Three basic steps that would fix our worthless political atmosphere

[jpgray]

1. Regulate media ownership

This is an easy one. Not too long ago about eighty groups were responsible for providing news to Americans via radio, publications and television. Now we have about six. This allows far too few people to have far too great a control on the debate, and a single company owning a newspaper, radio station AND television station in the same market is just absolutely contrary to democratic ideals, and even capitalist ideals.

2. Public financing of campaigns

Another obvious choice. The way money dominates politics today, to run a decent campaign you have to sell out to large corporations. To do so, you have to forswear -any- significant progressive views on domestic policy. This is the biggest reason why progressive candidates die at the ballot box even as progressive stances are immensely popular. Without the money to be competitive, progressive candidates will always be on the margin.

3. Instant run-off voting

This is absolutely crucial in determining what the electorate actually -wants-, and also crucial in ensuring one can vote one's conscience without guilt, because IRV provides the ability to keep the -worst- people out of office even if the lesser evil isn't your first choice.

--

There are other important things, but these three are paramount in my view. They're the problems that cause most of the others. Now, how can we accomplish this? To my mind the only viable option at this point is the Democratic Party. They are admittedly unlikely to sell out the very system that elects them, but they are far more likely to do so than are Republicans. A -large- Democratic majority and a Democratic president are the only vehicle by which we can even hope to get any of these changes off the ground.

[RC]

1. Which Democratic Party? The DLC or the DFL?

[jpgray]

3. The only politicians serious about any of these are Democrats, and a larger majority doesn't hurt

The idea is basically to keep the party -wholly- opposed to these changes (the GOP) out of majority. If you can defeat a GOP candidate with a great progressive, that's excellent. If the only vehicle for defeating the GOP candidate is a conservative Dem, that's awful, but that conservative Dem -will- empower those Dems that do want to make a difference. Whereas if the Republican wins, there's no gain whatsoever on policy, and a deficit on empowering those Democrats that actually do support our values.

[calmblueocean]

2. So simple and straightforward, I couldn't help but K&R...

Some solutions are just not that difficult.

[jpgray]

4. The difficulty in politics usually isn't identifying the problem so much as fixing it

For which I don't have any particularly great or popular ideas. :P

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. A couple more.

1. National primaries.

2. Limit the length of campaigns to 90 days.

[jpgray]

6. The only thing I like about the current primary system is the personal contact it allows

People can actually interact with the candidates if the first primaries are on a single-state basis. However the choice of states I think should be far more representative of the country than they currently are. I would prefer a national primary to our current system.

I haven't considered what a short campaign cycle would do, but since image and name-recognition are currently so dominant in the first ninety days, I'd be worried that policy discussion would get even more buried.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. I think the opposite would occur.

I believe that the candidates would be forced to drop the sound bite, photo-op, campaigns and come up with something of substance.

Although, I have often expressed my disdain about the voting habits of the populace, I think that the majority of them can tell the difference between fluff and pandering to the things that actually matter.

Also, both a national primary and a limited campaign would cut the expenses of the campaigns thus limiting the need for big money.

And, it would spare the populace the antics of millionaires donning overalls, kissing ugly babies, and pretending to be of the "common folk".

[jpgray]

20. But since they would be unable to focus on a single area, wouldn't sound-bites rule all?

The media aren't exactly great at the moment in faithfully examining policy stances, and with a universal primary they would be the major source of information. Most of what I hear on TV is trifling image issues, PR marketing of "character," etc.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. I'm thinking in terms of debates rather than the endless commercials.

Real debates where the candidates would be forced, because of a short campaign, to get their ideas across to the public.

[jpgray]

22. In conjunction with a more responsible media atmosphere, it would work

I think a national primary would work better than our current system right now. 90 day campaign? Not so sure about how that would work currently. It's an interesting idea though.

[spanone]

7. the money will never allow any of those things to happen

[jpgray]

8. "Never" covers a lot of ground. I'll grant it's extremely unlikely to happen

But with enough public pressure and with a few marginally sympathetic branches of gov't it could in theory work. The point remains clear, I think, that it needs to be done. We just have to figure out how best to do it.

[Trillo]

9. You forgot the most critical one.

It's even more critical than voting.

1. Get rid of the privatized Federal Reserve banking system.
Put control of the money supply back into Congress's control, like the U.S. Constitution says.

[jpgray]

10. I'm very suspicious of the current system, but I'm no economist. Professor GAC, where are you?

[ulysses]

11. I'll rec that.

:thumbsup:

[jpgray]

12. It's always been a chicken or the egg thing for me

Do our major candidates just all happen to choose to support conservative economic policy? Or is it that only those who support conservative economic policy can become major candidates? Edwards is talking a good game now, sure, but his Senate record (not his flippin' house!) should give people pause.

[ulysses]

33. seems to me that the system favors economic conservatives becoming,

and being anointed as, major candidates. Support for more liberal policies comes more from the people more directly affected by conservative economics, and they aren't the ones to whose homes candidates come for money-raising hoedowns.

