Big Featured Discussions | November 02, 2010 | 94 comments

What would you change about election campaigning in the US?

Today is election day, and the midterm elections are already the top news. Speculation and analysts are already predicting turnout and results, and pondering what all of it could mean.

But putting aside the matter of who wins or who loses, there has also been attention focused on the campaign process yourself. Notable political figures, from the Obamas to Sarah Palin, have been giving speeches in support of various candidates. Voters have been receiving political calls and door to door visits from campaign workers and opening the mailbox results in a mini-avalanche of campaign fliers. And let's not forget the campaign ads on TV.

Is all this information really helping? Or is there a better way? How would you change the campaign process?

  1. groups:
    Culture,   Humanism,   Opinion,   The Future,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Elections Corporations Capitalism Parties 3 more
  3.     
    |

94 comments // What would you change about election campaigning in the US?

  • We_ThePeople
    • 0
      We_ThePeople  
    • Restrict the individual celebrity endorsements, individual corporate sponsorships, stop the campaign workers' door-to-door, and forget the party nominees. Leave it up to the people.
      1. Devise a selection criteria for candidates that "the people" nominate.
      2. Provide media events for ALL of the candidates for equal exposure.
      3. Make the "campaign trail" a publicised cross-country tour for the GROUP.
      4. Let the people tune in on t.v., attend the events, and vote for who they want.
      This, in turn, should follow for any other "elected" public seats.

      ...let us know what you think...
      http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-The-People-Can/327455860649381

    • 1 month ago
  • Elevator
    • +1
      Elevator  
    • You can't reform a broken system. I say we be rid of the whole mess and this time instead of being foolish enough to think that "this time it will be different, this time we'll make it work", for once we just say to hell with it and just get on with our lives.

    • 1 year ago
  • bertkamp
    • +1
      bertkamp  
    • Get rid of politicians. Seriously every single one of them. Politics should not be a career goal for anyone.

      The people who run for office should be educators, doctors, engineers, business men and women. People who have real ideas on how to fix problems. People who will actually want to actually fix things because they want to move on to other problems. Or get back to their own lives.

      Politicians don't fix things. They only do enough work to get reelected.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ericandrewking
    • 0
      Ericandrewking  
    • They should create a program that displays election results as the votes are cast. The government is too shady for us to believe they have no say on the final election results. This way it would be easier to determine whether or not a poll was taken correctly and not rigged.

    • 1 year ago
  • GENERALNATTY
    • 0
      GENERALNATTY  
    • a politician's proposed policies should be outlined in detail in terms the normal citizen can understand and he/she should be held legally responsible for promises they have no reasonable ability to bring forth , punishment may include loss of wages , fines , there job and prison if the infringement is severe enough.

      Example: dont tell me your gonna pull troops out by such and such date when you have not even spoken to a general or commander in the field to see if its even feasible.

      If we are to maintain any democratic powers with our growing population we need more than ever to be an informed public and have politicians with there ass on the line if they outright bullshit the public supporting them , we need to squeeze more honesty out of these politicians, not make a mistake electing a liar and wait 4 years to fix it.

    • 1 year ago
  • ReverandG
  • ReverandG
  • vg356
  • ReverandG
  • toyotabedzrock
  • Mark701
    • +3
      Mark701  
    • 1.) Forbid ANY contributions that do not come from individual US citizens and limit that amount to $100. This means banning all contributions from PACs, corporations, unions, "non profits", lobbyists etc. If anyone bitches that their right to free speech is being attacked by not allowing millions in contributions from these entities, remind them that in matters of federal campaigns, their single vote is their free speech in action and ask them to shut the fuck up.

      2).Initiate government funding of all federal campaigns. It levels the playing field for all parties involved such that no one candidate has an unfair financial advantage over the other UNLESS he/she is able to garner the single donations outlined in #1.

      2)Overturn the SCOTUS decision that granted corporations "person-hood".

      3)Overturn the recent SCOTUS decision that permits unlimited corporate donations to campaigns.

      4)Permit lobbyists to speak to federal officials under one condition: the conversation is recorded verbatim and immediately placed in an easily accessible online data base. Any violation of this law is a federal offense that is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

      This would be a good start.

    • 1 year ago
  • ReverandG
  • toyotabedzrock
  • vixxxen618
  • ReverandG
  • toyotabedzrock
  • Chupallama
    • +1
      Chupallama  
    • Mandate a "NOTA" ("none of the above") option for all races. If NOTA wins 50% +1, then new candidates must be run in that race. That would probably put an end to a lot of the negative crap flying around these days. (We gave up our land line a couple of years back because of robocalls, and don't watch local television because of the god-awful political ads.)

