Today is a mini-Super Tuesday as many key primaries and vacancy votes will take place. The other day Kevin, poster on the blog, pointed out "Division is the single greatest problem this nation has but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Especially with movements like the "tea party" in play. They bring only negativity and disdain for the system to a process already flawed." I agree with Kevin that our political system is flawed and has created an oligarchy. I do disagree with movements like "tea" or "coffee" parties only bring negativity and disdain. It is true that the media is hyping the negative and polarizing sides of the message and the leaders, which there are no claim of one, have not been on message to combat the media.
We need more political participation by normal citizens in the United States. We need to allow all "parties" an equal shot at the ballot box. Many third party attempts have been made and failed miserably over the years largely in part to the lack of monetary support. That is where our system is flawed and broken. If people want to form parties and do fundraising more power to them but when it comes to the general election we need to do two things. First, we need to eliminate all private money from being used to campaign for or against a candidate. Secondly, we need to shrink the campaign season down to two months.
Obviously each State can establish their particular rules for the game but when it comes to our national election we need one standard. As I said, allow the Parties to run their primaries how they see fit but when each Party has determined their Presidential candidate then the following process takes over. All Parties will be required to have their Presidential candidate to be named and submitted to the election committee by September 5th. Once the election committee has all the Presidential candidate names they will be posted online and be given a brief paragraph to introduce their candidate. Between September 5th and election day in November four debates will take place with all candidates. The debates will be aired on public television so all will have access to viewing. All campaigns will be given $500,000 to run ads and cover expenses.
I understand that getting this type of reform through Congress is virtually impossible because it would upset the apple cart in a big way. There were obscene amounts of money being raised and evidence of that was during the last Presidential race with both major Parties raising record amounts. Imagine how much charity deeds could be done if the millions of dollars raised for campaigns went elsewhere.
"All campaigns will be given $500,000 to run ads and cover expenses" Is 500,000 the actual amount or a misprint? That likely won't even cover a 30 second commercial. To me, this method hurts 3rd parties because it doesn't give them much of an opportunity to go door to door and establish a grassroots movement. And with only 500K, they will have to rely pretty much solely on volunteers. That hardly seems like enough to print yardsigns and flyers for a state, let alone the country.
ReplyDeleteI agree that maybe changes are necessary, but your approach seems more like a student council election than a presidential election.
There also seems to be First Amendment concerns to me.
Chris, do not presuppose that because I said that about the Tea party, it is therefore applicable to all parties. I've stated repeatedly that I have serious issues with the tea party. Those issues vastly exceed the issues I have with other parties and I'll detail why below.
ReplyDeleteIt starts with simple concepts like their "johnny come lately but holier than thou" attitude towards fiscal conservatism. Most tea partiers are former republicans or still so. Yet, where were these people during the 8 years of Bush's run-up of the debt? Where were they when he used reconcilliation 22 times to get un-funded spending past legislative hurdles that the democrats put in place? Where was their indignation then? Because it didn't exist, this makes me think that their indignation is less about fiscal conservatism and more about loss of power. And this should never be about power, but rather what's best for the country.
Second is the outright self-indulgent attitude that none of our challenges are our own fault - but rather that the government is to blame. The claim of "personal responsibility" seems to be the mantra of the Tea Parties but at the same time, they blame the government for all that ails them.
To quote one columnist, "To the Tea Party Patriots, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?"
Third, it's the demagogic language that the party uses. The "nazi, socialist, communist, anti-american" crap frustrates the hell out of me. This language precludes any serious debate for how can you debate with someone who has already judged you a nazi-communist-fascist-socialist-antiamerican pig? This language forces people to the extremes of the right/left and makes this an "us" vs. "them" mentality when in truth, we're all americans and just want the best for this country.
Fourth is the supposed support for the constitution, but only so far as it supports their movement. Things that contradict them that are clearly defined by written verbiage in the constitution or through legal precident are just wrong and therefore it's acceptable to ignore them. It's selective constitutionalism just like many christians are selective about what parts of the bible they believe.
Lastly, it's the hypocrisy of the movement. To claim to be patriots means that you support this country, but I've heard talk of revolution on some tea party sites. I've read posts advocating hanging those who disagree with the movement. I've read truther/birther BS that makes me want to vomit because to believe it presumes one fact - that there are no good or patriotic americans working for the federal government.
In the end, this "more patriotic than thou" attitude and "more enlightened than thou" attitude are what is wrong with the movement. You can't discuss things with someone who won't at least listen and if you believe you know everything and are better than everyone else - well you have no reason to listen.
