Discuss:Government, Politics, Policy:If you were elected president...
From da Vinci Concept
If you were elected president...
sunny - Sun Nov 23 10:53:20 2003
Questions posed by an unlikely encounter in a coffee shop in downtown DC. I'll answer them myself, but would like the input of others as well.
--sunny Sun Nov 23 10:53:20 2003
sunny - Mon Nov 24 16:16:47 2003
How would you try to ensure that the views / concerns of citizens who did not vote for you were still taken into consideration when forming national policy?
--sunny Mon Nov 24 16:16:47 2003
Anonymous - Tue Dec 2 12:48:01 2003
Well said Sunny!I will return to this forum later, right now I am just testing to see how it works being that I am a little technologically challenged. :) ---Sarah
--Anonymous Tue Dec 2 12:48:01 2003
sunny - Sat Dec 6 18:56:47 2003
What 3 issues/causes would take national priority and why?
---
Unquestionably, there are many more than just a few issues that are all important. Therefore, the most pressing issue is in identifying a means of expanding the number of problems that can be addressed from public office. This requires a more fundamental approach, one that addresses the underlying philosophical issues that are the root cause of many issues of public policy. So, rather than addressing only a handfull of aparently important public issues it is more crucial that the responsibility of public office is addressed with a self-consistent philosophical approach. I would tend toward an Objectivist approach. Using a method based upon reason and reality I would only then prioritize other issues to be addressed. These issues would likely be far from the irrelevant and inconsistent dribble and trash addressed (and prioritized) by both the public and members of public office.
--sunny Sat Dec 6 18:56:47 2003
sunny - Sat Dec 6 18:57:46 2003
Who would you pick to server in your cabinet and why?
----
They would each have to be of indepenet mind and action, and whom I knew and respected their values. I do not follow party lines. I would not follow party lines in chosing cabinet members. I would choose them based upon their active expressed philosphies. I don't respect many of the 'ideals' upheld in modern politics. Politics is necessary. Many of us use it in our every communication with others. We choose our words carefully and respect the political boundaries of our peers. A traditionalist would argue that choosing cabinet members (or Senate and House representatives) from varying political parties is impractical, BECAUSE of the politics. Improper logic here. It is good BECAUSE of the politics, but only if each expressed his/her own political agenda. I would be apt to choose cabinet members that did not follow party lines.
--sunny Sat Dec 6 18:57:46 2003
joryea - Wed Dec 10 12:26:09 2003
National policy?... Well, I don't know much about this subject, but I'll give it a shot.
A good example would be, how do you satisfy those who support abortion while against it in your election.
Well, like anything else, I'd look outwards for my answers for anything that might help with any matter at hand.
I would (in this instance)work to improve the adoption program greatly, and ofcoarse.. safer sex.
--joryea Wed Dec 10 12:26:09 2003
joryea - Wed Dec 10 12:57:02 2003
This next question I feel more comfortable with. The top three priorities of our nation.
Well, considering our problem with using up our natural resources and poluting the world with them, I would ask of the fellow americans to contribute to a fund concerning this issue specifically. During this they would learn of the truth of what is happening, and accknowledge this upon a live anouncment, while asking for a vote of approval from the majority of our nation. A 5% tax on food, 100% donated towards reconstructing our everyday life to help the environment around us continue to survive. Basically, all automobiles will become hydrogen fueled (non polluting). Hemp farms would take the place of trees being used. And during this, part of the funds will go towards technologies advancement, so we may further our ways of life to more effect, and for the planets benefit as well.
The second most important matter is the issue of our contry itself. I feel were stagnating upon ourselves through chaotic thought patterns, the destruction of our physical bodies by means of sex, drugs, alcohol, and smoking, and the emotional betrayal so many of us experience throughout our lives. This would have to take some time to happen. I am not currently aware of how we would go about this except, I feel the beginnings of this change would not be noticed until the change was upon us (one day you wake up and feel the sun upon your face, and from then on, you'll look at like differently, questioningly, perhaps). I'll post this soon, for I would very much like to hear what others think of it.
For the third aspect of importance, I would look towards science. Space and time exploration. Looking into the mind and the potential of all beings. Along with this, is the ability for all the people of our nation, to choose where their money goes when it's taken off their paycheck. An added percentage would be taken off according to the peoples choice in how much they wish to help in the acheivments of mankind. I personally feel there should be constant donations towards our space program to create an unlimited source for furthering its progress (it should not be held back like it has been for so many years). Through letting the people know what we can and will do with these contributions, instead of constantly filling them with our commertialistic garbage, many great things would become very possible.