    • 1 year ago
  • navider
    • +2
      navider  
    • Instant-runoff voting for everyone!!!

      Voting machines to be nationalized!!!

      Equally funded elections..... everyone gets the exact same amount to spend!!

      No undisclosed donors!!

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • PressCore
    • +3
      PressCore  
    • What would I do to change election campaigning in the USA ? I would:
      1. Have a comprehensive, thorough Federal Statute enacted detailing
      minimum legal standards for all candidates on every level, including
      total disclosure of all campaign contributions over $100. 2 Mandate
      that a series of 3 live public debates be scheduled, with 20 questions
      specifically worded that the public interests groups compose and which
      the candidates have no chance to know of in advance, and no chance
      to rehearse. 3. Train a camera calibrated to obtain a facial heat signature
      from all candidates which functions more accurately than a galvanic skin response. Analyze the veracity of each candidate's response by means
      of both the heat signatures & a logic vocabulary using the reductio ad
      absurdum rational analysis. 4. Publish the findings 1 month before the
      elections inthe local newspapers allowing time for letters to the editor
      to comment on the published findings. With screening that dilligent,
      90% of the crooked politicians who figured they'd breeze through their
      sleeze would not run. The remaining 10% would be closely scrutinized.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • callenstewart
    • +3
      callenstewart  
    • I think every time a political ad tells an lie or half truth, they should get a fine. And after 3 strikes, you're out. You can't run for office.

    • 1 year ago
  • bertkamp
  • Jake_Leonard
    • +4
      Jake_Leonard  
    • (This has more to do with the election, in general)

      Force or provide an incentive for people to take a US Government class (free of charge) before voting.This eliminates the excuse that they are not informed enough to make a decision. It also clues people in on the fact that their vote does, indeed, count. Whether your being persuaded or not by media is another thing.

      Make November 2nd a paid holiday. This 37% voter turnout is pathetic. We should make it as big of a deal as we do with independence day, or dare I say the consumerism holiday, Christmas.

    • 1 year ago
  • callenstewart
  • Nephwrack
  • Nephwrack
  • dhalp86
  • Jake_Leonard
    • 0
      Jake_Leonard  
    • Nephwrack:

      Sure, but make it college level; perhaps a required AP class?

      I thought of this, too, that students will have less of an interest or care for remembering what the Government class teaches until they are actually able to vote. And for future generations, this is good, but we have a large amount of middle aged Americans not voting, either. Might as well begin fixing it with the oldest generation.

      Making a POS/USGOV 101 college level class available free for ANY US citizen not only educates them on our political system, but also aids in formulating personal ideologies--at the very least asking questions and finding answers. It gives them confidence to go out and vote. At this point, I'd rather have the uninformed not vote like they're doing; but preferably, I'd like them to add to our voting population as educated citizens.

      (assuming you make it a requirement...) People may bitch that it is a natural right to vote in this country, and one should not be required to take a class on politics. Well, we require a test of driving knowledge before you're issued your driver's license, why shouldn't it be the same for voting in individuals who directly affect our entire country's state?

      As a side benefit, the class may potentially invigorate adults to go back to college.

      Hell, make it so businesses have to provide a paid leave of absence (or SOMETHING along those lines) for those wanting to take a condensed 8 week course.

      I'm just throwing ideas out there; obviously something needs done to educate citizens, and promote the actual act of voting.

    • 1 year ago
  • dhalp86
    • +1
      dhalp86  
    • Jake_Leonard:

      Perhaps it's not just a government class (I get you on not necessarily being interested until being allowed to vote, though I believe in teachers' ability to garner interest), but a "civics" class like ones I I heard about from schools a few decades ago. Perhaps it was cynicism near the end of the century that eliminated a class like that, but early education of how and why to be involved (not where and who) can help kids' interest evolve naturally.

    • 1 year ago
  • alexandrek
  • ReverandG
  • ReverandG
  • ReverandG
  • AJILIVIZION
    • 0
      AJILIVIZION  
    • The entire approach of what a campaign ought to be about should be transformed. Keep it simple. Every person looking to be elected to any position should put out a legitimate resume/record of experience. I want to know where the candidates grew up, what school they went to, what type of degree they earned, what type of jobs they have taken on, and most importantly, who provided them a salary of any kind. The emphasis ought to be on transparency and integrity. The people have a right to know who the candidate has worked for and what they accomplished in their time.

