Will we ever acknowledge the real issue with our campaigning? - Short Essay

I like this guy

 

Well I believe that this Goverment that we live is complete BS, and we need a change because when Obama was Elected, Americas Money Supply went down more that what it was already. People need to focus and look into the Facts Before they Vote Becasue if they dont, then they could make a very bad and poor decision!

 

While it's generally true that 3rd parties aren't likely to win a great deal more of higher offices at the ballot box, it's also true that many of the campaign laws in each state and at the federal level are designed to make it difficult for third parties as well as any upstart challengers within the two major parties.

Good people don't run not only because they have other interests, but because the difficulties of tracking all of the little details the omission of which could lead to civil and criminal penalties simply makes it too onerous and dangerous of a task. It's really no different than the regulatory structure which crowds out small businesses by piling on the paperwork.

 

Says who?.....besides the ad company.....

Wouldnt the better solution be to cure the ignorance?

Or should we simply remove Corporate Campaign Spending......so Union and Democrat Campaign Spending can have the (I)gnorant and the (D)umb all to themselves?
.
.

 

If Gary Johnson were a smart politician with a yen for the White House, he needs to do two things:

Start introducing himself to the American people for 2016 or 2020. That is what Jimmy Carter did starting the day after McGovern got blasted in 1972. Four years later he won.

Start ginning up a viable party at the grass roots. Politics is a team game being President with both parties hating your guts is not a pleasant thought. This is where the Tea Party is playing it smart by taking over an existing party from the bottom up. They keep working and a new Ronald Reagan will apear and will have a working party with him.Most third or fourth party folks never grasp that little detail.

 

Agreed, but the only way I can see the ignorance being cured is to somehow remove the attacks and educate the public on the views of the politicians. I mean, the people who DESIRE to educate themselves do. But there will always be the majority of the voters who only know what they see on the television commercials. :/

 

This man hit it on the nose.

 

Instead of that how about requiring individuals of voting age to pass a test about our government and be licensed to vote just like we're licensed to drive a car?

Of course I could see many people failing the test because they're too ignorant about our government to pass it and I will provide just one multiple choice question to exemplify that.

Question: Who has the most power in the US Government based upon the US Constitution?

A. The Congress
B. The President
C. The Supreme Court
D. The People
E. The States

There are arguments for each but under the US Constitution there's really only one correct answer. How many here would get it right and be able to explain why?

 

Professor Shiva_TD, my answer is choice D.
But actually D&E are kinda similar in some ways, but I see where your going with the two seperate choices.. But like you said, each one could be argued and to be totally honest its none of these. Each one is incomplete without the others, so that question is a little bit difficult.

 

My answer is Choice D.
because the fact that we the people are the voters and pretty much chose who we want to run our government, and those people in the higher offices from the past and right now and in the future would not be there without us voters voting for them. Therefore that makes the people more powerful than anyone in the government. also besides the fact that if we ever wanted to, we could start a rebellion and easily over run the government, but like I said that’s besides the fact, but it’s also something to think about when it comes to this question and your answer.

 

I don't see how this would effect soft money. You can't pass a law saying someone cannot advocate for a given candidate, and even if we abridged free speech in that way, folks (through pacs and independently) would just advocate for positions, using buzz words to effectively identify themselves with their selected candidate. If candidates could not explore other promotional opportunities by law, getting on the good side of big money pacs would be their only way to increase exposure. This would increase soft money influence, not decrease it.​

 

How many remember or were ever AWARE that contributing money to a political campaign is FREE SPEECH? In the USA, we have free speech. Once again the problem is politicians, not money or parties 2 or 20, or the system.

For 50 years America slept and allowed liberals to take over. Then Republicans copied their tactics because they had the positions. The pendulum will swing away from bad politicians or the nation will collapse.

 

People would like to believe that the People have the most control related to the federal government but in reality they have the least control. Yes, they vote to elect representatives to Congress and their vote is important related to the selection of Electorial College members based upon State laws (i.e. there isn't a Constitutional requirement for a popular vote in electing the President) but they cannot create federal law and can't even change the US Constitution. The "people" have literally no control over federal laws or the actions of the federal government.

The real answer is "E" based upon Article V of the US Constitution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article05/

While not used since 1786 the power of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention and, with 3/4ths states concurring, to amend the roles and responsibilities of the US government or to even abolish the US government is unquestionably supreme. The States (not the People) created the United States goverment and have always retained to power to modify or desolve it under Article V of the US Constitution. The federal government can't even amend the US Constitution and is limited to submitting proposed amendments to the States for ratification. While this power hasn't been used since 1786 that doesn't discount the fact that the States have the power.

As I mentioned, many Americans would fail a serious test about the US government and I can't say it's really their fault. Our schools don't really teach us very much about our government even though high schools (to my knowledge) have a required course on it.