The whole problem on a huge scale, is that; yes, the people wish for a choice, but how can a majority uninfluenced by good choices, make good choices concerning our contry and what directions it should take concerning its wellbeing (and lets not forget about the planet). By getting the people out there who care and have something to say, we could let the people know what good choices we can make, and let them happen from their. Or something along these lines.
Thanx for the opportunity to answer this post. I very much enjoyed it.
--joryea Wed Dec 10 12:57:02 2003
charmed_quark - Fri Dec 12 11:25:33 2003
This is a pretty big question. Fundamental question is that of philosophy, should the president (or any elected official) try to represent the actual will of the people or should he or she just make the the best decisions possible and let history be the judge?
--charmed_quark Fri Dec 12 11:25:33 2003
Anonymous - Fri Dec 12 11:43:47 2003
| For the third aspect of importance, I would look towards science. Space and time exploration. Looking into the mind and the potential of all beings. Along with this, is the ability for all the people of our nation, to choose where their money goes when it's taken off their paycheck. An added percentage would be taken off according to the peoples choice in how much they wish to help in the acheivments of mankind. I personally feel there should be constant donations towards our space program to create an unlimited source for furthering its progress (it should not be held back like it has been for so many years). Through letting the people know what we can and will do with these contributions, instead of constantly filling them with our commertialistic garbage, many great things would become very possible. |
| -- joryea |
If you would like to support the space program without enter the catastrophe that is American government, may I suggest contributions to the following organizations:
Governments, inherently, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If we are going to have a spacefaring society, it will be from the effort of individuals and private organizations.
--Anonymous Fri Dec 12 11:43:47 2003
henrik - Sat Dec 13 7:37:26 2003
| Should the president (or any elected official) try to represent the actual will of the people or should he or she just make the the best decisions possible and let history be the judge? |
| -- charmed_quark |
I would tend to say that the dictator, president, prime minister, leader... should aim for what he or she thinks is best, regardless of what the will of the people happens to be.
In the case of a democratic society the people should choose someone they think is competent to do the job and then this person who is hired by the people should do the job to the best of his/her knowledge and abilities.
When I know very little about gardening, I will hire someone I consider a competent gardener, and once I have hired this person, the gardener should try to make the best decisions without much interference from me.
Of course, you want to maintain the ability to fire the gardener or president at some point, but you don't want to question every decision made by this person otherwise there is no point in hiring them in the first place.
Of course, there are still questions that need to be answered. How do you pick the best gardener/president?
How much power do you want to give your gardener/president?
How long of a trial period should you give?
If it is too short they will feel pressured to please the public rather than do what they think is best. Or they will do what they think is best but the time period is too short for them to accomplish the goals they set.
Think of Switzerland. The head of state changes every year. Do you have enough time to set long term goals for a country within a year?
If the trial period is too long then they might do what they think is best but you lose the ability to fire them quickly if you think they are doing a very bad job despite their best intent.
Think of France, where presidents get elected for 7 years.
Should the trial period be more flexible?
There are many people who take care of their own gardens. But there aren't that many countries where the majority of issues get settled by referendum.
Would it even be desirable for most issues to get settled by referendum?
Having referendums would be closer to a direct democracy, but is the public well-informed enough and interested enough to make all these decisions?
--henrik Sat Dec 13 7:37:26 2003
charmed_quark - Sat Dec 13 9:11:23 2003
My post was meant to be a little retorical, in reponse to how the thread started out.
| How would you try to ensure that the views / concerns of citizens who did not vote for you were still taken into consideration when forming national policy? |
| -- sunny |
So I'm glad, henrik, that you agree.
Length of term should be inversely proportional to the power invested in the head of state. Another thing to remember is that the people, even in a dictatorship, always have the ultimate referendum, rebellion.
So what would I do (or encourage congress to do) if I was President:
1) Mandatory birth control for students in public high schools and federally supported colleges.
Teen pregnancy is the largest cause of poverty in the United States. The cost of requiring free,mandatory birth control in publich school would be off set by the saving in welfare and increased tax dollars for a more prosperous population. With new developments in male birth control, it can be applied without bias to gender. In would be administered similarly to vaccinations. Religious nuts can accept it, or send their kids to private school.
