The Answer To Our Political Woes...Tell A Friend

Great Debates
1

<stepping up on the soapbox>

Certain themes have come up again and again throughout this election, among them the idea that neither candidate was really wonderful, we desperately need third and fourth parties, etc.

Well, I gotcher answer right here, folks:

Make serious, hardcore, no-bullshitting-about -it-with-candyass-gestures campaign finance reform your #1 issue when voting. Also make it your #2 and #3 issue.

We elect the man or woman with the most money, basically. At the very least we elect one of the two with the most money. This leaves us at the mercy of the people with the money, because it leaves the candidates at the mercy of the ones with the money.

This situation is why we only have two viable parties.
It is why we almost never have truly exciting candidates.
It is why 99.5 % of all politicians are whores without any real personal values.
It is why our political system grows more pathetic with each passing year.

There are any number of ways that campaign finance reform could be enacted. The goal has to be very simple, though: money shouldn’t matter, either because everybody gets the same amount, no matter what party the represent, or (and this would be tricky to actually acheive) the candidates have no clue whatsoever about who is contributing.

Once money is taken out of the equation, we level the playing field. No politician is beholden to any corporation or special interest, he or she need only satisfy the VOTERS.

Somehow, we need to come up with a way to change the laws of campaign finance without having to rely on those whose survival depends not doing anything to actually do something.

In any case, when enough of us start to really pay attention to this issue, and start caring about it, we can hope to see some change…and maybe even something similar to what the founders had in mind.

stoid

<stepping down>

2

I see a few problems here:

  1. Handing out equal campaign funds to every candidate will invite multitudes of candidates out of the woodwork (take a look here for all of the ‘official’ candidates in our latest election, as well as all of the write-ins, who would undoubtedly take on ‘official’ status in an equal field). While this is not inherently a bad thing, I see further problems:

1a) Who, then, does the bookkeeping or enforcement? Or, perhaps more specifically, what’s to stop someone from announcing candidacy, then taking the money and running down to Mexico or some such? Or from accepting ‘under the table’ funds from special interests?

1b) With the vastly increased number of candidates, who can possibly have the time to sort through them all to first, separate out the bozos from the serious candidates, and then pore through the serious ones to decide who is the ‘best’ choice?

  1. How much does everyone get?

2a) Handing out large bankrolls to everyone can’t be good for the economy - that money has to come from somewhere.

2b) Handing out relatively small amounts (say, a couple mil) to everyone means it becomes more difficult for the serious folks to get their message heard by everyone (TV commercials are not cheap, for example, nor is cross-country travel). This will make (1b) even more difficult.

  1. If everyone is to be on an equal footing, how would debates be handled? They get chaotic enough with two or three candidates…

3a) …Or would the debates have to be scrapped?

Mind you, I’m not saying campaign finance reform is a bad idea. I’m just curious as to the actual methods and implementation of said reform, in order to provide the diversity you seek.

3

A better solution might be to limit the maximum amount that might be spent by any candidate. This wouldn’t bring the very marginal candidates into line with the Democrats and Republicans but it would give a better chance to serious third party candidates like Nader. More importantly, it would reduce the major candidates’ dependence on millions and milions of dollars from private donors.

4

#1) Diversity of candidates is a very bad thing.

#2) Campaign finance reform, most especially the oulandish scenario of the OP, would overturn our entire capitalist system (ie, the United States of America). I work for a lobbyist and can tell you that there are literally millions of people out there whose jobs depend on the campaign donation system. Why do you think the challenge of this election has gone so far? Do you think either candidate really wants it that bad? It’s the people whose jobs and/or career advancement depend on the outcome that are fighting this battle.

Setting limits might help, but even that seems impossible. After all, America is obsessed with excess in the first place.

5

Campaign finance reform is a tricky issue at best. It does seem like every time they set a limit on campaign contributions, somebody finds a way to get around it. Completely eliminating soft money seems like a good place to start, but there are first amendment issues. And what do you do about the billionaire who wishes to run using his own money.

Another step would be to force television networks to allow free air-time to major candidates. Hey, we (The American People) own the airwaves and certainly have the right (through the FCC) to regulate the airwaves as we see fit.

I also truly believe that a big reason that we have such lousy candidates (And I think we can all agree that we do, indeed, have lousy candidates) is low voter turnout. We have something of a spiral effect:

We get lousy candidates.
Fewer people vote.
The Lousy candidates are elected.
People say “Hey, why should I vote? The candidates are lousy!”
So less people go to the polls.
The next slate of candidates are lousier.
Fewer people vote . . .

Believe me, the major parties are tickled at this state of affairs. It almost seems conspiratorial . . .

The fewer people who vote, the fewer people the politicians have to pander to, disenfranchising (THAT WORD we’ve heard so much) more voters potential voters. How many conservatives really feel that Dubya is the best possible candidate to represent them? How many progressives really feel that Algore is the best possible candidate to represent them?
If you want to change the world, or at least the country, VOTE.