In the end, hopefully the Tea party will die a quick and painful death. I think it's the worst of american politics personified. Sadly, it will likely take the true libertarians like myself down with it because of our presumed association with this monstrosity of a party.
So again, please don't presume that because I have a massive and quite distinct level of disdain for the tea party that this in some way means that I feel that way for all of them. I dislike the other parties to be sure - but none feel my ire like the supposed Tea Party Patriots.
As to your other point chris, about election reform, it's got to be more radical than you discuss.
ReplyDeleteShorten elections to 6 weeks. Have all funding public ONLY. Have all candidates required to attend 2 debates per week for the entire 6 week process. Each debate will be publicly televised and will cover a different topic. The questions will NOT be supplied in advance so the candidates will be required to give less scripted and therefore more honest answers.
At the end of the 6 weeks, the elections are held. This would remove the volatility, money and "politicking" from the process.
Sorry to keep going on this, but one last thing - redistrict the states based upon grid patterns and not voting patterns. Gerrymandering is a massive problem that only supports incumbents and does not support a healthy electorate.
ReplyDeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on where was the Tea Party during the Bush years. Making the election cycle to 6 weeks is something I really like. Tell me a bit more about grid patterns. I agree that we should not re-district based on voting patterns because it does give advantages to those already in office.
Anon
$500K limit will not hurt the third parties; rather it will actually help. As for ads on TV, the spots will be considered public address ads thus costing nothing. The ads would be short 30 second ads that would air a certain times throughout the day. The times would be posted on the website as well.
I do not see where a 1st amendment violation takes place..please expand upon...
"we need to eliminate all private money from being used to campaign for or against a candidate"
ReplyDeleteYou are telling private citizens they can't use private money to run ads. That's a restriction on speech. Look at what just happened in Citizens United, not only can individuals contribute to have ads run, but corporations can too.
Speech+Government+Restriction adds up to a First Amendment issue to me.
Iowa has it's political districts based upon square grids rather than gerrymandered bizzare lines. They also have one of the most dynamic and volatile electorates because of this - as both republicans and democrats can get elected. This is because the districts aren't set up to benefit the incumbent party.
ReplyDeleteBringing us back to this model of squared districts rather than gerrymandered ones would cripple the 2 party system.
As to the constitutional issue that the Anon raises, I agree, but in my model the campaigns are federally funded with NO private contributions. Now citizens/corporations could contribute to private funds to support the candidate but with a campaign of only 6 weeks we would see far less impact from advertising than we do now. The speed of the campaign and the public funding for campaign operations would limit the impact of external money greatly in my opinion. Would it stop americans from contributing to private funds supporting candidates - I hope not. But would it cripple the 2 party system that limits funding and funnels it to 1 of 2 parties, probably so.
And that's a good thing.
Personally, I like the parlimentary model better because it forces coalitions and concessions. Having multiple parties means that the likelihood of any one having total power is unlikely. That forces people to bend to the middle instead of moving to the edges of politics.
And in the end, the middle is best for us all if you ask me.
Anon
ReplyDeleteAhh..I see. The elimination of money I speak of is within the campaign by the candidate and/or his party. Restricting party funds already exists and to restrict it further does not restrict speech of any citizen or corporation.
That being said I do not see where the 1st Amendment comes into play.
Kevin
I like the districting manner that you laid out. The bigger question is how we get back to that.
Well, check out Buckley v. Valeo and I believe you will find yourself wrong. Restricting and eliminating are very different things. In fact, restricting expenditures has already be found unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDeletePer www.oyez.org on Buckley v Valeo:
Question:
Did the limits placed on electoral expenditurs by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?
Conclusion:
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
Based on the conclusion provided I do not see where restricting campaigns to $500,000 in public finance and shortening the election season violates ones First Amdendment. To limit the candidates to public money would enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" as the US Supreme Court stated above. Restricting or limiting the campaigns in general elections to the public money does not mean that individuals or corporations cannot run ads or drum up support for their candidate. By taking enacting these changes and adding to it what Kevin suggested of having two weekly debates on public television without prior knowledge of the topic or questions will lead us to greater representative government.
What is your plan now? This "we need to eliminate all private money from being used to campaign for or against a candidate." Or "or limiting the campaigns in general elections to the public money does not mean that individuals or corporations cannot run ads or drum up support for their candidate."
ReplyDeleteSo can we use private money or not? If ads are ok for private money, how about using private money to fly the candidate in to give a speech?