2) Phase out social security. Continue to pay social security to those that are on it and those that will soon (maybe within ten years) be eligible. Instead require all employers to provide a reasonable retirement or pension plan for their employees (details to be worked out). Stop garnishing wages of people to support those on social security and instead take it out of the military budget, it was after all military borrowing that caused the crisis, the military should pay it back.
3) Cut back the military period. The justifaction of literal defense of the nation is absurd in the 21st century. Using the military in places like Afghanistan and Iraq has also been shown to be ineffective. We are not about to fight WW][ again. Cut back the military to a special operations forces, but continue to fund military research so that if we do have to fight large scale war scenarios in the future, we will not be at a technological disadvantage.
4) Support for the space program. More that freedom or democracy, this country was founded on exploration. From the pilgrams, to the pioneers, to the Apollo program, the success of this nation has been rooted in pushing back the frontiers. If we are to continue to prosper, we need to continue this tradition to the next logical step.
--charmed_quark Sat Dec 13 9:11:23 2003
sunny - Sat Dec 13 14:01:44 2003
| Mandatory birth control for students in public high schools and federally supported colleges. Teen pregnancy is the largest cause of poverty in the United States. The cost of requiring free,mandatory birth control in publich school would be off set by the saving in welfare and increased tax dollars for a more prosperous population. With new developments in male birth control, it can be applied without bias to gender. In would be administered similarly to vaccinations. Religious nuts can accept it, or send their kids to private school. |
| -- charmed_quark |
I agree that tean pregnancy is a primary cause of poverty in the US. I do not think that mandatory birth control is the right solution. It should instead be mandated that provisions for birth control be made free and readily available and that better sex education be provided by both public schools and the media. It must also be mandated that birth control be allowed as a choice for our youth to make.
If it is not a choice of the individual, then it is not a freedom. We want more responsible youth, not youth free from responsiblity. Mistakes will still be made, but those are the mistakes that a free society must be allowed to make in order to be a free society.
We do not want to create sexual irresponsibility in youth by mandating a medical treatment that does have side affects and is not safe or foolproof or reasonable for everyone. It must be a rational choice made by the individual. It is only needed that birth control be an allowed choice for the millions of young individuals that are under the thumb of misguided adults. It must be mandated that youth be allowed to choose birth control without fear of repercussion from their family, community, or culture.
The cause of this problem is not irrational youth, but the enforcement of irrational rules. Destroying another choice (and thus freedom) would not accomplish the ends that it mandates, but create a plethora of new problems associated with its emplacement.
--sunny Sat Dec 13 14:01:44 2003
charmed_quark - Sat Dec 13 16:26:45 2003
Mandatory birth control in public schools would only destroy freedom if private schools would banned. Public education is a system that has been establish to provide a better quality of life and is not a 'right'. This measure would enormously improve our countries general quality of life, so it falls naturally under the scope public education.
Once again I would like to appeal to the comparison to vaccination. Vaccination is not optional in public education institutions. There are documented side effect to vaccination, including the occasional death. But no one would argue there should be a choice.
This might fall under an issue of freedom if there were a significant portion of teenages who were intentionally getting pregnant, but since the opposite is true, I don't see any problem.
--charmed_quark Sat Dec 13 16:26:45 2003
sunny - Sat Dec 13 18:07:26 2003
So is it that you are saying that as a requirement of attending public schools, some form of birth control must be taken by every student? That if public school is not attended it is not mandated? There would be a plethora of specific exceptions (and new exceptional cases daily) and a huge administrative cost.
Neither public education nor free birth control are rights. But the right to choose how and when to use the machinery of one's body is. You wouldn't mandate that all men of a certain age take viagra, or all women take hormone supplements.
Vaccination is necessary as a means of preventing the spread of disease. This is very different from the prevention of teen pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a disease. We need better education, both to curb teen pregnancy and to prevent the spread of disease within our sexual youth. One solution provides for both. We must educate our youth. Secondarily, we must provide a means for them to obtain birth control (private school or not). An interrelated problem is in educating the parents.
I hold that it is not the youth that are the problem. Undesired teen pregnancy is the symtom of a large and more fundamental problem. It is our society and its approach to human sexuality, especially the sexuality of our youth. Like the drug problems, our approach has been to ignore the problem by declaring youth simply unfit for sexuality. Parents say, 'just do not have sex,' instead of 'when you have sex these are the precautions that you must take and this is the method that you must use to protect yourself from undesired pregnancy and disease.'
I agree that something needs to be done, but I think that a more educated youth is better than a sterile one. Wouldn't it be better to make such a thing an option that is supported by the public education system, the community, and the parents of our youth? Build a responsible youth, not a bunch of sterilized idiots.
