Originally Posted by benrodda
How about a petition... because law makers and media would oppose this:
1. Absolutely no private funding for candidates or parties: corporate, personal or otherwise. Corporations or private individuals can give to a general election fund and given significant tax break.
2. All parties given the same amount to spend on their campaign. A party must meet a standard of qualifications to be given the budget. (a minimum membership, must be constitutional, ect..) maybe have a maximum of four parties.
3. Primaries begin in June and end in August, general election in November.
4. CSPAN or PBS to run bi weekly or weekly debates
5. Electoral college removed and replaced with popular vote.
what do you think?
I'm all for a direct popular vote for President, although I doubt it will happen any time soon--if ever. Too many low population states getting a disproportionate say in the Electoral College to get 3/4 of them to ratify an amendment reducing their influence.
As for the rest of the plan, no offense, but I don't think it's any more workable:
1. Free-speech arguments aside, who would contribute to an election if they didn't get to support a candidate, cause or party of their choice? This would require taxpayer funding of candidacies, and way beyond the current $2 contribution on your 1040. I'd just as soon not go there. Better to limit contribution size to the point where no individual or group can buy favors or influence outcomes--close the 527 loophole, and maybe reduce contribution limits even further.
2. I'm not even sure this is desirable. As long as they're small, aren't the contributions a form of democracy in and of themselves? If everybody's contributing to one candidate over the other, maybe they should be allowed a bigger voice in the campaign...
3. Everybody's all for a shorter campaign season--this has been ridiculous. But in a context of free speech, how do you keep someone from promoting themselves for a position, or "campaigning" before a certain date? Today, the parties decide how and when they go about selecting candidates, and I'm sure there would be constitutional challenges if the government started dictating that to them.
4. Again, the govt. has no authority to tell the candidates when/where/if they will debate. That's up to them to work out amongst themselves each election. I do think we'd get better debates if some of the minority party candidates were in there to mix it up, but after Ross Perot, the big 2 will have nothing to do with that again.