      When it comes to running a campaign to get their name known and gain support, candidates ought to be subject to Q & A's from the residents that are being rallied, such as town hall meetings, except for the fact that it should be mandatory. Candidates ought to be able to tell citizens what direction they seek to take on certain topics and issues. The candidates should put out official statements of proposals, amendments, referendums, policies, actions, etc, that they would support or deny, along with their reasoning. The representatives in government positions should explain to its people what their plans are, how they came to make these decisions, and how these actions will effect the citizens.

      **If you have read this far and realized that representatives already do this, well done; The problem is that people depend on media outlets and journalists to chase after these answers that citizens should have a right to. Now that it has become clear the Corporate media has put a strangle on filtering information, the people can no longer trust these outlets. Journalists were the ones that investigated the powerful to inform the rest of us on what was taking place. Technology has developed well enough that we should not have to rely on journalists to chase after every bit of information. Public officials should be subject to answering the people and making their position known. Lets cut out the middle "foxes"... oops, I meant middle men. Freudian slip :P

      I just want the entire process of electing public officials made much more simple. There should be transparency of the candidates' past, present and future.

    • 1 year ago
  • Blind_Watchmaker
  • Mayeffie
    • +2
      Mayeffie  
    • I would take the money out of it because it has been hijacked by people with money shutting the majority of Americans out completely

    • 1 year ago
  • FreshHealthy
    • +2
      FreshHealthy  
    • If I could change something it would be that politicians would no longer be allowed to lie, exaggerate, mislead, etc., and that each time they did lie, exaggerate, mislead (even if they did so without knowing they lied, exaggerated, mislead, etc.,) it would cost them 1,000 votes. Always remember that it is not illegal to lie, and the freedom to say anything just to score some votes is one of the most dangerous things about our political system. Too many people vote in favor of the politician(s) who is the most deceiving without realizing the impact their gullibility has on the future of this nation.

      Politicians should be held to a standard of high social responsibility and accountability, but sadly, they are not. Without some sort of sanction in place for dishonesty, we will always have people like karl rove or dick cheney, who, when confronted with facts that completely debunk their argument, say things like "75% of NPR listeners were Saddam Hussein." We need a sanction for this because there are unintelligent, gullible people who lack critical thinking skills and think when they hear that sort of fallacious statement, "holy shit, I didn't know 75 out of every 100 people who listen to NPR are Saddam Hussein! People who listen to NPR must be fascists! What does Glenn Beck think we can do to make this better?"

    • 1 year ago
  • mik661
  • Nephwrack
  • ThoughtNu
    • +2
      ThoughtNu  
    • I would remove any and ALL 'profit' from the political process ...3 billion spent on media ?

      With such initiatives as equal free (PSA) air time between candidates, possibly dedicate a local channel...

      Political Parties would have to focus on citizens needs, not 'greasing wheels' (Imagine that)

      I like the idea of a small fine if a citizen chooses not to vote

      Clear the barriers for the 'average' citizen that wants to participate but doesn't have millions to spend on media in politics and focus on issues, not personalities.

      Money capped and only to come from 'Living, breathing ' citizens.

      Living citizens should be the only participant in the political process.

      Not 'money', 'political market' (3 billion is a market/racket), tangible and intangible corporations/products... to endorse or support any candidate.

      NO , NONE , NOT ANOTHER
      progenitor ..
      in American politics!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Rx4f-QatI

    • 1 year ago
  • Darevalo
  • oppressed1
    • +2
      oppressed1  
    • I would stop the adds completely, they dont bring anything to debate.They only make me hate both canidates.

      I would cap how much the GOP, and DNC contribute to each canidate.

      I would make outside donations illegal. So people like you, and I who are not millionares could have our views in contention.

    • 1 year ago
  • kennymotown
    • +6
      kennymotown  
    • 1. Putting a spending cap on election races, like is done in England! I believe it sits at 100,000 pounds! Probably won't happen because Corporate Media depends on the 3 billion dollar bailout every other year. In other words too much money to be made!

      2. Public financed elections, and getting the Corporate money out of the equation! Probably won't happen either, again because there is just too much money to be made!

      3. By public financed elections more party's will be included in the process! Probably won't happen either because the grip of the two party system has and they would be the ones who would have too vote to change it. Cutting their own throats, are you nuts?

      4. Make a fine of say 100 dollars if you don't vote! It works in Australia! Probably won't happen either because people would be outraged about a fine of 100 dollars cause after all it only takes minutes too vote.

      5. Vote by mail, it's safe and works darn good here in Oregon! This could actually happen.

      6. Get rid of the electronic voting machines once and for all! Paper ballots work and are counted on election day in several country's around the world including Canada, and Germany! This could actually happen with a citizen measure placed on ballots throughout the country!