--sunny Sat Dec 13 18:07:26 2003
charmed_quark - Sun Dec 14 11:14:50 2003
Educating the youth and equally their parents is the best long term solution, but it will take generations for results to be produced. At this stage of the game, using education only to prevent teen pregnancy is like installing smoke detectors when your house is on fire.
STD are a related problem that my solution does not address. But, in the US, they are a much smaller and less severe problem.
Administrative costs? Existing school administrators could handle it. Any costs incurred would be more than offset by the savings in welfare and increased tax dollars from having a more educated and prosperous population.
Again education is fine and good and this program would not replace or supercede sex education. But I want to see a solution in my life time and changing an entire culture of hundred of millions of people from the bottom up is not such a solution.
[ Edited Sun Dec 14 2003, 02:16PM ]
--charmed_quark Sun Dec 14 11:14:50 2003
Truc_Ha - Sun Dec 14 11:21:33 2003
I think that in implementation "mandatory birth control" would involve choice by the student. Look at it practically. You have the options of various barrier, hormonal, and chemical methods to cut down on accidental birth and disease. The injectable/surgical ones would be contraindicated not only medically but also in terms of liability and cost. So what a school would do would be to 1) educate the teens on the options of birth control 2) open up access to their choice 3) and in the end the teen is the only one who can implement a condom, a pill, a diaphragm, etc. It is their responsibility to check their protection and their partners. Also, mandatory birth control does not sterilize, whereas pregnancy and disease can.
This has been an exercise of pragmatism.
--Truc_Ha Sun Dec 14 11:21:33 2003
charmed_quark - Sun Dec 14 11:40:52 2003
Cost and liability are the same thing, from a policy point of view. And I still are argue the cost any birth control solution would be less than our current welfare state.
I prefer the injectable/surgical approach, but would also be satisfied with a pill program. Pills are handed out in homeroom while the teacher reads the anouncement or are included as a part of a school lunch type program. Pink ones for girls, blue ones for boys. The only detail here is placebos for young ladies at the appropriate time of month. I consider this to be a minor detail.
Yes, this would some measure of compliance with the students, but it would remove the obsticals that a completely volutanry plan has:embarassment, social pressure, apathy, "it won't happen to me" syndrome.
--charmed_quark Sun Dec 14 11:40:52 2003
Truc_Ha - Sun Dec 14 12:18:05 2003
I do not agree w/ limiting the choices to the pill (and it'll be a whole new world if they ever market the pill for guys) on the basis that a) there are way too many side effects of hormonal birth control and more importantly b) removing the elements of education and choice would be stupid because you would only be moving the problem a different age group as the teens graduate and no longer get birth control. Furthermore it would also be incredibly unwise because you would increase the incidence of STD's as teens stop using barrier methods once free of the fear of pregnancy
I agree w/ sunny, and CQ, if you look carefully, you can see that he is advocating not "education only" but instead education and access. Education only takes too long, but forced birth control w/o education is near sighted patch that will produce only short term results that will last only as long as administrative approval and funding last. Not to mention the fact that a lot of those teen mothers are probably dropping out of school, and away from any theoretical program, they are having 2nd, 3rd + accidental births.
I agree that to eradicate this social disease, this public health menace, the paradigm of sex must be shifted from one of absolutes and sin to one of relative risks. Institutions, from religious to financial to secular, must recognize that this is a natural facet of life, that their constituents are getting sick from engaging in sex improperly, and that information on all aspects of sex should be made available for the promotion of sex as a healthy, positive, joyful aspect of life.