[bvar22]

13. Absolutely Agree!

And I believe there is a Democrtic Candidate for President who openly supports ALL of these and more!

"Our election system is in need of serious reform to expand and enrich democracy. I support measures such as:

* Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

* Comprehensive campaign finance reform and Clean Money public financing of the public's elections

* Ample free television time for candidates, coupled with the break-up of the media monopolies that restrict political debate

* Election Day as a holiday

* Election Day voter registration


I also support Instant Runoff Voting. IRV offers a cost-effective way of insuring that the winning candidate is preferred by a majority of voters; it encourages voters to vote their wishes and not their fears; it promotes greater voter turnout and positive campaigning."

http://www.kucinichforcongress.com/issues/campaignreform-irv.php

K&R

[jpgray]

14. Dennis gets my caucus vote, for sure. He got it in '04 as well.

Dodd, however, has been impressing me a lot lately. His record on accountability for corporate America is fairly solid for a Congressman.

[bvar22]

18. Mine too.

I can't understand how someone can look at The ISSUES and support anyone else in the Primaries.

Its like settling for Vanilla when there is a tub of Cherry Garcia right next to it.:shrug:

[robinlynne]

15. Great ideas. Unfortunately our country is going in exactly the opposite

direction, and fast. the FCC is moving to secretly deregulate even more!
our candidates are taking money from all the usual suspects. (not all, but at least one, if not more)
and voting.....

[jpgray]

17. That FCC chair is a treacherous snake. Wasn't he just on Moyers arguing for -more- ownership rules?

[ljm2002]

19. Great list, I must say!

Those three things would make a huge difference.

K & R

:kick:

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Good analysis. The only hard one to implement is public financing, because

of past court decisions vis a vis the constitution.

The other two, 1 & 3 are very doable, if people want to do them.

[jpgray]

24. How can we create an environment that is sympathetic to this plan?

Tough question, I know, but I'd like to know people's ideas on this.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. The main problem is that no one willingly gives up power. So getting either the

Dems or the Repos to pass instant run off in a state is impossible, because neither see it in their own interests. Small d democratic pluralism isn't going to come out of either party.


However, it could be done through initiative in states that have initiative. In fact, I believe such a campaign could be very beneficial on many different levels. It would allow voters to, in effect, take back power from both parties.


Anti-trust laws and enforcement to break up media monopolies could be done through the legislative, the administrative, or the initiative process.


I would suggest starting with instant run off by initiative in a Western State(s) where there is a reletively high percentage of independant voters. Framing the issue would be critical, because it is likely that both the Dems and the Repos would attempt to derail it by any number of means. In fact, this common self interest of both parties is a good point of attack for initiative backers from a strategic viewpopoint. And to pass it would need support of voters who identify themselves as Democrats and Republicans.

[Swamp Rat]

25. I think I agree

The first two I like, but I am not sure I understand the third. What does "Instant run-off voting" mean? What is the mechanism behind the name?

[jpgray]

27. Basically it allows you to rank your choices, so you can vote your heart -and- avoid any guilt

A basic description of how it works:

1. IRV uses ranked ballots to simulate a traditional runoff in a single round of voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. They may rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, with lower rankings never counting against higher rankings.

2. First choices are tabulated. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected.

3. If no candidate receives a majority of first choices, the candidate receiving the fewest first choices is eliminated. Ballots cast for the eliminated candidate are now counted toward those voters' second choices.

4. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority and is elected.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

[Swamp Rat]

28. Ah, ranking!

YES!!! I really like that! :applause:

It allows the voters to shift the vote away from the most disliked to the more liked candidates. Oh yes, we should do this right away.

I also like what SimpleTrend said:

"Get rid of the privatized Federal Reserve banking system."

Amen to that!

[enigmatic]

26. Spot-On

:thumbsup:

[JackRiddler]

29. Yes, yes, and no.

Have a real run-off. IRV amounts to a violation of one person, one vote principle. Americans should stop being lazy about this - if they can stand a four-year campaign season (ugh), they can stand to get off their asses and vote twice when necessary.

[jpgray]

30. Real run-off would be preferable, but IRV is more likely to pass

[JackRiddler]

34. I doubt that...

Even if more likely to pass - why? because it's easier on the voter? - it is then very likely to be shot down in court as a violation of "one person, one vote."

No shortcuts - demand the real thing first.

Like proportional representation, for a start. 49 percent of the voters should get 49 percent of the representation, otherwise it's not representative, at best it's majority rules (absolutely).

(A parliamentary system would be nice, too. Prime Minister Gingrich would have been out again in 1998; PM Bush would have been bounced in '04, '05 at the latest. We wouldn't have the disconnect of being forced to talk about this crap for 4 years non-stop but only being allowed to do something about it on one day in the leap year.)

[madokie]

32. Yes