    • 1 year ago
  • zHellas
  • jpvt
    • +5
      jpvt  
    • Here's some stuff that should happen, but never will:

      1. Reforming campaign financing to encourage new political parties. If we had four or five significant political parties and a few small but electable ones then the people in power would actually have to work together. Imagine if no party had a majority in congress, and the largest minority had to get other parties together to make a majority to elect a speaker (parliamentary style).

      2. Mandatory voting. A lot of countries have mandatory voting laws. More people would educate themselves about the candidates if they couldn't blow off voting, and that would have a bit of a limiting effect on the influence of special interest groups.

      3. Change rules about campaign ads. Make it so all ads have to be approved by an independent board for reasonable factual accuracy.

      4. Finally, shorten the campaign season. Make it illegal to campaign anytime before August on an election year. Primaries happen on the first Tuesday of September. General elections happen on the first Tuesday of November.

    • 1 year ago
  • olddogdaddy
    • +2
      olddogdaddy  
    • no corporate donors to any campaign. it is supposed to be about who will best represent the people's interests, not business interests.

      every business has people and people's interests are often at conflict with the business mandate; more profits!

      our government was formed and designed to protect people's rights!

    • 1 year ago
  • Dazedandconfused
    • +1
      Dazedandconfused  
    • I agree there should be a ban on political advertisements, there all bias and mostly factless, I don't care what your opponent did last year, what are YOU gonna do for my vote? I'm also not intellegent enough to answer this sanely or logically, but UtopianSky does a wonderful job .. +^d

    • 1 year ago
  • ayipis
    • -15
      ayipis  
    • here is a good idea....somewhat unrelated..

      all voters should be employed..hence all politicians will try to assure everybody has a job..

    • 1 year ago
  • CarlosIsDown
  • Nephwrack
  • 1947lucymaldonado
  • coxian_armada
  • Nephwrack
  • Stever_B
  • Dazedandconfused
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +1
      Varex_Sythe  
    • ayipis:

      Then I'm assuming you wouldn't get to vote since your refuse to answer the question, "what do you do for employment?" One can only assume that it means you are unemployed...

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +2
      UtopianSky  
    • I posed this in another thread:

      I think it would be best if:

      1.) All political advertising of any kind- TV, street signs, whistlestop tours, etc, should be banned. A government website should be created called VOTE.GOV that is a single source of information about the candidates, provided by the candidates.

      2.) Presidential candidates have a series of debates- three group debates per party before the primaries, and then three between the two candidates, and one between the VP candidates. These debates would be televised live on all news channels, and streamed live on YouTube, Hulu, etc, and available after on VOTE.GOV.

      3.) People running for Governor, Senate, and Congress would have three debates each, broadcast in each state, and available on VOTE.GOV.

      4.) Lower offices would also have debates, that would air on the local news and on the Public Access Channel, and streamed on the VOTE.GOV website, if uploaded to it.

      5.) No News source should be allowed to take polls or predict outcomes of elections. That just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      This way, a person with NO money but good ideas and charisma could run for any office.

      But will we ever see change like that?
      Nope.
      Because it would take politicians to vote for it.

    • 1 year ago
  • ayipis
  • Proud_Progressive
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • Proud_Progressive:

      The government would not control anything- they would just provide the web server.

      Each individual candidate (or their staff) maintains the equivalent of a "facebook page" about their candidate.

      And, the server would host the debate videos.

      None of the content is edited, promoted, or anything by anyone associated with maintaining the website.

    • 1 year ago
  • zHellas
  • UtopianSky
  • Proud_Progressive
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • Proud_Progressive:

      It's not censorship- no content is edited.

      It is just making sure that politicians don't get to buy their office by bombarding the public with advertising.

      Each politician has a voice, without a greater voice for the one with the most money.

      Would you prefer the videos are hosted on a corporate-owned space, like Google?

      How about if they are on a server maintained by the League of Women Voters- they tend to host debates and such.

    • 1 year ago
  • Proud_Progressive
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • Proud_Progressive:

      And people can't scream fire in a crowded theater.

      This is all about paid advertising- Tobacco products cannot be advertised on TV. Should that be allowed, or is that censorship? Should Joe Camel cartoons be on Saturday mornings?

      Don't focus on the "letter" of what censorship is, but on the meaning and intent of what censorship is.

      This does not limit content in any way. it only ensures everyone is on a level playing field, and that all voices are heard equally.

