Why do you think you can determine what information I need?
What do you need that you think they would withhold? Performance history, goals, etc…
I believe I just said this: I don’t think it’s your place to determine what information I need. The typical democratic solution is to let the public decide what information it wants and needs. I’m not overlooking the problems in the existing system, but I don’t see how restricting them to publishing one document on a federal website and allowing them to take questions solves more problems than it creates. It seems like that would make it very dificult for the public and the press to reach them.
I certainly wouldn’t be the one determining what information they give the voters. That would be the people as a whole. You make it sound as if a manifesto is a one page document. Why would it be difficult for people to reach them? Voters email and call now, discuss online, so it wouldn’t change anything there. They could have open discussion forums, online interviews. I think it deserves more thought.
Yes, I know the point is moot and it would never happen. But this is a discussion board after all.
Sorry dude, but if blacks and other minorities have to put up with racists spewing bigoted bullshit, white people like yourself have to put up with political candidates you like getting criticized and candidates you don’t like getting promoted.
If I have to put up with Aryan Nation marchers claiming all mud people be murdered, you have to put up with the Sierra Club passing out leaflets criticizing the political records of candidates.
If you’re making some kinds of campaigning illegal, then that’s what you’re doing. It seems to me that voters want to actually see a candidate and get a sense of that person. In this system, that does not happen.
You haven’t specified what the manifesto is or what it isn’t.
Because it sounds like any kind of in person campaigning is now banned. That makes the candidates rather inaccessible, doesn’t it? And there would seem to be little reason for the candidates to deal with the press. Would the candidates be required to have forums or grant any particular kind of access to the press or the public?
They can already do that. Candidates also already have websites where they can discuss their goals and track records and communicate with supporters, so giving them a federal website where they publish “a manifesto” doesn’t change things very much. If that wasn’t enough, most candidates also publish books about their lives and views. I’m not sure if you would allow that or not. Their personal lives and records in elected office are also public record.
So here is your proposal, I think:
- Candidates can do a bunch of things they already do, but possibly on a federal website instead of their own.
- Candidates can’t raise money or advertise, and can’t campaign (except for the things in point 1).
- Candidates can’t “Hollywood,” whatever that is.
Am I missing something?
No, but perhaps I’m missing something. Why do politicians need to hold a fundraiser in order to speak to the press?
They need to hold a fundraiser to get money to run ads so people will care who they are, which is the reason the press would speak to them in the first place. They also need the fundraiser to decide their positions and how they will act once elected since that is determined by who gives them money.
Well said.
Heck, for that matter, the actual candidate could hire an intern to write some populist talking points, field the questions that show up on the website, while they go play golf 'till election day.
I’ld rather see if a particular candidate actually understands the topic(s) at hand. Judging them during debates is actually a fairly usefull tool to see who the tools are.
So would the media be allowed to report on the candidates or not under this federal website manifesto plan?
Since the news media is made up of corporations, if several of the main ones decide they like a candidate more than all the rest or even put their own candidate up, would citizens be able to band together, donating time, money, and other resources to fight this propaganda?
Since they can’t campaign, they don’t need press coverage, and they don’t need to try to convince the press to carry their messages. Are individual state primaries even possible in your system? In some ways it sounds like you’re proposing in a return to the 19th century-style campaign.
And a message board for questions and answers
How much info gets pumped out by the average message board? coughstraight dopecough
The candidate can blather on to their hearts content on the message board and their platform page.
Think how heavenly it would be not having to sit through commercial after commercial after commercial, mocumentary, debate, bioprogram …
I do my research online. I ignore commercials, they are useless. I ignore numbers I do not recognize on my phone, I throw away most mailings.
I would love to get a platform page with a link to a message board and a blog, and not have to have morons pounding me with advertising. Imagine how much fucking money would get saved … no useless pols begging for money. They are as bad as televangelists.
Yes, everything is possible. I think you’re equating campaigning with fundraising.
Exactly. There are so many avenues this could be taken without all the trash. Debate is still necessary, but does not require millions of dollars to do. It’s really quite sickening, imho.
Again I’m confused as to why minorities have to put up with Neo-Nazi and KKK marches because of the First Amendment but it’s outrageous that white people have to put up with political ads and the distribution of political leaflets.
Equal time and equal access. It is the job of the voters to discover the Repubs work for the rich. But the truth should be aired as much.