How does limiting the candidate to public funds not violate this "the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment."
You're telling the candidate he has to use the 500K. That he can't use his own money, then.
Honestly, did you read the case?
States have to decide that gerrymandering is wrong and force their states to redistrict according to a logical pattern and not voter behaviors. Unfortunately this won't happen unless one of two things happen:
ReplyDeleteA - A third party takes power and removes the gerrymandered districts.
B - The voters rise up and force their politicians to do this.
WIthout one of those two things happening, it won't happen because gerrymandering supports the 2 party system and nothing else. The parties would never want this to be taken away since it's their control of power. Much like their control of election funding through public funds.
Anon
ReplyDeleteEach candidate in the general election will be given $500,000 in public funds to run their campaign. That is all the money they will be able to use. Now, if other individuals, corporations or personal wealth is used to campaign for or against a candidate then there is nothing that can be done to stop that.
I acknowledge the arguement and decision made by the US Supreme Court case cited. The trouble I see with allowing, even though it's within the full right of the individual running for office, personal money is that we will further the establisment that only the elite, well-connected and wealthy are able to run for office. We need to break from the two-party oligarchy that exists. The trick in doing so without stomping on the Constitution is a difficult one.
As I have state several times, I am open to new ideas and when I hear an idea that sounds promising I try to incorporate it in. So, the plan continues to evolve but the foundations of public money, $500,000, and a shortened campaign season remain. By going to only public money for the general elections Americans will gain greater transparancy to who is and who is not backing the candidates as the ads run will still require the acknowlegement of the group sending the message.
What are your thoughts on campaign reform and the two-party oligarchy? Is the status quo working?
Ok, I don't think you are being clear what you want: "Each candidate in the general election will be given $500,000 in public funds to run their campaign. That is all the money they will be able to use. Now, if other individuals, corporations or personal wealth is used to campaign for or against a candidate then there is nothing that can be done to stop that."
ReplyDeleteThey get 500K. That's all they can use. Others, corporations, or personal wealth, can't be stopped from being used. So, they 500K isn't really all? Can a candidate use there own money?
You acknowledge the decision but want to ignore it?
Let's start this way: Yes or no-candidates can use personal wealth?
Further, if other individuals and corporations are free to spend, aren't you really just transfering contributions to the candidate to a PAC and thereby doing nothing? Actually, now the candidate's name isn't directly associated with any ads, so things might get nastier?
Have you thought about how little 500K actually is to hire a staff, to feed them, to house them, to transport them? Even if only for 6 weeks.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI did not ignore the decision. Prior to knowing about the case the plan is for them to use only public money. In light of caselaw, each candidate would be able to use their own funds and the public money no additional fund raising though.
By leaving the extra campiagning to PAC's, individuals and Corporations will bring transparancy to the process. We will know who is contributing to ads and placing the ads for or against all candidates.
Why does one require a staff to be hired? Do we need pollsters? Do we need spin-doctors? If elected officials are to be representative of their district then there should be no need for pollsters, spin-doctors or a flood of campaign workers. If the candidate can stand on his/her own merit than people will surely volunteer their time to assist in getting the message out.
Getting away from the big political machines is what is at the root of this type of reform. Breaking the two-party oligarchy is the goal. Our society has become poisoned by the polarity of the two-party system. We need change and we need it now. Some of it is already being done as is evident with Dr. Paul winning a Republican Primary in Kentucky. It is just a same that Dr. Paul has to run as a Republican to have a chance at the seat. Changing the format of the general election will allow Dr. Paul to run as an independent with a fighting chance.
For the record, I was the one who said 6 weeks but I'd never have said 500k. For a national campaign that's absurd. 50 million perhaps, but not 500k.
ReplyDeleteAnd I tend to agree, that while money would move away from campaigns and into PAC's, as long as PAC's are required to list their donors and not have them annonymous, then I'd be fine with that. After all, it's only 6 weeks and in truth we already deal with that but it's for 2 years.
And I think forcing candidates to appear at 2 debates per week (make them mandatory for ballot inclusion) with the topics pre-defined but no questions pre-supplied would garner FAR more attention than advertising campaigns. And people might actually choose candidates based upon what they believe and not which party they're in.
And that should be the ultimate goal.
Perhaps the dollar figure is a bit low. I don't think $50M is needed though as we could have 10 or 15 candidates.
ReplyDeleteKevin..I gave you credit for the six weeks and did not think I indicated that you brought up $500k.