      If you have any other way to accomplish that OTHER than preventing the wealthy from bombarding the public with ads, let's hear it.

    • 1 year ago
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • ThatCrazyLibertarian:

      Ah, but this is compelling state interest!

      As it stands now, the candidate who pays the most money wins, so the candidate who gets bought by the biggest corporations wins. This would end that, and create better government.

      This would not stop a reporter from writing about politicians- only paid advertising.

      Plus, all concepts of media have to be rethought for the digital age. As it stands now, a handful of media sources convey the majority of information, so it is important, now, to limit politicians to buy people's votes with advertising.

      In the future, as media becomes more and more fragmented, and the TV networks disappear, nothing will exist to be prevented; It would be impossible to bombard people with ads when ads are simply rectangles on the sides of pages.

      It simply provides a central repository of information about candidates.

      ... and I don't want to go to Law School!
      I'm getting my masters in game programming, simulation and AI.
      Someday I will make a computer that will rule us all!

    • 1 year ago
  • noxidereus
    • +4
      noxidereus  
    • Remove all campaign financing and instead use public money to fund a platform where all the candidates could debate the issues. Commercializing our political system is not the way to go. The voters need to be well-informed on the issues. Stupid dishonest infomercials about the candidates serve only to confuse the people.

      Now that corporations can buy elections by basically funding their favored candidates, our elections are shams. It's a fucking circus and it has to stop. There is no reason why anyone needs to personally give money to a candidate. The entire idea is ridiculous to me.

      The electorate needs to be well informed about where the candidates stand on issues and that's all we need. We don't Jerry-Springer-like propaganda, nor stupid superficial ads packed with bullshit.

    • 1 year ago
  • dontteaonme
    • 0
      dontteaonme  
    • Death panels for senators, let me explain!

      Most Republican senators feel they can do what ever they want, some Dems too.
      Republicans try to obstruct Democrats from having discussions with their constitutes various ways, that's off topic tho.

      So it should be required that they answer all questions then put them up on an elevated platform with only their chest exposed and an extra thick bullet proof vest.

      Then everyone can let them know how much we disprove of them!

      This is meant as a joke btw.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • CalgarC
  • Conniepae
    • +3
      Conniepae  
    • There should be a campaign season. Not right from one campaign to the next. Constant campaigning, leaves no one to govern. It just divides us 'all the time'. I am sick of campaign spin and commercials.

      Politicians are allowed to lie. No one holds them accountable when they do it. I think if politicians were accountable for lying, they would stop campaigning on lies. The lies and distortion just goes on and on and on.

      I'm afraid the 1012 campaign will start tomorrow. Politicians will be positioning for the next campaign starting tomorrow. Campaigning has become 'business as usual' in America. 'Business as usual' is tearing us apart. That's no way to run a country. Sad, sad, sad!

    • 1 year ago
  • idealist
    • +3
      idealist  
    • there should be an equal spending limit for both party's and equal air time for both candidates. no more and i guess no less.

    • 1 year ago
  • Confucius
  • EmperorThan
  • dhalp86
    • +2
      dhalp86  
    • There's plenty wrong with the campaigners themselves, but we as mass consumers are also part of the problem in (among other ways) allowing ourselves to be suckered and victimized by simple and shameless rhetoric. Some of the most offensive ads, from any side of the elections are ones that use otherwise meaningless trigger words. They're not even attacking an opponent: They're just calling them names that we're trained to recognize as "the other side." Until we demand that the electorate and elected raise the quality of the conversation, we'll face the same problems in most every campaign.

    • 1 year ago
  • addie340
    • 0
      addie340  
    • They need to make a law that prevents people running for office telling outright lies about their opponent. When they get caught they should be made to drop out of the race. This would be a start in cleaning the election cycle up. Also they should be a set limit on what they can spend on a campaign. The amount they spend now days is just unreal, any money they bring in above that limit should be used to pay off the Nat'l Debt or donated to charities.

    • 1 year ago
  • Proud_Progressive
  • remanns
  • Proud_Progressive
  • remanns
  • zHellas
  • snarly
    • +3
      snarly  
    • Limit campaigns to 60 days, allow a max of 50 million per campaign for national campaigns. NO CORPORATE DONATIONS!!! Let the people fund the campaighns by tax checkoff. If you want to donate, do it in April each year. Corporations are not people, they should not have a voice.

    • 1 year ago
  • PigFarmington
  • 1947lucymaldonado
  • dhalp86
  • Varex_Sythe
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • remanns
  • ThatCrazyLibertarian
  • remanns
sgwhites

top videos