Comment on ONE of the following topics:
1) Do you prefer a minor (third) party to the two main parties that dominate our political system? Which is it? Why do you like that party? Does your party have a chance at winning in the US?
2) How could we radically change our campaign system to remove the influence of money?
3) What do you think the Democrats do right? What do you think the Republicans do right? What do you think the Democrats do wrong? What do you think the Republicans do wrong? (Must answer ALL parts of that question for credit, so if you cannot think of a single thing the ____ party does right because you're such an ardent _______, choose a different topic!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I have a hard time with saying any of them doing much right, here goes anyway. The republicans tend to take care of big business by giving tax breaks or incentive packages. They believe this will have a trickle down affect, making prices lower, keeping taxes down and creating more jobs by giving business more capitol for reinvesting into the business. Lately however, this has blown up in our faces especially with the energy costs going up as they are. But, look at those ugly profit margins being enjoyed by the energy companies, on the backs of us little consumers. They are against abortion but for the death penalty, huh?! Ok, now for the democrats who are the party of the little guy, yeah right. Democrats vote for the same tax incentives that republicans do and also enjoy the same campaign funding from the same people as the republicans do. But, democrats do like to raise taxes on everybody. Democrats have been the party that protects our civil rights and stand up when our civil liberties are being eroded. Independents are the new guys, in a way. There are becoming more and more of independents as elected officials all the time. I like the idea of many parties I think we need to shake up things a little, thereby keeping politicians honest or at least on their toes. Libertarians are strange to me in that they are against all government, taxes, entitlement programs, or any government regulation. I don’t think I would like a world like they want. However, I would like the tax bill, for nothing! The greens are the good guys. They are for saving the world from man. I think if they could they would vote man out of existence. Sometimes that sounds like a good idea to me.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we were able to remove the influence of money from the campaign process! Indeed, this would be a radical change. First, a strict accounting of campaign contributions and spending would have to be undertaken. I don't mean the way we've been doing it for years, I mean a real accounting, independent of government agencies. Secondly, campaign contributions from corporations, interest groups and the like would have a strict limit. The limit should be such that any business or group would be able to contribute without stretching their budget. Read into that LOW. Together, accounting and contribution limits, a modicum of influence may be averted. Third, all advertising done by or on behalf of candidates or issues has to be equally available to all and (this is the part that's going to be toughest of all)offered at significantly reduced cost. I see this as having a two-fold effect. One, candidates can all afford the advertising and two, media corporations wouldn't make nearly the revenue, making campaign advertising less of a profit potential, thereby lessening the influence of the media on campaigns. By no stretch of the imagination would this be an easy change. No doubt, this would be radical. Media outlets would balk at the loss of revenue, candidates would lose an advantage of excessive moneys to "out campaign" the opponent and corporations and interest groups would lose their financial clout. In addition, violations of these guidelines would have to realize real punishments. These punishments could range from a curtailment of campaign advertising to a forced withdrawl from the race altogether. I can also see arguments against this kind of reform. Each of the suggestions is wide open to abuse and covert financing of a candidate. That is why I stress independent accounting to lessen the opportunities for abuse. In addition, these regulations could be construed as violating the rights of media corporations to run business as they see fit. For any kind of campaign finance reform to take place though, radical ideas have to be made and examined. It took some pretty radical ideas to enact change in the Progressive Era. It can happen again if the American people say "enough is enough".
