WHAT IF

[dirty dog]

Okay before I go any farther let me state for the record that I know that this system would never be viable in any fashion, but what if it was. I think we can agree that our political system is in shambles regardless of out partiuclar party affiliations. But what if an election had the following rules, do you think we would get the kind of government that we would all want to have.

The rules are:

• Two parties but qualified Independents could also run.
• NO Private, public, personal or coperate donations allowed to either party.
• The election process starts 6 months prior to election day.
• The candidates get the same amount of campaign money. This money would come from the Presidential Election fund. 6 months prior to the election the money is divided equally and given to the parties, whether this amount is $6.00 or $6 million they each get an equal share.
• They are allowed 4 campaign commericals provided by the networks free of charge to put forth their platforms.
• 2 public debates.

This kind of platform could also be used for congressional and senatorial elections with the establishment of these funds into the tax code. It has always bothered me that the candidate with the most money wins, why should it cost$1 billion to get elected. It should not matter how much money is given to them as long as they have an equal amount. I am also sick of the process starting two years before the election. Anyway its a thought and yes I know its a fantasy but what if, let me know what you think.

[john_galt]

Well, I think anyone should be able to run and be judged on their message, not their war chest. Which is a big problem. How do you keep a dishonest person from collecting money or favors? It has been said that locks only keep out honest people. You may not be able to trace the money but what if the owner of a TV station repeatedly does favorable news reporting (in essence advertising) but keeps it as news so that there is no requirement for equal time. Same can be said about newspapers, or any other news outlet. Honest people will play by the rules but the scum bags will find away around it. I believe that debates are very important and candidates should not be able to dodge around them but other than a constitutional amendment how do you make them do it? I think that there should be a fact checking service and the debate (and speeches) can be rereleased like pop up videos. The candidate makes a statement and the pop up will say that candidate opposed this plan last election cycle but supports it now.
Oh, six months is too long. That would be 1/4 of the term of a Congressman. I would like a constitutional amendment that requires the states to pay the salaries, offices, and perks of elected representatives. No more dipping into the federal money. Let Senator Hillary go back to Albany and explain why she needs a 1.7 million dollar a year office which put her as the number one most expensive office holder.

[dirty dog]

"Oh, six months is too long. That would be 1/4 of the term of a Congressman. I would like a constitutional amendment that requires the states to pay the salaries"

As it is now the election begins 2 years before election day.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

The rules are:

• Two parties but qualified Independents could also run.

That's more than two parties.

• NO Private, public, personal or coperate donations allowed to either party.

...except the PUBLIC money you list below???

• The election process starts 6 months prior to election day.

Would you marry a woman that you've only known for 6 months? The President of the U.S. is in charge of nuclear weapons. Maybe some time to get to know him is a good idea.

• The candidates get the same amount of campaign money. This money would come from the Presidential Election fund. 6 months prior to the election the money is divided equally and given to the parties, whether this amount is $6.00 or $6 million they each get an equal share.

Oh, so the conservative Republicans get to spend taxpayers money and the ultra-conservative Tea Party wingnuts get an equal amount of money. The more progressive Democrats are outnumbered 2-to-1 on the very first day of the election. I see what you did there. It keeps Tea Party wingnuts from having to work for donations. They just use taxpayers' money (and campaign against wasting taxpayers' money!).

• They are allowed 4 campaign commericals provided by the networks free of charge to put forth their platforms.

Why do you hate Capitalism and love Communism so much? Why do you hate America? LOL (I'm kidding, but just look at how you proposed to redistribute wealth equally...especially to Independents/Tea Partiests. Why should they be on the equivalent of political welfare?)

• 2 public debates.

No. Sarah Palin might squeak through 2 debates if they wired her up like Bush the Lessor. I want them to talk and talk and talk. That's how you weed out the weeds.

My suggestion: Make everybody that says anything responsible for it. Keep the cameras on the candidates. Make the people who pay for political ads say, "My name is _____ and I approve this message."

[lacrew_2000]

You have heard of public financing for presidential elections, right?

[dirty dog]

"That's more than two parties."

your right, I did not put that there would be something like a primary and the two parties that receive the highest votes would be the two parties to run for office.

"...except the PUBLIC money you list below???"

Correct the only money being spent would be the money coming from the election fund

"Would you marry a woman that you've only known for 6 months? The President of the U.S. is in charge of nuclear weapons. Maybe some time to get to know him is a good idea."

If the woman was in a 24 hour news cycle, I would learn more than enough about her in 6 months. 6 months is enough time to get to know the candidate and their positions.

"Oh, so the conservative Republicans get to spend taxpayers money and the ultra-conservative Tea Party wingnuts get an equal amount of money. The more progressive Democrats are outnumbered 2-to-1 on the very first day of the election. I see what you did there. It keeps Tea Party wingnuts from having to work for donations. They just use taxpayers' money (and campaign against wasting taxpayers' money!). "

I can see how you would think that but NO only two parties will actually run during the election and they would split the money equally. While now you have a tea party, you could just as easily have a left wing latte party so I am sure it would equal itself out anyway.

"Why do you hate Capitalism and love Communism so much? Why do you hate America? LOL (I'm kidding, but just look at how you proposed to redistribute wealth equally...especially to Independents/Tea Partiests. Why should they be on the equivalent of political welfare?)"

again the independents could just as easily be liberals but if your going to eliminate all outside influence you must then provide the funds. 4 commercials is done simply to give the american people a break from the constant political harrassment that comes during the election season when you cant go 5 minutes without a commercial.




