How Do We Fix The System?

ThAnswr

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
3,975
I think most of us can agree that this election season and campaign was a disgrace, and there's no other way to put it, not worthy of our Constitution and our democracy.

We have to take control of our system out of the hands of the politicians and the 2 parties and put it back into the control of "We The People".

Here's my ideas:

1) Replace the electoral college with a direct popular vote.

No good will come of a Kerry gain in Ohio, and thus the electoral college victory, if he loses the popular vote by 3.5 million. That's a recipe for disaster.

2) Set up a system of uniform, countrywide voting process including ballots, mode of voting (touch screen, optical scanner, etc)

This system of having 50 different processes and sets of rules is killing us. We are not 13 colonies anymore and we have to face the reality that "state's rights" should not take precedence over national rights to a national election. The states can handle their statewide elections anyway they want, but there is no reason why anyone should be held hostage to someone's state rule.

3) Take control of the re-districting process out of the hands of the political parties and the state legislatures. What happened in Texas is a disgraceful exhibition of raw political power that will do nothing but create hard feelings, and downright hatred, for many years.

We should set up non-partisan committees similar to Iowa and have them draw up plans that can then be voted on the state legislatures.

4) Set up a non-partisan committee to handle candidate debates. This crap of having a 32 page document to control the debates was an insult to the American voter.

5) Remove the limits on campaign contributions, but have full disclosure of every campaign contribution and sponsorship of every political ad. Let's see who's really paying for things, who they bought, and how much they paid for it.

6) Bring back the "Fairness Doctrine"
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Under the guise of "free speech" we have talking heads spewing the worst type of political discussion that does nothing but demonize the other side to the point where you can no longer just disagree with someone politically, you have to hate their guts in the process. And the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's and the Beck's and all the rest of the rightwing talking heads are laughing all the way to the bank. And our divisions grow deeper with each passing year.

No matter how many times these talking heads claim that the "Fairness Doctrine" stifles free speech, the fact is we had free speech and honest political discussions long before rightwing talk radio. Our democracy did not start with Rush Limbaugh.

And that is just for openers.
 
I agree with all of it except for no 1 and 6. I do not think the president should be elected by a popular vote. the founding fathers intent was to give each state a say (while not a equal one).
I'm "on the fence" as to allowing states to split their electorial votes. I would have to research it more, but so far it is not something I am not opposed to.

for no 6 I really do think it is freedom of speach.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
I think most of us can agree that this election season and campaign was a disgrace, and there's no other way to put it, not worthy of our Constitution and our democracy.

We have to take control of our system out of the hands of the politicians and the 2 parties and put it back into the control of "We The People".

Here's my ideas:

1) Replace the electoral college with a direct popular vote.

No good will come of a Kerry gain in Ohio, and thus the electoral college victory, if he loses the popular vote by 3.5 million. That's a recipe for disaster.

2) Set up a system of uniform, countrywide voting process including ballots, mode of voting (touch screen, optical scanner, etc)

This system of having 50 different processes and sets of rules is killing us. We are not 13 colonies anymore and we have to face the reality that "state's rights" should not take precedence over national rights to a national election. The states can handle their statewide elections anyway they want, but there is no reason why anyone should be held hostage to someone's state rule.

3) Take control of the re-districting process out of the hands of the political parties and the state legislatures. What happened in Texas is a disgraceful exhibition of raw political power that will do nothing but create hard feelings, and downright hatred, for many years.

We should set up non-partisan committees similar to Iowa and have them draw up plans that can then be voted on the state legislatures.

4) Set up a non-partisan committee to handle candidate debates. This crap of having a 32 page document to control the debates was an insult to the American voter.

5) Remove the limits on campaign contributions, but have full disclosure of every campaign contribution and sponsorship of every political ad. Let's see who's really paying for things, who they bought, and how much they paid for it.

6) Bring back the "Fairness Doctrine"
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

Under the guise of "free speech" we have talking heads spewing the worst type of political discussion that does nothing but demonize the other side to the point where you can no longer just disagree with someone politically, you have to hate their guts in the process. And the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's and the Beck's and all the rest of the rightwing talking heads are laughing all the way to the bank. And our divisions grow deeper with each passing year.

No matter how many times these talking heads claim that the "Fairness Doctrine" stifles free speech, the fact is we had free speech and honest political discussions long before rightwing talk radio. Our democracy did not start with Rush Limbaugh.

And that is just for openers.

Interesting thoughts. I'd like to participate in an exchange of ideas but I have been glued to my computer chair for well over 24 hours (slept from 3-6 a.m.) and I need to get moving. But I'll check back in.

And as for #6....you left out Michael Moore and Al Franken and some others.
 
I think one way to stop the insanity is to have standardized voting across the nation.

I live in NW Florida & we use optical scanners; our family in Louisiana uses levers; South Florida uses electronic touch pads.

I believe it we use the same method for casting your vote across the nation, then there will be less confusion & stop the future problems in Elections.,
 

Wow, that was fast.

I need a little time to digest it before responding.
 