--Truc_Ha Sun Dec 14 12:18:05 2003
joryea - Tue Dec 16 17:17:14 2003
for my cabinet, I would choose:
A being from the planet mars, someone like my grammy (she's a holy woman), someone like my friend Danny (he discurages many things, but has a good mind for what is right and wrong within his realm of thought), a rationalistic and open mind like my brother Sunny, a knowing person of the wants of the general public and yet outside its influence in many ways.. Robby =) A down to earth, yet knowledgable woman.. and dear friend.. Leandra, (how many members are in the cabinet?) my uncle Pat (on my dads side).. for he knows how to have fun and helps many to greet in kindness, Tru-cha for her unshakable.. openness towards our societies potential within and of itself, an entity i met a few years back while astral traveling to a planet far from our usual sight, and finaly.. an angel that came down for our need of, and perspective on love. hmm... a goddess would help as well, lifting our perception to heighten our discusions and focus of thought by her mere presence =)
--joryea Tue Dec 16 17:17:14 2003
joryea - Tue Dec 16 17:40:39 2003
hmm.. in response to the whole sex issue (birth controll n, stuff):
I feel it's not the problem of how do deal with the issue, but how to change it. How are we to stop this sexual agenda our entire race is eager to fulfill. I know I am very different in my thoughts to most, but I feel our views on sex are quite barbaric (no offense to barbarians), and the sex in of itself, is the problem. We, as a race (most it seems) misguide our thoughts and actions because of what we believe to be true. Yes, it feels good to be around others of the opposite sex. But many feel it is all sexual attration, relating specifically, to the ultimate end, sex (especially while intoxicated, further contradicting the feeling into something accepted by the general public). Then their,s the addiction. Many feel it's is the greatest feeling: the orgasm. I agree and disagree. Making love is beautiful, and I look highly upon its existence, although many don't know of it. Sex is masterbation of the body and mind. Some is more reasonable than others, but in the end.. I feel it corrupts a very spiritually connected experience. Why do most sex's feel that they can't cuddle with their male friends. Because of the sexual confusion that usually results. You want to cuddle=you want sex. This is all a misperception in many ways (just an opinion ofcoarse). If feels good to be around other friends too, not just the opposite sex (the word explains itself to the public, hopelessly). It's the feeling of their energies, and the compliment to your own.. all feeling diferent with each being we meet. We should respect this feeling and bathe in its presence instead of abandoning it to a simple life in a solitary confinment of a single feeling.. sexual attration.. sex.. blah! sorry,. I just have strong feelings on this issue.. it's in my everyday life. I... hope our ways in life will change to create something less vulgar in our future for the things that should be most presious to our hearts. Friends are dear, best friends are dearer still. Best friends are those whose energies have come into a common harmony within eachothers presence. Only sexual if chosen, but always in love.
--joryea Tue Dec 16 17:40:39 2003
joryea - Wed Jul 28 11:26:19 2004
I will respond on this further. As well as what a president needs to do, in the crisis of today.
Presently, WE ARE IN A DARK AGE! so.. these issues you guys are speaking of, are quite utterly insane. You have to fix the problem, the root, as sunny stated. But if you don't know what's happening around you and your living in a fantasy, your not going to do anything, except help society plunge itself into two decades of global epidemics. This, is the reality of today, and so, we need a president.. well, like me. One who has come to an understanding of what is occuring around him, and who has developed a method, through the study of history, to turn this degenerated process around. We need, F.D.R. leadership in this country. This election. Not one day when we stop being a bunch of feeling monkeys. We have to take up our responsiblity as citizens within our constitutional republic, and fight for the leadership we must have. We should all be ready to be president. And if you don't know what an economy is, and how a nation grows. . it's time to learn. today!
[ Edited Mon Sep 20 2004, 09:14AM ]
--joryea Wed Jul 28 11:26:19 2004
grefrath - Sun Aug 22 12:35:55 2004
Much to respond to here.
On the issue of mandatory teen birth control, I'm afraid I agree that teen pregnancy is a definite, current and serious problem, but mandating teen birth control is a sort of solution that i might expect from a totalitarian state, not a free thinking individual. I think the analogy to vaccination is an interesting one, but in a country where abstinence programs continually get more and more funding, where access to birth control of any kind is being scaled back, it seems a little unlikely that this is a proposal to see the light of any congressional office, and i'm not sure it should. I mean, from a practical standpoint, would you mandate that young girls register with the government, like selective service, when they have their first period? and then subsequently submit to birth control? Itís not like every woman starts menstruating in the 4th month of their 13th year, it varies widely. And birth control wouldn't take into account what might become a soaring rate of STDs, and as i'm sure everyone knows, not all STDs are just a few shots of penicillin. Imagine HIV spreading across a campus of a high school or town. Personally, i find that a little frightening and itís an eventuality that the pill doesn't protect from, and perhaps creates a blind-spot for.
Concerning the will to change and the current government, I think itís rather obvious that government is little more than a collection of vested interests. Government gets away with as much as it can, and it is only through mass actions and mass education that we can change the country, in small, long struggles. This isn't something that we need to wait for, nor is it something we should wait for. This is something we should be demanding from our lawmakers now. Politicians will change names, but not underlying voices.