By having the mandatory debate deal is a great idea. And you are correct, if the topics are meeting enough it will garner greater influence then some TV AD
"By leaving the extra campiagning to PAC's, individuals and Corporations will bring transparancy to the process. We will know who is contributing to ads and placing the ads for or against all candidates" How does this bring anymore trnasparancy when campaigns must already disclose donors over $200? To me it brings less, since the candidate doesn't have to endorse the ad and we now don't know if they approve of it.
ReplyDeleteWithout a staff, how does one know the interests of the people they seek to represent? Leading isn't forcing ones opinions, but representing the masses. Will the public fund security for the candidates? How about transportation to the debates? How does a candidate reach the 25% of Americans who don't have internet access?
No offense, but I think you are to entrenched in your idea to see the problems with it. All you've done is move money around and created a logistic nightmare for the candidate.
It seems as if all you are suggesting then is that private money go to third parties to campaign on behalf of a candidate instead of the actual candidate. In addition, the candidate would be able to use their own funds. So wealthy individuals (i.e. Mitt Romney) would still be at a distinct advantage. How do these things change the nature of political campaigns?
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDeleteIf a candidate wishes to represent the citizens in his/her district it is my assumption that they have an understanding of interests in the community. I never stated that leading is forcing ones opinions, even though our current President has not trouble with that, nor do I see a lack of transparancy in ads. The candidates approving the message is irrational, knee-jerk reaction to the mudslinging that goes on.
As Kevin pointed out, rather suggested, that all candidates be held to two televised debates a week over the public airways will get to those 25% of Americans that do not have internet access. As I acknowledged in the last comment, perhaps $500,000 is a bit low but I do not agree with Kevin's assessment of $50M per candidate. Finding a workable amount is something up for debate.
How am I entrenched in my idea that I miss the problem? I have tweeked my original plan several times because I acknowledge I do not have all the answers and others have great ideas to help the conversation along.
By going with public funds and shortening the general election season we will bring transparency, more candidates, and end the two-party oligarchy that only seeks to divide us. I'd prefer that only public funds be used but I recognize that everyone has a Consitutional right to campaign on behalf or against the candidate of their choice. My goal is not to move the money from the two major parties into the hands of third party contributors; rather the goal is to bring more candidates to the table and remove the fund raising aspect altogether with the use of public funds.
A lot of people rail agains special interest groups lining the pockets via campaign contributions. Here is an attempt to remove that money and force it into the light of day and instead of support and making a few tweaks the discussion is entrenchment and lack of clarity on the issue.
Are you okay with the Status quo? Are you afraid that a change like this actually might bring other candidates then a Republican or Democrat?
So with your idea, the 15 candidates get $500,000 to campaign to be President. Out of that group, we'll say, for the sake of argument, that 2 of them are independently wealthy and can outspend the other candidates. Oh, and those 2 wealthy individuals are also very well connected and have tons of independent entities lining up to campaign for them. So what's the difference here? We throw pocket change at 15 people and the 13 that aren't independently wealthy get out spent in seconds.
ReplyDeleteAnd your comment on leading and forcing opinions on others is just ridiculous. You are, or at least were, talking about a national election, the Presidential election. I don't know many individuals that can "have an understanding of the interests in the community" when that community is the entire country and is made up of hundreds of millions of people.
I have to wonder if forcing a candidate into debates would even be constitutional. It certainly isn't a requirement laid out in the constitution. I would think that free speech entails the right not to speak. And not allowing them to run would limit democracy and a person's ability to participate how they deem appropriate.
ReplyDeleteYou could tie it into a condition of receiving public money, but if the candidate opted to use only personal funds combined with the ability of others to use private funds, there is no incentive. There is no reason the two main party candidates would share the stage with other candidates who likely would ganer a fraction of the vote and draw attention away, when they could just have their own debate under their own terms.
Anon
ReplyDelete"I have to wonder if forcing a candidate into debates would even be constitutional"
Are you reaching here? I do not believe that Constitution calls out a specific guideline nor does it prohibit specific guidelines when conducting elections. Parameters are established by the Constitution as to citizenship, age and residency of those wishing to run for higher office.
Right now the two major parties participate in debates, granted its negotiated to ensure their candidate doesn't have to answer tough questions. The idea that Kevin brought up mandating all candidates participate in two debates a week for the six weeks of general election does not hamper free speech. We need reform in our system or we are stuck electing the same bums over and over and over - just with different names.