Ch. 8 #2
Again, I will talk about my small town of Bath Co. where just about all the elected officials are in jail or getting ready to go for vote buying and jury tampering. The campaign system in my town has always been who has the most money wins. As most of you all know, this happens everywhere, its just that most are not as blunt as mine. This incident happened with the local primary election in 2006. Can you imagine what is going on in the national elections? In order for this to stop in my hometown, towns across Kentucky and in national elections, I feel that the first step would be to minimize the number of candidates running for an office. A few years ago in my hometown, there were seven candidates that were running for sheriff. For those of you who do not know, Bath County does not have a huge population (sorry, I do not know the exact number). However, seven candidates running for sheriff is ridiculous. The money that is handed to these candidates for their campaigns by the citizens of Bath County is overwhelming. On the national level of campaign spending and the number of candidates running for an office, I recently watched the Democratic presidential debate which was quite confusing to me. The mediator would ask a question and by the time the third or fourth candidate responded, I was at a loss to what the response by the first candidate was, not to mention the other candidates that had not even had the opportunity to view their stance on the issue at hand. There has to be a way to minimize the number of candidates running. As long as there are candidates running, no matter how many there are, the money is going to be spent to further along their campaign.
I think it would be almost impossible to completely remove the influence of money in our society. America is built around money. It is very difficult to get people to do things anymore if money is not involved. As American’s, we base our life on money. I guarantee that majority of the population would not go to work if it did not pay. Therefore, I do not believe money can be completely removed from the campaign system. I wish the world was not so dependent on money. I feel that people doing things out of the bottom of their heart, without expecting something in return is starting to diminish and that is sad. If we could remove the influence of money, I think that it could be starting through the media. The media would have to allow the campaign system to have free air time on television like Europe allows. This would cut down on a lot of the fees. I do not understand why candidates spend so much money-it is ridiculous. I know that a lot of that is donated to them, but still. To remove the influence, both parties/candidates would have to agree to cut down on the spending. If one candidate spends a lot, they will have an advantage over the other one, so the other candidate will in turn spend just as much or maybe more. There should be a restriction as to how much is spent in a campaign. Each year this cost could be reduced. This could slowly eliminate the power of money on society and elections/campaigns.
No matter what money will always be present in elections. You have to have money to get your name out there. Without advertisement citizens can’t hear the candidate’s position. I know in my hometown the person with the most money usually wins. A candidate that receives money from their party and has money of their own they are far better of then someone who only receives money from their party. I believe the government should minimize the hard money given by contributors. The party can legally give $10,000 to the house representative and $37,500 to the Senate candidate. Individuals can contribute $2,000 and $5,000 can be contributed from interest groups. Minimizing these amounts could help some. The negative to this would only allow candidates with more money to have the upper hand. Regardless what happens, money will always be the deciding factors on whose name is put into peoples mind. We all know not very many people vote in America. I follow the presidential election, but I don’t follow candidates in my town very closely. There is usually one person I really want to win in one area and the rest I just pick in choose. The person I usually pick is the person that sticks out at me. The name sticks in my mind because the person had more money than the other candidates and was able to advertise more. I guess what I’m getting at is, there is nothing the government can do, the candidate that is able to advertise more is going to get the most votes.
Money runs the country, it is inevitable that it runs campaigns. Unfortunately, the way the public hears about particular candidates is dictated by the amount of money that person's campaign can produce; or unfortunately, how negative the public hears about a candidate because of the money their opponent can produce.
Unfortunately, it would be incredibly difficult to remove money from the "campaign trail." Public access channels could aid in lessining the amount of money candidates are forced to turn over for air time. However, I think tax payer funded public access channels for the sole purpose of political campaigns is about as far as tax dollars could go. No tax paying American would want their tax money going to fund a bus for a candidate that would not even receive their vote. Money is part of the game and there is no real solution to leveling the playing field when it comes to campaign dollars; which makes the campaigning itself biased. New York and L.A. and Dallas and Chicago have more valuable supporters than Richmond, KY. If the government could impose a campaign schedule which could not be compromised, there may be less of a burden to make money to cover more areas. For example, if it were the case that there were set stops for each candidate to make and that was it. This would be incredibly hard to pull off and would never be accepted by potential candidates. It would be unfair to limit their access to their supporters.
However, if campaigns focused more on debates and talks, the issue of money might not be as great. Instead of having a campaign schedule, there could be a debate/talk schedule that could possibly be paid for with tax money.