"No. Sarah Palin might squeak through 2 debates if they wired her up like Bush the Lessor. I want them to talk and talk and talk. That's how you weed out the weeds."

I would really have a problem with more than two but if i remember right we only had two during the last two election cycles. But 3 or 4 would be fine.

these regulations could be tweeked, but I think it would provide for a fair election with a serious reduction in outside influence and would help prevent purchased elections in my opinion.

Crew was that directed at me. Which public funding are you speaking of.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

You have heard of public financing for presidential elections, right?

Yes. That public funding is paid by taxpayers. DD proposed outlawing public funding in one bullet point and then proposed that the campaigns be 100% publicly funded in the following bullet point. Knowing that as a conservative he hates taxes, hates welfare, loves freedom of speech, loves free markets, and hates redistribution of wealth...I thought his plan was a little odd. It rewards anybody that wants to run as an independent with the same amount of money as the two major parties. I didn't even point out the major loophole that would ruin his plan. EVERYONE could run as an independent. How many people would show up and say, "Yeah, I'm an independent...where's my check?"

[dirty dog]

"100% publicly funded in the following bullet point. Knowing that as a conservative he hates taxes, hates welfare, loves freedom of speech, loves free markets, and hates redistribution of wealth...I thought his plan was a little odd."

Thats the beauty of it, it money thats already there, its the box you check add $3.00 to the presidential election fund. No additional money is necessary. Whatever is in that fund at 6 months from election day is divided among the partys. You would have to set up additional funds for congressional elections. So yeah I guess there might be a little increase, but it would be worth that to prevent coperate and lobbiest influences on elections.

"It rewards anybody that wants to run as an independent with the same amount of money as the two major parties. I didn't even point out the major loophole that would ruin his plan. EVERYONE could run as an independent. How many people would show up and say, "Yeah, I'm an independent...where's my check?"

No because there will only be two parties running. There will be a party primary which would work like this. Say you have the Rep, Dem, Tea and Latte partys. A primary will be held and the two parties that have the most votes would then run for the election. It could be any combination, rep, dem or dem latte, or latte, tea, or tea rep. The money would then be divided among these parties.

Like I said this is not a finalized plan, I put it out there to get ideas and improvements.

[lacrew_2000]

Umm, DD just threw a brainstorm idea out there...for discussion....and suddenly things have gotten very argumentative. Why?

[CuteOldGuy]

As a tea party wingnut, although not ultra conservative, I'm ultra libertarian, I say forget regulations, they never work, and require full disclosure in near real-time of all contributions. Elections will always be bought, but this way we might have a better chance of knowing who the owners are.

[dirty dog]

"As a tea party wingnut, although not ultra conservative, I'm ultra libertarian, I say forget regulations, they never work, and require full disclosure in near real-time of all contributions. Elections will always be bought, but this way we might have a better chance of knowing who the owners are."

But then arnt you back to having to choose from the lesser of two evils. Do you choice the candidate bought by big oil or the candidate bought by the ACLU.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As a tea party wingnut, although not ultra conservative, I'm ultra libertarian, I say forget regulations, they never work, and require full disclosure in near real-time of all contributions. Elections will always be bought, but this way we might have a better chance of knowing who the owners are.

Errr, requiring full disclosure would require regulations. Other than that little sticking point...you pretty much agree with me. Sunshine is what we need.

[Longermonger]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

But then arnt you back to having to choose from the lesser of two evils.

You would have us choose from the lesser of two evils after your proposed party run-off.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Longermonger

You would have us choose from the lesser of two evils after your proposed party run-off.

I am not following your reasoning, since in my program presumably that has not been any influence on the candidates. In open disclosure, they can influence the hell out of them just as long as they tell you about it. So in that party both candidates are tainted. In my format the chosen parties are the parties that the majority of people wanted to run, but they do not have their positions sold to the higher bidder, in retrospect, I guess the less of two evils mantra could be applied to all elections, but at least my would not be bought and paid for.

[HeyMikie]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

The rules are:

• Two parties but qualified Independents could also run.
• NO Private, public, personal or coperate donations allowed to either party.
• The election process starts 6 months prior to election day.
• The candidates get the same amount of campaign money. This money would come from the Presidential Election fund. 6 months prior to the election the money is divided equally and given to the parties, whether this amount is $6.00 or $6 million they each get an equal share.
• They are allowed 4 campaign commericals provided by the networks free of charge to put forth their platforms.
• 2 public debates.

I like the general concept of the idea, but I feel it does not go far enough.

How about applying the above rules to the Senate seats and the Presidential election, but selecting the House seats by lottery, like Jury duty.

It would still be representative (maybe more representative of the real public), and would eliminate campaign fund-raising (with the favors expected from big donations), plus would eliminate the professional politicians currently in bed with the lobbyists.

Sure, there would be a few idiots in there (like, that's not happening now?), but they would be changed out in two years (real term limits).

It would be our friends and neighbors, and their primary task would be to oversee the budget process. They will all come back to live with us in two years, so there would be significant incentive to not screw up the country.

No campaigns, a full two years of service to the country. Coupled with reform in lobbying (felony charges for offering/taking bribes), this approach could return the country to the type of representative government the founders really intended.

We could also eliminate the lion's share of congressional staff while we're at it. A couple of researchers, a secretary; certainly not the 1.7 million a year staff Hillary had.

Comments?