We know that financially, the money is put towards the candidate from the parts with the highest probability of winning. What can we do to get multiple candidates per party? Limit campaign finance so they can afford more? What's your solution. (Think of how different things would have been if we had been able to choose between McCain AND Bush years ago instead of having either or.)
2006-09-01 03:15:17 · 9 answers · asked by Chris P 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The only way we are going to get decent good people in office is to put a cap on what each can spend. How many good people want to play the game of raising that much money..........only the wealthiest families in the US..........they enjoy power.
2006-09-01 03:19:32 · answer #1 · answered by Cassie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My opinion is that we really need to abandon the two party system in this country. The Republicans are too busy representing God instead of the people, and The Democrats are too busy chasing Camelot. Campaign finance reform would be a step in the right direction, as well as some meaningful reforms in terms of regulating the impact of PACs and lobbyists. Reforms on gerrymandering would also help. In my mind i call this People for Common Sense. The two parties have become so polarized as to be virtually ineffective. I believe there are a lot of us, whether left or right leaning, that could benefit from forming a consensus oriented party that truly represents the best interest of all the people. That party would respect the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the will of the people!
2006-09-01 10:34:01 · answer #2 · answered by C B 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any 'first past the post' system makes it extraordinarly difficult for more then two parties to function (first past the post means candidate with highest vote wins, the rest of the votes 'lose').
For something like congress, you could move to proportional representation. This allows smaller parties to win a few seats by getting say 5-10% of the vote throught the country, wheras right now you have to hit 50% somewhere to get a single seat.
For the presidency, I suppose you could have a series of run-off ballots where lower polling candidates are cut out till finally only two remain. I also think the electoral college should be scrapped - the presidency is a 'national' level figure, and should be elected purely on a one voter-one vote single national poll.
2006-09-01 10:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by kheserthorpe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This nation needs campaign spending limits, full disclosure where the campaign funds are coming from,and for what purpose,limited campaign durations,public financing of campaigns, equal spending of all campaigns,equal exposer of all candidates on TV and all media,limit campaign donations from corporations, the list of issues and factors that would be helpful is infinite! I would say full and complete audits of each candidates campaign before the election would be important by a non-partisan commission not beholden to any of the candidates would go a long way to changing the political environment of this nation for the better!
2006-09-01 10:31:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A third party is doomed before it starts. It's about Money and Power and also about PR companies that make big bucks. Think about it. Rush Limpwade is wealthy, he will not spend his money to start a 3rd. Party. Ralph Nader is also very wealthy, he will not spend his money. Bill Gates is the worlds richest man and if he wanted to be President he would be now. He could spend $20 billion on PR and you would see him on every TV in America all day long. He could buy full page adds in every major paper in America. He will not spend his money. In life we are always forced to take the lessor of two known evils. We have a two party system and that will not change in my lifetime. I don't like it, I live with it. Those that voted for Bush do not care in the least what is good for America, they care about tax cuts for the wealthy. They also care about return on there investment. Look at the Money Bush has taken in for Republicans and he is not even running for office. Cheney has also taken in big bucks. The Republicans expect a return on that money of ten fold. BTW, the President has spent about $300 million of tax payers money stumping for Republicans in a effort to retain power in Congress.
2006-09-01 10:31:06 · answer #5 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tony Bliars little ruse is to make himself a one party system -he thinks no one is noticing - wait till the next election - and don't wheel that Tax Freak McBrown out - we are sick of Scots in Government - especially useless ones!
2006-09-01 10:19:00 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Add a third party...then let the top two winners in the election rule...
2006-09-01 10:19:07 · answer #7 · answered by just me 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Overthrow the governemnt and go to a one party dictatorship.
2006-09-01 10:16:41 · answer #8 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DEPORT THE LIBERALS
2006-09-01 11:16:29 · answer #9 · answered by sidetracktx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