This issue is incredibly complicated and I do not believe that any such solution is feasable. Campaigns rely too much on travel and that would be the biggest hurdle to overcome.
In response to tpittman's remarks: You summed it up quite well. You said that you pick and choose among remaining offices according to which name stick out in your mind. That is what local politicians count on and to some extent, state politicians as well. They count on the fact that the average voting public has no idea of the issues so let's put a name and face on the side of the road, every 100 feet or so. Our text mentions that the vast majority of elected officials are at the local and state levels. In reality, aren't these people responsible for most legislation that affects the average voter? It's a tough job, but voter education on the issues has to happen before advertising and campaign spending begin to take a back seat.
Way to go bill for being so open minded
How could we radically change our campaign system to remove the influence of money? Well I agree with erica we could start with the small towns and go up from there. You take a look at all small town and someone running for sheriff. I am from Gallatin Co and once there were 6 people running for Sheriff the money was being thrown at there feet. I couldnt tell you how much money my father gave Mr. Higgins just to help him win its really ridiculious. He was a family friend always at the local pub and "said" he believed the same way that "we" did so my father thought he was the one. Of course he won and was the sheriff for quite some time. Yet year after year people knew for as long as he was aloud to stay in he was going to win due to money factors. To actually change the influence of money you would have to eliminate or minimize the amount of money to be spent on a campaign. You would need to make certain rules and regulations saying in specific guidelines how much money could be spent on a campaign. You could have an allotment the money they have set aside for there campaign and county officals are to keep track of that. They are to enter that allotment b4 they run which means they collected this amount to run and didnt go over guidelines which say there limit and then they get to run and using there allotment. If it works in the countys try it statewide and then go from there. Then again if it was that easy some one would have already though of it but it may be worth a try!
chas
Question 3 – When I look at the Democrats and the Republicans, what I see is that both are not much different than each other when it comes to money. They both seem to be beholden to special interest and lobbyists looking to influence legislation. What do Democrats do right? To me, it seems that they still try to make sure that the poor are not overlooked. What I mean, is that in the past, if it is any indication, Democrats have supported legislation to raise the minimum wage (which they did earlier this year), and set up social programs (i.e. head start, WIC) that helped the poor to make their lives better. What the Democrats have done wrong is in turning the welfare system into what appeared to be an entitlement program for life. Even though, the welfare system was overhauled in the 1990’s, it took the work of both parties to accomplish what should not have become broken in the first place. Today, the Democrats seem to be for challenging any and everything associated with President Bush and his policies. I feel this is what is currently wrong with the Democrats, in that they seem to be hell-bent on getting the President and his cronies. As for the Republicans, what they have done right was when back in the 1994 midterm election, by setting up the “Contract with America” campaign, in that they had a list of items that they would take up to improve the image of Congress and make needed changes in government. It was fantastic to see if they could accomplish all their goals. However, what the Republicans did wrong was not following through on all of their goals with the “Contract with America.” If they had stuck to their guns, and passed every single goal, I suspect that the Republicans would have had a better standing with many Americans. As for the Republicans, one thing that have done right today is support the military to the fullest and what they do wrong today is portray anyone who is against the war in Iraq as being unpatriotic. I believe this is wrong and does not help their image.
In response to tpittman, I agree with what you have said about the contributions that can be made to candidates and if we minimized those amounts, I think that the playing field could be improved. If you limited the same amount from all contributors, say no more than $1500, and the political parties had to give all candidates, regardless if they were an incumbent or not, say $5000 for House representative and $10,000 for Senate. However, money is not the only thing that influences elections. The biggest problem are the groups that are not directly connected to a campaign. These independent parties that spend money to air television and radio ads from “concerned Americans” who want to run smear campaigns. If we had a ban on all television and radio ads and limited candidates to official campaign events and campaign posters and literature only, the tilt of money having a major role in political elections will be diminished. As for picking a candidate, if I like a candidate, I usually ignore smear attacks and only pay attention to true facts.
