posted by iori_komei
I agree with you . Here in Rhode Island they’re basically butchering each other . . the commercial is based on the "he did this he did that” type
of commercials . . it should be based on how they think on issues and not the negatives about the person . . “ [Edited by Don W]
OK, but explain me this. Everyone condemns the negative and personal ads. They only add heat, not light, to the campaign which ought to be based on
issues and philosophies. Yet, it is acknowledged by pollsters that negative commercials work for the person who uses them. Every candidate who is
behind on the issues, may be able to even the race by running highly personal negative campaign ads. IF the general public did not respond as they do,
there would be no more negative ads. So again, what do we do when the public “eats” it up? When it “works?” It's the campaign tactic of last
resort. Cheap, and it works fairly often. It will be used as long as it does work. By the bye, it is made possible by the Sullivan v. New York Times
case. It could be reversed by a Warren type Supreme Court. Judges do count. The Supreme Court is highly political as it showed in 2000, and that is
why there is such a fight over who gets to sit on the courts.
posted by benevolent tyrant
posted by iori_komei
Get Rid Of
A-Get rid of political parties, though not creating a one party state.
B-Get rid of the electoral college.
I agree changes must be made to the way we elect our government. However, getting rid of the "electoral college . ."
The electoral college was a pro-slavery compromise to get the southern states onboard for the re-write of the Articles of Confederation in 1787.
Today, the EC gives smaller states more clout in the presidential election. They fear if it is abolished and we use the national popular vote, then no
candidate will ever visit them again. Most effected are, AK, DE, DC, MT, VT and WY. Each has 3 electoral votes. Moderately effected are HA, ID, ME,
NJ, ND, SD and RI. Each has 4 electoral votes. Somewhat effected are, NB, NV, NM, UT and WV. Each has 5 electoral votes.
This list contains 17 states (and the District of Columbia which is not involved in the amending process). It takes 38 states (given equal weight in
this case) to approve an amendment. I think it is unlikely an amendment abolishing the Electoral College would ever gain the 3/4th of the states
required for approval. Several states have abandoned the “winner take all” method adopted long ago. In Colorado I believe, the EC vote is
determined by congressional district and 2 more, at-large. In Maine I believe, the vote is divided (in whole units) based on the popular vote. No
state has tried fractional votes. I do believe Congress could enact a Federal law (for uniformity) going to the fractional vote method without
violating the Constitution . Because of the legacy of slavery, this may be as far as our country can ever go to “one man, one vote.”
“ . . getting rid of political parties well I'm for that. People should be able to run on their merits and philosophies and not follow the
dictates of an established political platform developed by a party . . I don't really see being able to eliminate political parties . . Still, as a
matter of feasible expediency, this is exactly what we have.“
Mr B/H, did you just say “Yes” and “No” to the same question? There were no political parties in our first election in 1789. By 1792, our
second election, there were political parties. By 1800, the parties had morphed into ragged negative slanderous campaign instruments of invective.
This does not mean we have to accept that low level of campaigning when we have learned better. I have always been a “strong” party man, favoring
strong discipline, versus the contemporary “weak” party system with no discipline. My short explanation for holding my position is that parties
endure, people don’t. And equally important, it is much harder to contaminate a group than it is contaminate an individual.
Why limit voting to one day in the middle of a work week? Week end voting makes voting accessible to everyone. Make the voting take an entire
This early voting is already in effect in KY and FL to name 2 states I have personal knowledge about. I voted last Wednesday in Florida. KY opens a
special site for voting 28 days before the election. In both cases, the special voting places close on Sunday before Tuesday's election. Early voting
is easy to do and cheap, too. I’m sure by 2008, all states will have early voting in place. That is one big improvement.
Meanwhile, there should be absolutely NO media coverage of election returns.
I assume you mean prior to the last polling place closing (in CA and not in HA). With 4 or 6 times zones, it is impossible to follow that rule. In the
ETZ the counting must begin when the polls close. By the time 6 PM or 7 PM arrives in the AK-HA Time Zone, it will be 1 AM in Boston. There is no way
you can keep the vote tally secret, nor is there anyway you can prevent the exit polls. Give up on that one.
Unless, on election day, you declare the whole US is under 1 time zone! From Puerto Rico to the Big Island, or the Land of the Midnight Sun, one time
“ . . enabling independent parties to stand with a more "even footing" - a level playing field . . limiting spending in political campaigns -
making all media available for an equal time to all "viable" candidates - limiting the duration of any political campaign to forty-five days. . .
these are my 2 cents worth on the matter. [Edited by Don W]
Sweet Jesus! If we had 6 week electoral campaigns, I’d think I’d died and had gone straight to Heaven. Actually, the British (and other
Commonwealth countries) use the Parliamentary system which works well in that regard. They can get rid of the country’s’ leader - say Tony Blair
who’s stepping down in May - anytime he fails to carry a majority vote on a critical issue. We could have been done with Bush43 after Katrina, for
example. Instead, we are “stuck” with him until January 20, 2009. Come hell or high water. As in married, for better or worse. Further, their
election laws provide that the resulting election cannot be held sooner than 30 days nor later than 60 days.
We could by law severely limit the time available for public campaigning. But neither the Dems nor the GOP want to do that. We could severely limit
the amount of lobbyist’s money spent on elections, but neither the Dems nor the GOP want to do that. We could open the electoral process much more
favorably to third parties and independent candidates, but neither the Dems nor the GOP want to do that. Hmm? So where does that leave us small guys?
On the farm, they call that “sucking hind teat.”
[edit on 10/28/2006 by donwhite]