The Republican and Democrat leadership fear this type of change because they can no longer manipulate the populous and continue to distract us with their charade from their power grab. The reason the two major party candidates would share the stage is beause they have to in order to be on the ballot. Now, this does not stop them from not participating in the debate, running their seperate campaign as has been the case and hope their supporters right their name in.
Are you okay with the current system? If so, why?
Why is it a reach? What in the constitution would you rely on to pass such a mandate to force some seeking office to do something? This goes way beyond procedural requirements like filing.
ReplyDeleteIt creates a new requirement to run for office. Like you said, the constitution calls out the age and residency requirements, etc.
Requiring candidates to submit to a mandatory two time a week debate does not run contrary to the Constitutional anymore or less than each State's requirements to get on the ballot. Part of the reason why third party candidates struggle is that they are not on the ballot in all 50 States.
ReplyDeleteThat being said I do not see how the change would run into a Constitutional question. As the previous court case said, "enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy". To keep our system of representative democracy it is important that citizens are informed about the candidates on the ballot. A way to obtain that unfiltered information is through the series of debates. If everyone is not required to participate then it would allow candidates hide part of their lack of knowledge or aversion to discuss them in general.
Are you okay with the current system? If so, why? If not, what changes would you like to see?
In my opinion, you are misapplying the logic of the case. The case is about what is allowed from citizens, not required of candidates. It creates freedom, not a restriction.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what would you use in the constitution to require a debate? The requirements to be eligible are laid out. No where is participating in a debate listed.
Further, each state sets up its own requirements to be on the ballot. Not the federal government.
Citizens can become informed through many ways. You are creating more government involvement.
Is it ok to require candidates to only stump via email or the internet? How about candidates can only wear blue suits? Or canidates are required to take Sundays off? These may seem like ridicules requirements, but I fail to see constitutional support for requiring these or anything else.
I don't disagree that many would benefit from expanded debates. Nor that the system isn't without its flaws. I fail to see how we can make someone debate, though, as a requirement to run for office. To me, such a requirement limits democracy and the integrity of the system by requiring something to be done that doesn't go to the qualifications of the candidate. The candidate is no more qualified after a debate then before. Voters may be more informed, but that is up to them to become informed.
I'm all for making it easier to get on the ballot, but that is procedural and doesn't go to the heart of the substantive make up of the candidate.
Again: "It seems as if all you are suggesting then is that private money go to third parties to campaign on behalf of a candidate instead of the actual candidate. In addition, the candidate would be able to use their own funds. So wealthy individuals (i.e. Mitt Romney) would still be at a distinct advantage. How do these things change the nature of political campaigns? "
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDeleteWhy are you attempting to muddy the conversation with outlandish requirements like email, internet, blue suits, or other Blue Law items? None of this moves the conversation forward.
Okay..the question was raised about the Constitutionality of requiring the two a week debate and use of only public funds. I believe it can be put to rest by Article 1 Section 4(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html):
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Consititution allows Congress to make Law that alter the regulations prescribed by States. Thus if regulations state that all candidates can only use public funds and must participate in two debates a week to remain on the ballot it would be Consititutional, right?
To Anon that posted:
ReplyDeleteAgain: "It seems as if all you are suggesting then is that private money go to third parties to campaign on behalf of a candidate instead of the actual candidate. In addition, the candidate would be able to use their own funds. So wealthy individuals (i.e. Mitt Romney) would still be at a distinct advantage. How do these things change the nature of political campaigns? "
Having all candidates use public funds and participate in debates will allow everyone a more equal footing to get their message out. Now, if a wealthier man like Romney wants to run for office then so be it. But holding elections in the manner laid out above it gives someone like Abe Lincoln a shot.
I'll have to take a look into how that has been interpreted by the Court, but all I was asking for was a constitutional foundation. It might address the debates, but Buckley still says a candidate can use private funds.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, there was proposed legislation in the early 90s for mandatory debates required for those who take public funding. It didn't gain support due to the belief that it had serious First Amendment issues in requiring someone to speak.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I don't believe we should force one to speak and still think there are first amendment implications. Make it easier for 3rd parties to debate on a national platform and if the main parties opt out, the viewers can conclude what they want.
Anon
ReplyDeleteI believe we have already moved on in accepting the fact that a candidate would be able to use their own wealth to assist in running their campaigns.
Again, how is the First Amendment being usurped by mandating that all candidates participate in the debates in order to be placed on the ballot? The mandatory debates is not preventing anyone from running for office; rather it just places guidelines for candidates to be on the ballot. That I do not see a First Amendment issue as each State already has varying requirements to be on the ballot.
Did you notice that the language you cited from the Constitution only spoke of elections for senators and representatives? Minor detail.
ReplyDelete"Having all candidates use public funds and participate in debates will allow everyone a more equal footing to get their message out."
ReplyDeleteYou should have ended the sentence with "for about 30 seconds." Then the wealthy candidates will outspend all others by drawing on their personal fortunes. You see this happen in virtually all races for national office.
I wasn't sure after you said this: "Okay..the question was raised about the Constitutionality of requiring the two a week debate and use of only public funds." (I'm not the last anon, by the way) Are you saying debate would be required for those taking public funds only? I'm less concerned about that. The "use of only public funds." is what threw me.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment issue, which is one of the reasons this didn't gain traction earlier from my researcher, so its obviously of some concern to some, so I don't consider it a reach, is in forcing someone to speak. Should the government be able to force you to speak to people to get a drivers license? What about those who don't want to debate and just to go door to door? They might be out there. They might feel a debate hurts their chances. Or they might slip up. Maybe they shouldn't run for office then, but should they automatically be barred? At what expense does this hurt democracy while trying to advance it?
Regardless, we aren't going to agree on the concern, nor are either of us First Amendment experts.
Let's move on assuming the whole process is ok. Would you have some minimum requirement for canidates to get on? From what I can tell, there were 6 major and minor party canidates last time, including Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Constitution. Those 4 were on a minimum of 32 ballots and garnered a minimum of 161K votes.
I'm assuming you would allow all of them to get public money and be in the debate. But doesn't a line need to be drawn somewhere? What about my crazy neighbor who would decide to run for the fun of it? Or the vampire dude from Mannkato? I wouldn't be surprised if dozens if not hundreds, of people thought it might be "fun" to run.
They all can't get money and I don't see a debate with 25 people being beneficial. Even if you have 12 debates total. It becomes difficult to keep straight who is who.
Maybe set a minimum for the number of states a candidate needs to be on the ballot in inorder to participate in the debate and give them X amount of money and a few weeks at the beginning of the process to work on getting on the ballots.
I'm not sure, but some restriction is necessary, I think, in order to maintain meaningful debates.
Anon
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing, that I can locate, within the US Consitution that defines the process of electing the President and Vice President outside of the age and citizenship requirement and the process of the Electoral College.
Different Anon
The debate mandate would be applied to any candidate that wishes to be on the ballot along with using only public funds and personal wealth. Currently, at least in Minnesota, if a third party candidate recieves 10% of the vote they are allowed matching public funds. I do see the potential log jam about letting any Tom, Dick and Sally to participate.
The reform I purpose, and tweeked a bit, does not prevent other people from running for the same office; rather it shortens the general election time and places limitations on campaign spending. It also establishes a process that will allow third party candidates to get on the ballot by, as Kevin pointed out, to requiring a debate participation.
Right now money rules the roast. The more money one can raise increases the chances of that candidate. We will never get all the money out of the process but this idea does help mitigate it.
OK, since I was the one to propose "mandatory" debates perhaps I should address this.
ReplyDeleteMandatory was likely too strong a word, but the debates would be open to ANY national party candidate, whether they be green or red, republican or democrat, libertarian or socialist. The hope would be to educate the populace. And givent he short timeframe of the election cycle I proposed (6 weeks) it seems like an easy way for the candidates to get elected.
Admittedly, the biggest single issue with any presidential election in the US that has more than 2 parties is the complex "electoral" model that we operate within.
I don't have an answer for this but it would likely require either run-offs if no one achieved the electoral requirements or it would require a change to the electoral college itself. Both of which would require a change to the constitution. But I don't necessarily see this as bad if it brings more than 2 parties into the system.
So Kevin, basically, it would be "hey everyone, for the next 6 weeks we have debates on Tuesday and Thursday, that will be broadcasted nationally, come if you like."? I don't have a problem with that. It gives smaller parties the chance to reach a broarder audience without forcing anyone to.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how you compensate the Networks, but that shouldn't be a major sticking point.
Yes, the parties must have a "national candidate" on the ballot to attend. I think political pressure and public perception on those who don't attend would be heavy enough weight to get people to attend.
ReplyDeleteAnd the networks are compensated by keeping their licenses and selling advertising during these debates. The airwaves are public, not private property, they only have license to use them so public need supercedes private concerns and the high ratings these would garner would likely offset the issues that the networks might have because ratings = money. And they like money.
I actually see networks bidding to have the right to host these debates.