Seamus Heaney has a great poem called, "from the republic of conscious" where he describes what a sort of place like this might be.
"At their inauguration, public leaders
must swear to uphold unwritten law and weep
to atone for their presumption to hold office--"
I think that the only way we can change politics in the country, or the most immediate, radical way, (though admittedly idealistic) would be to give all major candidates (say, people on the ballot in 10 or more states) equal, free, airtime. Have a series of debates, preferably 8 or so, in the weeks leading up to the election. Also, have journalists willing to ask questions at these debates that are more than, "how would you lead our country?" But rather, "you supported X bill, which has dramatically reduced accessibility to XX, how do you balance this with your statements that you would be the 'XX President'." We need good journalists now more than ever. Journalists who ask questions that make politicians uncomfortable, and maybe even make US feel uncomfortable.
These may seem unrealistic, but if our government is the most important thing governing our lives and the future of the planet, isn't it worth more time in the American life than American Idol?
In addition, to scale back the amount of money corporations can give a selected candidate or party. The problem is this; the institutions currently in power will not take these proposals favorably, which means that people, large groups of motivated people, must force them to change it. As I said, this is the only way Government has done anything the people wanted done. Politicians stay in office by making as few waves as possible, and because of it, we find ourselves in the current situation, where there is an alarming race to the middle by both parties, giving us a lack of any real choice.
[ Edited Sun Aug 22 2004, 12:37PM ]
--grefrath Sun Aug 22 12:35:55 2004
sunny - Sun Aug 29 15:16:02 2004
In regards to methods of changing government through the instantiation of free media forums for candidate debate: I think that this is a great idea, but as you stated, it does not appear rewarding enough to the private sector to prevent corporations from buying in on a single candidate's political agenda. I think that an ideal solution would need to incorporate the economic agenda driving campaign funding.
Two entities that profit:
2. Media corporations need to be able to profit by the creation of these forums.
1. It needs to be the constituents main interest to provide funding for political and policy debate.
I see two driving economies. Media corporations want to make money on the whole event. This will happen either because they are being paid a large amount by a campaign contributor, or because they can make money with advertisement meant for a large captive audience. The first is likely how things are run currently. The second is what needs to happen.
Political debate needs to be a spectator sport, but much cleaner and less insulting than redneck politicking on Jerry Springer. The only way to achieve this is to gain the public's interest by debating those issues that, as you stated, would make the candidates and ourselves uncomfortable. It has to be a free-for-all and we need good journalism to dig up the real issues and bring them alight on the surface of the political landscape. This would bring the dollar of media consortiums to fund open debate.
The remaining problem, however, is the distribution of campaign funds. It would still be the case that a single constituent pays for media time for a single candidate. Media-funded open debates would likely just drive up the cost of single candidate media runs. Candidates would just pay more.
So I propose the following:
1. Raise the bar and require fair media practice to prevent unfair campaigning.
Any candidate wishing to fund media time for themselves solely must fund equal media time for ALL XX candidates that fit the requisite requirements. Media time therefore is cheaper if you fund open debate type forums for political discussion.
2. Open debate forums must be open to all XX candidates.
3. Don't limit campaign spending. Limit use only as proposed above in 1.
The proposed solution attempts to foresee the necessary economics and to regulate toward that economy. Federal campaigns should be regulated and restricted for fair use. It is just a matter of determining which restrictions work with the economics. If they work with the economics we are then just coming to a steady state solution faster than we would have and skip the long process of overshooting our goal.
--sunny Sun Aug 29 15:16:02 2004
charmed_quark - Tue Jan 11 23:53:11 2005
| We need, F.D.R. leadership in this country. |
| -- joryea |
Many of us believe that our problems today were caused by FDR leadership. Maybe what we need is less "leadership" and more liberty
In response to the topic of media. The presentation of political dialogue has been declining. I refer specifically to the transition of the Presidential debates being run by the League of Women Voters to the the Commision on Presidential Debates. The League of Women Voters is a non partisan group that had a tradition of including strong 3rd party candidates, ie Ross Perot. But starting in 1996 the debates have been run by the CPD that made unreasonalbe requirements (at least 15% support in polls) that blocked had 3rd parties from participating.
Juggling funding isn't going to change anything when the conduits of information are already strictly controlled. The best thing that 3rd parties could hope for is reform in the structure of voting. Instant runoff voting is currently promising, but not my favorite
[ Edited Wed Jan 12 2005, 12:17AM ]
--charmed_quark Tue Jan 11 23:53:11 2005
