Coundn't the government itself sponsor each qualified candidate itself by controlling the debates and the airing of them? This would allow more diversity in our elections and all the people could hear proposals from each candidate, not just the ones who can afford to be on T.V. The government could air and sponsor debates between the candidates and we could truly see which one will represent us the best. Now with how elections are set up, candidates would have to get some sort of sponsor to give them money in order to advertise themselves thereby becoming a slave to that sponsor. This is why, I feel, our leaders cannot represent the people nowadays. They are slaves to their sponsors and their own greed and have the parties ideals, and their own on the agenda and not the wishes of the people. The government should set up the debates between each candidate from each party and have sole control over broadcasting it. Does anyone think this could work?
2006-08-10 14:29:56 · 15 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To answer Inzuratha's question:
They could narrow it by allowing one candidate per party. The political parties could still pick who they wanted but they would no longer control the media. All parties would be allowed to debate. The candidates would have to seek sponsorship from the parties in order to participate. Anyone else who wanted to participate would have to appeal to the head of the election committee and they would vote on whether he was a good candidate.
2006-08-10 14:54:29 · update #1
The government is already sponsoring them. Forget what they say about this freedom of the press BS - the government, through hand-shaking, back-room deals, and covert threats, runs everything. This isn't a democracy that we live in. The press is just as entangled in the corruption and false sense of security we enjoy as is the appointed president. They report on what they want to report on, and depending on what group of the constituency it favors the most that day.
The electoral college needs to be totally revamped, and the popular vote should take the elections, not the current system. All elections should feature voting booths that print election verification receipts, which are in place in some areas today. I think all candidates should be required to debate - it shouldn't be a matter of freedom, because you're right: we should have the opportunity to have them lay out their positions without giving them any wiggle room.
2006-08-10 16:49:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great idea but let's not give the government total control of the whole process useless you mean the government of the people not a few giant corporations. I think you are on the right track but I would like to see average citizens drawn by a lottery have a choice on whom gets to speak. They could have a vote after they won the right to sit on that governing board and pick what candidates are allowed to speak. I think there are a few other good candidates beside the two we always get to choose from. It would also be a good idea to get people to ask questions not just the same "talking heads" we see every night. It seems with cable television and the Internet we all could be better informed. We the people do own the airways not the other way around. There is no reason why political campaigns have to cost so much. I think most intelligent people would donate a dollar off their IRS taxes to have one cable station that could be used for debates. It would nice to see more citizens seek political office given that chance and break up the circus we now have in Washington D. C.
2006-08-10 14:56:03 · answer #2 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My apologies man, I see most clearly where you are coming from now. This might surprise you but, as a matter of fact, I do love America as well (I just cannot help it): part of my family is from NY. Moreover, America is so deep in my heart it is the only thing I am truly in love with. Many people would take freedom for granted without quite realizing democracy is something you must fight for. If I love America so much it is because people like you, who can overcome their feelings in difficult situations and put freedom of speech in the first place. This is what America is all about, is it not?. No really, I am impressed with your response: please do keep up with this attitude of yours, it shall help you in achieving great things.
My best regards
PS. I wanted to invite you as a friend but it seems you have no 360 page. Can you please sort this problem out?
2006-08-10 23:27:05 · answer #3 · answered by george 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
That sounds pretty close to being against the 1st Amendment.
2006-08-10 14:36:24 · answer #4 · answered by Nuke Lefties 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a good idea. I think it could allow more people to run. They could run them on a public access tv channel and radio. It could possibly go into the clean elections bill.
How would they narrow the field before the tv ads? Otherwise we could have like a thousand candidates...
2006-08-10 14:41:24 · answer #5 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The League of Woman's Voters used to run the debates. I seem to think there got to be to much partisanship by the candidates so the League stopped doing them. Nowadays they aren't debates but televised talking points!
2006-08-10 14:38:05 · answer #6 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you want the same government who builds 'Big Digs' in Boston and dikes in New Orleans to moderate debates between hand-picked candidates?
Put your thinking cap on and try again.
2006-08-10 15:00:57 · answer #7 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have some great ideas my man, keep fighting the good fight. I for one would like to see what you are proposing come to pass, an end to special interests, more debate, a fair system of elections, et al.
2006-08-10 14:38:19 · answer #8 · answered by bluenote2k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any corrupted baby-kisser or government professional , could get screwed. India could develop into like a kingdom the place the punishments could be very extreme. Then in elementary terms a topic-unfastened guy could spend his life fortuitously. I thoroughly help Anna Hazare. persons who would not help in my expertise is a thoroughly corrupted guy and doesnt should be a individual.
2016-12-17 08:47:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Government Control and Capitalism aren't compatable.
2006-08-10 14:36:02 · answer #10 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