6

Steve Forbes is President???

7

The real problem with campaign finance reform is that there is no way to regulate third party spending for the benefit of a particular candidate.
For example…

Bush and Gore get their 20 million dollars under Stoidela’s plan. Under penalty of death they can not raise one extra cent.

Of course, Stoidela would run right out and start campaigning for Gore with some of her own money, and I would do the same for Bush.

Now…we have just blown the the limits because people much more powerful and with access to a lot more money are going to do the same thing.
The only workable system I see is for us to outlaw any and all contributions from anything that is not a person. No PACs, no unions, no corporations (no chinese gov’t:)), nothing but people. Put no limit on how much they can give, and require open books on who donated. No anonymous donors, no anonymously funded commercials.
Of course, then all the organizations would just run issue adds like the NAACP and the NRA did this election. I guess we are doomed because I see no way out.

8

Jumblemind:

You wanna esplain that one, Lucy?

spooje:

Now, now. You know what she meant. I assume you do, at any rate.

9

Factions, by dear andros. The Israeli Knesset is a small example. When you have a large diversity of parties and candidates, small (often extremist) factions wield a lot of power.

The point also can be made that, with diversity, a leader can be elected without a majority of votes. I cite Governor Jesse Ventura. Quite an elementary point, I thought…

10

I don’t know how accurate it is to compare the US and Israel. But yes, small groups can at times wield disproportionate power. Like, oh, I dunno . . . the State of Florida?

But I guess you’re talking about the fact that Likud is leading the fight to oust Barak? Why is this a result of factions within the Knesset? Barak made promises, he could not keep them, Likud represents the thinking of many conservative Israelis. Where’s the problem? Barak would have maintained his coalition government if his mouth hadn’t written checks his diplomacy couldn’t cash.

Yes, quite elementary, except for its not having anything at all to do with a diversity of political candidates being a bad thing. So he won with a plurality. So what? Bush is going to win without a majority of the votes, and he’s one of only two candidates. What’s your point?

11

What??!! I’m not sure how accurate it is to call the State of Florida a faction.

A comparison of any other country’s methods with those of the US will be flawed by definition. Fantastic; but I did say Isreal was a SMALL example, and I wasn’t even referring to recent events. Perhaps I should have said “small (often extremist) factions can weild a lot of power.” Apologies for the lack of specificity.

What can be compared is one of two candidates winning nearly fifty percent of the vote for the US Presidency and one candidate out of three winning only a third of the vote for governor of Minnesota. If there are even just ten people vying for candidacy on relatively equal terms, and votes are relatively equally distributed, where is the mandate for the US Presidency?

Might I also remind you that diversity of the Presidential ballot is what started the whole Florida mess, anyway.

12

I didn’t. it is, however, only one state among many, and is wielding disproportionate power in our Presidential election.

Look, any time there is a group trying to get things accomplished there will be factionalism, whether it’s a group of individuals (a comittee), a group of states (the US, UN, OPEC), or a group of ideologies (multiple political parties). In political systems with many parties (or at least more than 2 fachrissakes), coalition and cooperation are the only way to A) get anythign done and B) get reelected. So, they cooperate. It ain’t polar.

So small as to be irrelevant. If you weren;t referring to recent events, what were you referring to?

Examples? Let’s see . . . the National Socialists had a mandate from the people and no checks on their political power. No luck there. Israel? Likud wields no exceptional power. What did you have in mind?

Well, the smart-assed answer is that the mandate is for “we don’t give a rat’s ass.” But why do you assume that every electoral victor must have a majority? So a bunch of people didn’t vote for Jesse. So what? I don’t see how this is necessarily bad, or even divisive. If he does a bad job, he’ll be replaced. Why does a leader have to be elected by more than 50%?

Honestly, I see what you’re saying–it would be nice if everyone elected to public office were universally loved and proclaimed. But it sounds like your solution is to maintain an exclusive, two-party system wherein we the voters can only realistically vote for the lesser of two evils. Add that to the inevitable tendency of all career politicians toward centrism, and we’re left with Bush and Gore. Lovely.

If you think the “butterfly ballot” was responsible for the “whole Florida mess,” you’re missing a lot, pal. Do you think maybe it was the design of the ballot that caused problems, rather than the number of names on it? Maybe?

13

andros, I applaud the rebuttals. But what is wrong with being centrist? Does that not mean compromise? Have we not already seen that a majority of voters are not informed or are otherwise idiots? What do you envision as a better functioning system? You seem well-informed, so I am surprised you have not given your opinion. I would like to think diversity would be great, but I’ve grown cynical as of late and can’t think of how it would work.

14

The debates should be to the last man standing. The president will make the states who opposed him run with blood!!!