 

This is more than just a little bit true. Imagine one simple change in how we elect House of Representative members. Eliminate congressional districts completely and simply elect representatives based upon vote counts. Third party candidates would unquestionably be elected to the House of Representatives. For example, if a State was allocated ten House seats then we'd assume that Republicans and Democrats would each put up ten candidates but a minority party like the Libertarian Party would probably only put up one. With every person having one vote we could assume the most popular Republicans and Democrats would gain an overwhelming majority of the votes from their respective party members while lesser known candidates would receive virtually none. The single minority party candidate would receive virtually 100% of that party's vote and that would be far more than the lesser know major party candidates.

We'd instantly have a more diverse House of Representatives representing political ideologies other than just the D&R ideologies. That would be very good for the US government and the American People.

There is more than a little truth to this as well. We've made so many idiotic laws related to elections that it's virtually like trying to be a US citizen and not break any laws. Someone once calculated that it would take over 300 years for an American to read all of the laws and regulations that they're required to follow and yet "ignornance of the law is not an excuse" if we violate a law or regulation. Our government requires us to meet an impossible task.

 

I don't have the link, but I've read that local, state and federal laws together, we have passed 30,000 new laws per year since 1950. Less than 2 million [1,860,000] NEW laws. If it only took 15 minutes to read each new law, that would take 53 years. And then you'd be behind about 2 million laws again.

And in my case, really, really old!

 

Will we ever acknowledge the real issue with our campaigning?

Yes, the economy and jobs.

 

"

There is a general misconception by both people and politicians related to the economy. The government is limited to acts that suppress the economy. It is a pragmatic necessity for some suppression of the economy for the protection of the Rights of the Individual related to monopolies and unfair business practices but the government cannot "improve the economy" except by limiting it's involvement in it to the least extent possible. Many misunderstand the "Republican" position on this because the "Republicans" propose less regulation. In some cases this is what needs to be done but the Republicans, like Mitt Romney, are corporalists that want laws that benefit the wealthy corporations owners as opposed to providing for the protections of the Rights of People though regulation. In short they want to reduce the regulations we need for the benefit of the wealthy. They target the wrong regulations for repeal. For example they target the EPA which limites the abuse of the environment by corporations but the corporations have no right to violate the Rights of the Individual by polluting the environment.

 

this is a common logical flaw. Stay with me please:

I used to work retail. Every Christmas we would get in tons of white Christmas lights and colored Christmas lights. The colored lights would sell out and not get replenished and by the second week in December all we had was white lights...so guess which lights sold the best in the week before Christmas.....(go ahead, think on it real hard, I'll give you a minute...)...WHITE! tada! so the powers that be decreed that the most popular lights we had was white and each year we recieved less and less colored lights and more white and sold out colors earlier and earlier increasing the sale of the white (because people will buy white rather than nothing)

it is a logical fallacy to say that something sells really well when you don't provide an alternative.

Same thing with Lay's BBQ chips, I spoke to the Lay's rep about getting some..."They don't sell" he said. Well they will NEVER sell if you don't put them out for people to buy.

Same with TV, remember when Paris Hilton was everywhere? They claimed that's what we wanted to see but you couldn't watch any showbusiness/news/compilation show without some reference to her. Does that mean we wanted to see her or did it mean we suffered thru to get to other stuff we did want to see? there's no way of knowing..

all of which goes to say: since there is no one offering a positive campaign, you can't say that 'negative ads work' because there hasn't been anything to compare it to. There has not been a single Presidential campaign that stayed positive thru the entire process.

 

There is NOTHING stopping willfully ingorant people from finding out the views of the politicians.....

Well using your same logic......shouldnt we get the TVs out of politics?
.
.

 

There is a presidential candidate where I've not read a single case of "attack" ads being used. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate. So why isn't he getting the media attention and why aren't people listening to his positive message for America?

 

What political pros see is this:

Candidate X runs a strong negative ad sequence and his polling numbers at least temporarily improve against his opponent.

"Positive" ads may work long-term, but the pros don't see a "bounce" from them.

If the polls did not respond to negative ads, parties wouldn't use them.

 

Politicians just can't help themselves. I spent as much time as possible in the field with my salesmen and sales managers. I taught them to NEVER try to sell our goods because the other guy was bad. Sell ours because the customer will love what it does for him. We started small, ended up international and over $100 million. But in politics, once one goes negative, the other cannot stop themselves. Would positive adds work in the long run? We will probably never know since politicians can't help themselves. Sadly I do negative on this forum too. Just can't ignore the lies and attacks of the other 'side'. And I know full well that to get the country back, we have to work together. But it seems, first, we have to stop the idiocy, and that's not 'working together.'

 

You completely changed my answer, none of those choices were correct solely. To be totally honest that was illogical because that is not where the "power" is in reality. & again, no disrespect just stating my opinion.

 

If government can only act to suppress the economy (an observation I've found to be accurate), then the question rises:

WHY DON'T THEY STOP SUPPRESSING THE ECONOMY?!

 

I think the main point just whizzed over many of your heads.