--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > The system you describe above is one that is the best possible > > > > democratic voting system...the only thing I would add to what > > you say above is that the voter should also be given the opportunity > > to NOT vote for second, third or fourth choices if he doesn't like > > them and to only vote for one (or more) candidates that he likes. > > > > > > > > > Yes. And in addition to this, if we were able to REALLY reform > > > campaign finance, end gerrymandering (such as have a bipartisan > > panel of retired judges do it), abolish the electoral college, and > in a democratically balanced fachion allocate congressional committee > > and sub-scommittee assignments -- doing away with the current > "patronage'/favor system, we might actually begin to have a > democracy in the US. as demonstrated by more than 10% of congressional > races being competitive, and voters actually turning out to vote > since thier > > > vote now counts for something. > > > > > > I would agree with all your additional points except the one on > > campaign financing which, I assume, is that you want to have MORE > > rules restricting campain financing. > > > > I am for complete laissez-faire in this area. I think corporations > > and individuals should be free to give unlimited amounts to the > > candidates of their choices...as long as there is immediate publicly > > available declarations of that support. > > > > If the voters are stupid enough to vote for candidates that > > are "bought off", then they get the government that they deserve. > > Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest that disproportionate > > spending for one side does NOT sway voters. > > > > I think of the nation-wide constitutional referendum asked of > > Canadian voters in 1992 in which the "yes" side outspent the "no" > > side by a 10 to 1 margin, had the support of every provincial > > government and the federal parliament (and most of the official > > opposition groups) a vast majority of all Canada's major newspaper > > and yet the "yes" side was soundly defeated. > > Sure, that can happen. Finance is not the Whole thing. But my concern > is that, as acknowledged but most politicians in their quieter > moments, they have to spend an unhealthy amount of time raising funds, > and they DO give greater acccess heavy contributors. I am not saying > all lobbyists are evil. I have been on the lobbying side of things for > some things (mostly as analytical support, not as a regersitered > lobbyist) and lobbyists can be a useful source of info, data and > analysis. But it can get so distorted by the the heavy hitter > contributors -- or networks of such -- formed to curcumvent campaign > law limits. > > I know you will puke at this, but I would seriously explore / consider > public financing for major races, equal amounts given to the top three > candidates in the last iterative voting election and a proportionally > less share down to the top 5 or 10 candidates. It would reduce the > inherent corruption in the system and give office holder back 50% of > their 80 hour weeks tosepnd on policy, not politics (or even rest, god > forbid). > > Also, A "truth in campaign ads" law to limit outright lies and > spurious untruths would be useful.
I think that letting the marketplace of ideas self-regulate is the best solution...particularly in this age of the internet where candidates will make outright lies at their peril... And it's why sites such as factcheck.org have sprung up without government dictate. They are an excellent example of the marketplace self-regulating campaigns and political discourse. I hope we have more sites like this. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
