Yes! I think we need a lot of reform for our voting system and that would be a great reform. I want to know more about what the candidates support and believe, NOT any dirty little secret that they have. Besides, the media will take care of that without using up campaign money.
2006-10-17 08:07:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Erin 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Slippery slope ....but a very good question. One man's negative is another one's "truth".
Of course, politicians will always find loopholes...so legislating negative campaigning techniques and spending will never work.
Want to know what I'd really support??
A complete change of the guard every 8 years. I think that career politicians are the reason why this country has so many issues. Too many private interest groups attach their needs to each and every budget and we've become a country where nothing can get done unless the skids are greased.
I don't think either of the big parties can solve the problems....not because there aren't good people in the system, but because the system itself has gotten too big, too complicated for good people to navigate.
I'd support a "draft" to serve in the government....because I think that we'd have a better system if real people could see what the government really does for us (protects us from ourselves in many cases!), and alternatively, government as a legislative body would be better represented by people who know what life is like outside the beltway!!!
2006-10-17 08:10:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I agree with much of what cvg3482 said, except that "No amount of advertising can get the US to buy a loser". I'd suggest it has bought several, including the current head loser...
The ironic part about negative campaigning is that it quite often backfires. Studies have shown that large numbers of voters cast their votes solely on name recognition, and are either ignorant or uninformed on the issues that separate the candidates. Quite often, by paying their own money to broadcast their opponents name in a negative ad, all candidates are doing is helping John Q. Voter remember the other guy's name when they go to the polls!
2006-10-17 08:14:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mark M 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
I would like to see public financing of ALL partisan campaigns down to the local level, with no paid electronic media ads from outside groups after one month before the election.
Also, I would like to see the rules modified so that if an ad mentions a candidate's opponent, the opponent's party or even the fact that there IS an opponent, that the candidate must be on screen the entire time and do all the talking in the ad.
2006-10-17 08:13:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by wmp55 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
What I'd like to see even more than equal campaign spending is fair representation by the national media. Why is it that the term Conservative republican is used twenty times more often then liberal democrat by ABC, CBS, NBC, New york times,,,,,,,,,I'm also a little fed up with Limousine liberals supporting ecological causes and then flying away in private jets. Or how about Liberal talk wench Rosie, campaigning for gun control and her body guard is arrested for an unlicensed firearm, no hypocrisy there.
2006-10-17 08:09:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ron H 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Campaign spending yes I would like to see change in that. as far as negative ads I I wouldn't like to see it infringe on any rights but I wish the politicians had enough decency and self respect to stop doing it. I feel like they are attacking my intelligence. I don't want to know who did what to whom. I want to know what they are going to do for this country. I guess as long as they are busy attacking others they don't have to worry about keeping campaign promises
2006-10-17 08:33:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
We have enough laws and I don't know how you stop "negative" campaigning without infringing on free speech.
But, if you limit spending to x amount for all, and we demand only issues related campaigning. With the emphasis on "What will they do to resolve the issue, when and for how much", we will get better information.
2006-10-17 08:06:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Campaign finance reform would be one thing but you cannot limit what the ad says because it violates our protected freedom of speech.
Give everyone a financial "cap" and you're more likely to see ads of substance if they only are allowed to spend so much money.
Still, some of the attack ads are funny...there is a guy running for MA governor right now, who doesn't have a prayer in hell of winning, but he's running one of the funniest attack ads because he has nothing else to lose.
Add is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7dfzNHfQmA
It's worth watching just for the laughs!
2006-10-17 08:09:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Molly M 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
YES. I would like to see corporate dismantling, they can tell you all that crap, yet the only interest that is cared about is the present, because there is no effect. Those who know the secret, and they mostly sit in high - high places, control the sheep. Until we get rid of currency, then we are of our own makings.
I AM. S
2006-10-17 08:50:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes and no . there is nothing wrong with speaking negatively against someones policy's but individual attacks shouldn't happen and influence the weak minded way to much . most of these commercials are who can slander who more instead of telling us what policy's they support . i could care less if a guy got a dwi 30 years ago , let me hear how you will help america
2006-10-17 08:34:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