I am for doing away with the electoral college only because I think it should be a popular vote. BUT the EC does have a small purpose in that it makes the candidates try to reach all citizens. I think all cand. should be made to spend time in EACH state not just the "battleground" ones. The president should be for all citizens.

Steve
 
Originally posted by sha_lyn
I agree with all of it except for no 1 and 6. I do not think the president should be elected by a popular vote. the founding fathers intent was to give each state a say (while not a equal one).
I'm "on the fence" as to allowing states to split their electorial votes. I would have to research it more, but so far it is not something I am not opposed to.

for no 6 I really do think it is freedom of speach.

All it says in the Fairness Doctrine is that the public airwaves cannot be used an advocate for just one pov. If you're going to present one view, you have to present a view from the other side. In other words "fair and balanced".

So how is this infringing on anyone's freedom of speech?
 
Originally posted by bsnyder
Interesting thoughts. I'd like to participate in an exchange of ideas but I have been glued to my computer chair for well over 24 hours (slept from 3-6 a.m.) and I need to get moving. But I'll check back in.

And as for #6....you left out Michael Moore and Al Franken and some others.

I wasn't aware Michael Moore had a radio show 3 hours a day 5 days a week. That's what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

The Fairness doctrine says nothing about producing/directing a movie, showing it in theaters, and have the public use their own money to see it. That is not using the public airwaves.

As for Al Franken, the Fairness Doctrine would apply to him too. Who knows where his ratings would go.
 
Originally posted by fireplug
I. BUT the EC does have a small purpose in that it makes the candidates try to reach all citizens. I think all cand. should be made to spend time in EACH state not just the "battleground" ones. The president should be for all citizens.

Steve

I agree, but I will say as a democrat living in Texas, I didn't get reached by either candidate. It was asumed by both that I would vote a certain way. For all the time Bush has spent in Crawford he certainly didn't spend any time campaigning here. And the only time Kerry/Edwards came anywhere near me was last year when John Edwards came to the bookstore where I work to sign his new book.

I agree, the EC is flawed. As someone pointed out on another thread, if the same candidate wins 11 specific staes he wins the elction. How is that fair? How is that making sure that less populated states are acounted for? It should be tied to the popular vote more than it is now.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
I wasn't aware Michael Moore had a radio show 3 hours a day 5 days a week. That's what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

The Fairness doctrine says nothing about producing/directing a movie, showing it in theaters, and have the public use their own money to see it. That is not using the public airwaves.

As for Al Franken, the Fairness Doctrine would apply to him too. Who knows where his ratings would go.

And what would we do about Dan Rather?
 
Most of what you'd like to "fix," I don't see as broken. The only points I'd really agree on are the debate rules and removing the limits on campaign contributions but having full disclosure.
 
I agree, the EC is flawed. As someone pointed out on another thread, if the same candidate wins 11 specific staes he wins the elction. How is that fair? How is that making sure that less populated states are acounted for? It should be tied to the popular vote more than it is now.

With the popular vote 7 cities (6 states) could elect the president. How is 11 states picking the president less fair than 6 states picking the president?
 
I don't see anything wrong with the electoral college. Ohio (20)& Florida(27) had no more input into the decision than Texas(34) and New York(31) did...the latter two just happen to be more predictable. The EV numbers are based on population. It's balanced.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
I guess he could share a desk with Brit Hume.

Be honest, please. Have you ever seen Fox News do anything as blatantly partisan (in scope and scale) as the 60 Minutes forgery? And if so, could you give me the example(s)?
 
I wasn't aware Michael Moore had a radio show 3 hours a day 5 days a week. That's what the Fairness Doctrine is all about.

All it says in the Fairness Doctrine is that the public airwaves cannot be used an advocate for just one pov. If you're going to present one view, you have to present a view from the other side. In other words "fair and balanced".

Rush has a 3 hour show 5 days a week because his opinions are popular with a large segment of the population. Ditto Sean Hannity, etc. MM & Franken don't because most Americans don't agree with their opinions. We don't need a Fairness Doctrine. Let the market decide. The libs need to get in touch with middle America.
 
I hear people say keep the electoral due to states rights.

How about allowing each state to vote? Everyone in the state would vote... Add all votes up for one winner...then have one vote for each state. The winner is the one who wins the most states? Sounds confusing but would be simple. Oh, wait... that would be a disaster. A simple government!
 
#1 No. I don't want California and the Eastern Seaboard electing he Presdient

#2. I find it baffling that in this day and age we cannot come up with a secure electronic voting system that would allow me to vote from either my home, or from a library or polling place. It's inexcusable. I realize counties are responsible for elections, but this is something that should be uniform and federally funded, at least for national elections. Counties could still set their own rules, but the method of voting should be consistent.

#3. Agree in princple. But this is a states rights issue that the Fed Govt has no authority, or business sticking their nose in

#4 Agreed. And no well known media news readers need serve as moderators.

#5. Agreed.

#6. Disagree. There are plenty of outlets for opposing points of view. The fact that they may not be as popular or have the listenership of the examples you cite does not warrant govt intervention to rectify that.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom