Our system of privately financing elections and with hundreds of millions of dollars seems flawed. If campaigns were publicly financed, not only would we waste much less money, we would have leaders who weren't beholden to those who contributed to their campaigns. The question is, when we rely on the very leaders (lawmakers) benefitting from this system to change it, can they overcome this conflict of interest. Seems unlikely at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
2006-07-07 11:10:36 · 5 answers · asked by Derek D 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
As elections in the USA are largely bought, whichever candidate that can raise the most funds by promising their allegiance to big business will be put forward by their party, and the most corrupt candidate from the two parties will have raised the most funds, and will produce the biggest campaign to discredit his opponent, and will be elected president.
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people, I think not.
I suggest strict low spending limits on the campaigns, publicly funded, and politicians banned from having other interests in the business world during, and after their campaigns.
Also I suggest tearing up your easily corrupted constitution, and replacing it with one like this :-
http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm
One thing is for sure, the people in power will not give it up easily, as with most changes in history it will take mass public protest before the politians respond, and alas we may have to fight.
God help America
2006-07-07 11:15:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have a constitutional right to reform our government, if necessary. Recent years have proven this necessity. Scraping our system and creating a more effective governing body would be the only way to ensure that we have capable and honest leadership.
2006-07-07 18:14:50 · answer #2 · answered by Big Daddy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe if we got rid of the electoral system at least our vote would have some influence because the minority vote in states would still be counted. And we could also regulate fundraising. (Although not with our current Congress...)
2006-07-07 18:13:59 · answer #3 · answered by Utah Gidget 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is called taxation without representation. Our tax dollars are providing their paychecks, but yet they only listen to those who have fat wallets. It is time to dump the tea in the Boston Harbor again!
2006-07-07 18:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by banker lady 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
answer; it can't.
The only way to have a real democracy is to force those in office to take zero donations and to force the media to support their
conversations to the public.
2006-07-07 18:13:07 · answer #5 · answered by kucitizenx 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