The "New" new world order

As a left leaning democrat it has become apparent to me that the system is leaving me behind. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is fundamentally flawed. The question then is how do we *fix* the system to make it more accesible to the national community? I have a rough, unrefined outline full of flaws. Lets pull together to dream about a system that reflects a fair procedure to determine our elected officials.

Campaign Reform: Lets start by saying each candidate has 2 months to traise 50,000 do;;ars in increments of no greater than 10 bucks per donor. That would narrow the field to a reasonable # of folks. After becoming eligable to runm no more than 50,000 more dollars coould be raised. That money would be used as the candidate see's fit.

Media coverage: Media coverage would be alloted on a completely equal time frame on channels like C-Span, more media outlets like this could easily be created as neccisary. Debates could take place as a one on one scenario where the public could really have a chance to digest the issues. Eventually like minded candidates would form coallitions and run against the people they disaggree with.

Endorsments: At this point the candidates could back the front runner of their coallition, pulling more support thier way. This would potentially allow a more than 2 party system.


The Vote: The people allowed to vote would be limited in the following manner.
1. You must have voted in at least 2 local elections (lower the voting age for local elections to 16)
2. You must attend a brief seminar in witch all the candidates positions are compared.

Obviously this is a very flawed system, please break it down and improve on it. We need to find a new direction .

PoliSci 101 says we can never have 3 parties...2 will always be closer, form an alliance and become a majority until there is a shift. There's only room for 2 in this party!!

2 parties means very limited choice. Not so sure limited is the best way to go.

the nature of any political system with choice involves people forming coalitions. If there are 3 groups...2 will find a way to form coalition to defeat the 3rd. There's no way around it.

Almost all European countries have an active Socialist party. Keeps things from drifting too far to the right.

I'm thinking you maybe had a professor who exaggerated things a bit....

Kanary

Campaign Reform: All National Elections use public funding. The money being split evenly between all parties which get more than 2% (could be less) of the vote in the prior election cycle.

Media: Free airtime for all candidates distibuted equally in exchange for the FCC license. Good idea on debates. Allows for audience participation.

Endorsements: Ditto. Good Idea.

The Vote:
2 local or 2 state elections
voting rights restored immediately upon prison release (controversial but they did the time, the debt is paid)
Seminars are a good idea but may not be workable because of time constraints.

Mine's flawed too but there may be some things here.

Discus at will.

Are you refering to a dishonest election due to cheating or some other aspect of the process.

BTW...a good resource on PR
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

We act as though it exists, but it doesnt. It could if we could reach out proportionatly to everyone, but how can we do that honestly? I dont see a way with the current (media driven) system.

but it, in my opinion would cure a world of problems. First, all political parties would have to be more ideological and not so driven by candidate personalities. I can't help but to think that would be a good thing. Second, this would give rise to many smaller parties and allow for most any ideology to be properly represented. Third, the media would have to dramatically change coverage due to the lack of "personality politics" that makes the current system so rank.

But as far as the media acts now I would have to say that it is a beast, but a predictable beast. All major outlet have succumbed to sensationalism over substance simply because it seems more profitable. To expect it to act any different is to ignore what drives them. But, this could be used to our advantage if we accept what it is and use it. Just my opinion.

I don't know if this goverment can be fixed. At this point it would be like trying to fix a broken glass with scotch tape.

at what point in time was it ever working perfectly? Part and parcel to me being a liberal is my belief that we should always try to improve the system AND that it can be done. Not an easy task to be sure but somebody has to try.

Im not certain that it has ever worked perfectly ( or correctly) that is precisely why we must fix it.

it may interest you (and others)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=25124

The giant corporations and big money now control the media and the politicians. You will never get those groups to change anything. They feed off each other. They use each other to obtain even more money and power.

Our only hope is to slow down the bleeding a bit for us poor working slobs. Maybe we can live another 10 years before "1984" finally takes hold. If Bush gets selected again, it's over almost immediately. Kiss your ass goodbye and welcome to The New World Order. It will eventually kill itself like a dog eating it's tail, but what will be left for those who survive it?

We are not discussing business as usaual

i didnt noticed

did you read my post about continuous election yes or no?

It is an interesting idea. I dont like it though. Keeping our leaders in a constant state of flux would not make them more accountable. In fact I would expect elected officials to be very reactionary so as to keep their constituents happy. Every seemingly popular idea would be vigorously embraced. Long term thought on the part of our leaders would be replaced with immediate gratification. I think there are better ways to hold our elected officials accountable, and to achieve a broader spectrum of choice for the voter. Election cycles are staged revolts, creating a system where the cycles were constantly occuring would destroy us.

leaders currently focus on winning elections. after they win them, they are hardly accountable for a number of years. at first sight with a continuous system, "seemingly popular" ideas would be embraced to keep popular support. However this easily shows to be a fallacy: I can give you a number of politicians that have as political strategy to 'follow the polls', however they arent itself popular, in fact, that same strategy makes people to be driven away.

People doesnt like candidates that poll-follower-dorks; they want candidates with a plan (be it good or be it nasty as the current one), or at least with some balls.

contradictory as it may seem, but with a continuous system, politicians are forced to focus on the long term in order to consistenly keep the support of people: think about it, in this electoral scheme people dont have to do anything special to keep their candidate; they have to do something when they want to change their candidate.

these issues a different way. You make several good points. The officials pander to the lobbyists who ply them with huge amounts of cash, which the officials need to buy airtime to run the next campaign. If our officials were forced to carry on a permanent campaign the lobbyists would seize more power. I know you dont agree with me on this. I guess my problem is that I have less faith in the voter than you do. The guy with the most media coverage ALWAYS wins. Voters know their candidates rhetoric, but all too often they dont *really* know the issues. Obviously on a forum such as this you dont find that to be the case, but I believe that is a fair assessment of the general public. The spin is what sells, not the facts.

But i think this has something to do (besides the media monopoly problem) also with the fact that people dont feel politics to be something determinant of their every day life. I think this may have to do with the fact that 'political exercise' is something usually thought to be exercised every four years. Could you learn to ride a bike trying to do it every four years?

There other thing: people may been dummyfied most of the time, but that is how democracy works. If people opinion is a problem, then its a problem of information flow thru society. However that is a separate issue.