The Presidential Debate

[benush26]

The way I'd reform the Presidential election system:

1) Only individuals may make political contributions (to a candidate, party, or PAC). Corporations may not. And records of every contribution must be publicly available - even those to PACs.
2) Once a candidate has a mathematical possibility of winning the election (is on the ballots in enough states to win enough electoral college votes):
2a) A certain amount of free and equal time (advertising and interviews) must be provided by major TV, print, and radio outlets (the amount of time to vary based on the type of media and the size of their audience). The candidates, parties and PACs can still buy additional advertising as restricting that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. The idea is to guarantee that all viable candidates have an adequate baseline of media exposure.
2b) They must be invited to any debates that include any other candidate meeting this criteria.

Regarding Number 1
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations do have the right to contribute, thus opening the door for anyone (including foreign entities) to contribute as much as they want.

Regarding Number 2b
A company organized by the Rs and Ds called the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed and they call all the shots, including excluding 3rd party candidates from the debates.

a quote
--
In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."[8]
Christopher Hitchens speaking at a September, 2000 third party protest at the Commission's headquarters.

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.[9] **
---

For an interesting take on this, try and find "An Unreasonable Man" on Showtime. It covers the rise and fall of Ralph Nader. Whether you like hate or could not care about him, there is a very interesting segment about he and Pat Robertson (and others in a note binder) being banned from being on the grounds of a presidential debate.

I agree with your ideas to make the debates and elections in general more favorable to get people who "should" be in office instead of those just want the power.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... al_Debates the neutrality of article has been dubbed as disputed and it may be so, but much of the information is factual. Take from it what you will.

[heathicus]

The way I'd reform the Presidential election system:

1) Only individuals may make political contributions (to a candidate, party, or PAC). Corporations may not. And records of every contribution must be publicly available - even those to PACs.
2) Once a candidate has a mathematical possibility of winning the election (is on the ballots in enough states to win enough electoral college votes):
2a) A certain amount of free and equal time (advertising and interviews) must be provided by major TV, print, and radio outlets (the amount of time to vary based on the type of media and the size of their audience). The candidates, parties and PACs can still buy additional advertising as restricting that would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. The idea is to guarantee that all viable candidates have an adequate baseline of media exposure.
2b) They must be invited to any debates that include any other candidate meeting this criteria.

3) I'd get rid of "early voting." (Absentee voting would still be allowed as that is different.) But I'd extend election day to a long election weekend. Friday through Sunday. Maybe even through Monday.
4) No results could be released until the very last polling place where votes are cast in that election had closed. No announcing results for east coast states while the west coast is still voting. Exit polling would also be prohibited.

[benush26]

As I read this discourse of opinions and ideas I am pleasantly struck by the idea that "at least for the immediate future", I live in a country that allows me (an us) to speak of what we feel and how we feel without fear of immediate retribution.

Not bad for such a young upstart nation!

With sincere and enormous "THANKS" to those who fought for, won and those who continue to fight for and win our right to do so!!!

Ben

[dusty]

3) I'd get rid of "early voting." (Absentee voting would still be allowed as that is different.) But I'd extend election day to a long election weekend. Friday through Sunday. Maybe even through Monday.
4) No results could be released until the very last polling place where votes are cast in that election had closed. No announcing results for east coast states while the west coast is still voting. Exit polling would also be prohibited.

I would not object to a proposal that would eliminate early voting. Nor would I oppose "NO REPORTING" of results until after each and every polling place is closed. Furthermore, a three or four day period of "OPEN POLLS" would not be seen as objectionable.

I do believe that voter identification is absolutely necessary. I would applaud if that rule was put in place right now and used for every election held after this election is over. This would give persons who do not have appropriate identification adequate time to get that identification. Like a drivers' license, there should be some place in every polling district where the electorate could go to get their "appropriate ID" FOR FREE.

All of these complaints about voter suppression just make me angry. I know several people who cannot vote this year but all of them can blame no one other than themselves for that. Two of them don't drive but I see them at the grocery store and the area mall frequently. They get where they want to when they want to. They could vote if they had really wanted to be eligible.

Senior living centers and nursing homes could be serviced by mobile facilities. The seniors involved would welcome that days' activity. I know - I have been there.

[dusty]

As I read this discourse of opinions and ideas I am pleasantly struck by the idea that "at least for the immediate future", I live in a country that allows me (an us) to speak of what we feel and how we feel without fear of immediate retribution.

Not bad for such a young upstart nation!

With sincere and enormous "THANKS" to those who fought for, won and those who continue to fight for and win our right to do so!!!

Ben

Be cautious. It feels to me that there is an organized effort to eliminate some of these "rights that we enjoy".

Rights like "freedom of religious choice" come to mind. As an example: The atheist has a right to object to a cross but I might not be allowed to erect one. A Presbyterian group may be allowed to build a church but a Moslim group may not be allowed to do the same.

[pennview]

Forbes Magazine has a couple of articles out today about the impact of Obama Care on costs and services in the battleground states of Ohio and Wisconsin, but it's easy to extrapolate these finding to the other 48 states (or other 55 states if you believe Obama's count of how many states there are). The articles cover the effects of cutting Medicare, including Medicare Advantage, and the impact on seniors, etc., etc. And, doctors were polled regarding what they'll do as a result of cuts in Medicare payments to them. Contrary to what we've been told by the administration that health care costs would be cut under the so-called Affordable Care Act, these articles point out the dramatic increase in premium costs that we face down the road because of Obama Care.

If you're interested, you can read these two articles at http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/1 ... -by-55-85/ -- and -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/1 ... a-adviser/ --

[dusty]

I saw an ad on TV today explaining what Omaba is going to do for us during his next 4 years.

He's going to invest in education, along with manufacturing and the transportation infrastructure. Invest? I think that means spend money. I think that means increase the deficit and the debt. Twenty trillion here we come.

Oh, I must be wrong. There is something I don't understand. He also said he was going to decrease the national debt by 4 trillion by 2016.

[heathicus]

Oh, I must be wrong. There is something I don't understand. He also said he was going to decrease the national debt by 4 trillion by 2016.

Remember, when running the first time he also promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, he quadrupled it.

[beeg]

Remember, when running the first time he also promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, he quadrupled it.

I haven't seen that figure of it being quadrupled. But I have seen the MESS bush left him.

[wa2crk]

I always thought that Presidential Election Day was fixed by law as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Nov. If that is true then how is early voting legal?
Bill V