals point by point. I am more than prepared to accept that some aspects of what I rattled-off in five minutes of typing could be bad ideas. It's not like I spend every waking hour of my life thinking about this. It's almost exactly the opposite. My point is that what we see today is an abomination. Perhaps the system put into place when this country was founded made sense at that time and for a number of years after that. I really think it makes no sense at all today. The Obama and Romney spent TWO BILLION DOLLARS in their campaigns and who knows how much PAC's spent. This is obscene. Particularly at a time when so many people in our country are suffering. Today you can't run for office unless you can raise a billion dollars. Period. That's what it takes. That means that there are a lot of truly intelligent people with great ideas that are financially banned from the process. Want to talk about the 1%. About wealth inequality? Let's talk about the 0.01%, the handful of people that can raise a billion dollars and, effectively, try to buy the presidency. Sick. Candidates ought to be restricted to presenting their platform and ideas. They should not be allowed to trash the other candidates with impunity and, yes, lie right and left. What we end-up with today is something I see in my house every day with my little ones: "Daddy, he broke the flower!"; "No, I didn't, she pushed me"; "Nooooo, he said a bad word". Oh, please, stop it! I'll self-appoint as an intelligent voter. I think you might be one too. The problem is that not everyone is. And the system we have in place allows candidates with money to use drive-by media techniques to cause outrage and indignation on the average voter with the aim being to gain a vote and take it away from the competition. This is criminal. There are other issues here. If you are not "cool", speak well and present well you have zero chances of getting elected. Before someone goes off thinking that I am attacking Obama, stop it! This is a general statement that is party and candidate agnostic. Steven Hawking --or someone like him-- could never become president. Never. That is wrong. Is being president about looking good and speaking well? Not at all. It shouldn't be, anyway. It should be, among other things, about their ideas, track record, experience and ability to make tough decisions. I want to get down to an election system that removes all the five-year-old crap from the process and focuses on ideas and accountability. If you can't guarantee that you will come through with a promise, then don't promise it. State it as you idea and explain the challenges you might face making it happen. Hugo Chavez? Please, stop it. We should be able to discuss an issue like the failings of the electoral college system without resorting to insults, right?