When it comes to choosing a party, it is no big surprise that I would choose the Republican Party because of their more conservative nature and support of more traditional values. As stated in earlier bloggs I am about as conservative as they come will side with a party that is conservative. I however wish that he Republican Party would step up and be more conservative and stop trying to ride the fence. I guess there is always the option of supporting a minor party candidate, who might be more conservative though that would be rare. In addition, it would be rare that they would win. So for, that reason I stick to the GOP and take opportunities such as primary elections to put in more conservative candidates versus more moderates. As for dose, my party has a chance to win here in the us of course, they have, and I believe that they will in the future. However, as for the 2008 presidential elections I am not sure. I not sure that there has ever been a president more disrespected and cut down then Bush and made to look so bad. I think that the media has turned people against him, which is a big shame. As a side note I think no matter whom the president, they should be treated with respect. However, for this reason and peoples feelings and lack of commitment to the war I believe that the republicans will have a hard time getting their candidate elected. It would please me to see a candidate who is a genuine conservative and would a solid conservative campaign but am not sure that is going to happen. However, I do think that there are some good candidates out there. I am willing to admit that this might not be the year for my party.
There are many ways that we could change our campaign system to remove the influence of money. The Supreme Court could keep closing loopholes in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act; Congress could pass laws restricting how much money an organization could receive and give to a party during an election campaign. My question is, though, do we nee to remove the influence of money? I do not see a reason why there should be a change. Money is the name of the game in politics. Just because one party or one candidate can raise more money does not mean that they are going to win the election. Having more time on television and in different ads across America does not hurt them, but it does not necessarily mean that they are at a great advantage, in my opinion anyways. I think that some of the money raised is misused by the parties; I do not mean used inappropriately, but being spent on stupid stuff. For example; during the Kerry/Bush presidential campaigns, the Democratic campaign consultants took a cut of every television ad aired in favor for John Kerry. The Republican consultants just took a flat rate and were more effective in their campaigns. The Democratic consultants were paid almost ten times what the top Republican consultants were. They parties just need to re-evaluate their expenditures and use their money in a sensible and effective way.
In response to Erica W's comment:
I like your idea of limiting the number of people who run for a certain position. I too have found myself listening to all the candidates talk and forget who said what.
Sam Farber
I prefer the main parties that dominate our political system as opposed to minor thrid parties. The major party that i support is the Republican Party. There are numerous reasons why i prefer the Republican party over the other major party and other minor parties. Being a conservative at heart, i am more prone to support the opinions of most republicans. Although republican politicians differ in their degree on conservativism, which is only natural, it is widely regarded that almost all republicans politicians are more conservative than all democratic politicians. Also, if their had to be a party that was more prone to supporting christian values in American politics, which honestly neither party really does, it would be the republican party. Republicans often times, and perphaps not knowingly, take a biblical stance on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriages, etc. I also believe that their should be a stronger push for personal accountablility and lack of dependence on the government, which is generally a republican ideology. Does my party have a chance at winning in the U.S.? Hopefully the reputation of our current president hasn't changed this, but yes, the republican party has a chance at winning More likely than not a Democrat will be the next president, of course that is my own opinion, but the unpopularity of Bush Jr will probably ruin the chances of the republican candidate running.
1. Although I have stated many times that I am a libertarian, I have never voted for one. I don't think that they have a real shot at winning an election. So, instead, I try to pick the most libertarian-esque candidate from the masses. Usually, I tend to sway more Democratic. You know, as I write this, I am remembering how I used to think in high school. I used to argue with my friends, saying that Republicans are the best. I 've done a complete 180! It's odd how college shapes your outlook....
Anyway, I usually choose Democrats because of where they stand on issues like gay marriage and abortion. They tend to want to let people do what makes them happy without much interference.
Oh, it is lightning. Time to go...
Post a Comment