One of the things that made our Country great was the belief that anyone could aspire to hold the highest office in the land. When looking upon a kindergarten class, you may have seen the future President of The United States. That kid can still grow up to be the Commander In Chief with hard work and....Oh yeah, about 500 million dollars. That is what each Party's Candidate is estimated to spend during this years Presidential Campaign. Together that's a cool billion dollars to elect our President, smashing previous records. It's simply outrageous that one billion dollars will be spent by the Parties in this election. The time has come to establish a set of rules that will govern future campaigns. Setting limits on the amount of money that can be used in the campaign, and making sure that candidates have an equal amount to spend, would be a good place to start. Maybe this is a crazy idea, but I would like to see the Federal Government foot the bill for the campaigns and disallow any other donations. Each Candidate would receive a predetermined amount of money to use in their campaign. Perhaps with this method, we could accomplish two important things. Diminish the influence of special interest groups, and put the Presidency within reach of the common person once again. Then when watching that kindergarten class, you could safely say that the kid eating the crayons is likely to run for President some day.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great idea.
Here in The Netherlands we don't use as much money to make our choices.
We've got a multiparty system.
Each party writes a program.
Ofcourse there's a chairman and such, but no candidate for prime minister is pushed forward.
We vote for a party, so for a party program.
Within the list of the party one can give a vote for a person, but it's not necessary.
Those with the most votes will gain a seat in parliament, and the parties with the most votes will decide which ones will become part of the government.
Between them they'll choose a president.
It works great, because one can see elements of the programs being brought to realisation far more often than in the USA.
And a gain is that they can be far more detailed, and have to be far more detailed to offer a choice.
Costs: a few conferences here and there. Rather down to earth: a speaker, a few posters. Not the whole circus.
And some TV debates, leaflets with the programs and some sites.
Works for us.
Post a Comment