- This topic has 11 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 20, 2014 at 7:40 PM #21272October 20, 2014 at 8:39 PM #779093
scaredyclassic
ParticipantVermin supreme is a vote of no confidence
October 20, 2014 at 9:05 PM #779095bearishgurl
ParticipantWhen I got home from a long road trip last week, I had MOUNTAINS of election ads. (I’m registered as an “independent” so I get mailers from all parties.) I simply sorted them all in one big pile and recycled them.
I’ll vote based upon the past legislative voting history of an incumbent and if I don’t like what they’ve done (or haven’t done) while in “office,” I’ll do my own independent research of anyone else running for the post.
If no one strikes me as competent for the job, I’ll just leave that post unvoted for (this practice likely benefits the incumbent but better the [semi-experienced] devil you know …. )
Most of the local “gerrymandering” in recent years has taken place in North City (SD) and North County but I do recall (over 25 years ago?) when SD County District 1 somehow got Pt Loma folded into itself.
[img_assist|nid=19364|title=SD County Supervisorial Map|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=344]
4 out of 5 of the SD County supervisors are likely the longest incumbents in those posts in the history of the entire state! (District 3’s Pam Slater-Price is the only one who finally “retired.”)
The “supes” do not have “term limits” and that’s the way they like it because we all know that the vast majority of the voting public is complacent.
October 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM #779117CA renter
ParticipantWe need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.
October 21, 2014 at 2:36 AM #779118spdrun
ParticipantIf no one strikes me as competent for the job, I’ll just leave that post unvoted for (this practice likely benefits the incumbent but better the [semi-experienced] devil you know …. )
At least you could send a clear message of love by writing in Eric Frein or Ed Gein…
October 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM #779155njtosd
Participant[quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?
October 21, 2014 at 11:17 PM #779213Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?
October 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM #779226Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?[/quote]
Publicly funded suggests that whatever political party was in power of those pubic funds would have a fair amount of control over the message. And who gets to decide that something is “fair”? Both CNN and Fox (at least) claim to be unbiased – ha! I agree that it would be great if there was some way for candidates to be presented without the support of special interests. I just don’t see any way of doing it. The special interests are very motivated to exert control (I vote as an independent, by the way, so I see special interests on both sides of the political divide) and they’re like bugs – they will find a way in one way or another.
October 22, 2014 at 11:49 AM #779229sdsurfer
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?[/quote]
Publicly funded suggests that whatever political party was in power of those pubic funds would have a fair amount of control over the message. And who gets to decide that something is “fair”? Both CNN and Fox (at least) claim to be unbiased – ha! I agree that it would be great if there was some way for candidates to be presented without the support of special interests. I just don’t see any way of doing it. The special interests are very motivated to exert control (I vote as an independent, by the way, so I see special interests on both sides of the political divide) and they’re like bugs – they will find a way in one way or another.[/quote]
I feel like this is a “where there’s a will there’s a way” situation. It’s easy to say that it’s never been done and would never work, but there has to be a way somehow.How about we get rid of the publicly funded aspect? Maybe have a youtube channel or a website similar to wikipedia or something free that gives you the details on who stands for what as well as their track record and make it so that anyone with internet access can watch the debates or go somewhere that has internet to do so?
Just thinking out loud…I really like the concept of eliminating the money aspect and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
October 23, 2014 at 1:24 AM #779281Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?[/quote]
Publicly funded suggests that whatever political party was in power of those pubic funds would have a fair amount of control over the message. And who gets to decide that something is “fair”? Both CNN and Fox (at least) claim to be unbiased – ha! I agree that it would be great if there was some way for candidates to be presented without the support of special interests. I just don’t see any way of doing it. The special interests are very motivated to exert control (I vote as an independent, by the way, so I see special interests on both sides of the political divide) and they’re like bugs – they will find a way in one way or another.[/quote]
When I say “publicly funded,” I mean that it’s paid for by public funds, but not controlled by politicians. And ALL candidates and issues would have to have equal access and equal time. No parties would control it, and no money could control it. It would have to be 100% transparent and the people in charge would be public employees, not public officials, who are fully accountable to the public.
But I would agree with you that they (special interests) are like bugs and that they would find a way in. I’ve only been involved in a tiny little sliver of the political world, and it’s been very obvious from my relatively minor experiences that special interests are endemic to politics…things are essentially controlled by special interests. There are too many back doors, and even if we were to officially get money out of politics, those interest would still find a way to get in (offer jobs to spouses, friends; favors through third parties, dirty money, etc.). But we definitely need to do something about the corruption of our government.
But has there ever been a government that was not corrupt? And if there was one that came close, how long did it last?
October 24, 2014 at 2:51 PM #779429paulflorez
ParticipantI would think that California taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators and into the redistricting commission helped reduced the political influence in the redistricting process itself. In 2012, many incumbents who relied on gerrymandering lost their elections after the new commission drawn districts were used. All states taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators would be a good start.
The new jungle primary system also, I assume, helps. In districts that lean heavily towards one party, a challenger from that same party could represent more moderate views to draw support from voters of the other minority parties, making voting not a complete waste of time for those voters.
As for publicly funded elections, I don’t see how you can avoid having tons of private dollars flooding elections without the courts finding it a first amendment violation (since corporations now have many of the same rights that people do). Since it can’t be beat, why not encourage it? Tax any and all spending that explicitly mentions an election, candidate, proposition, etc, to provide a fund which is then divided equally amongst all candidates. The more political spending there is in favor of one candidate/issue, the more political spending there will be given to the opposite side. Neither side has limits on how much they can spend.
October 24, 2014 at 8:01 PM #779443Participant[quote=paulflorez]I would think that California taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators and into the redistricting commission helped reduced the political influence in the redistricting process itself. In 2012, many incumbents who relied on gerrymandering lost their elections after the new commission drawn districts were used. All states taking redistricting out of the hands of legislators would be a good start.
The new jungle primary system also, I assume, helps. In districts that lean heavily towards one party, a challenger from that same party could represent more moderate views to draw support from voters of the other minority parties, making voting not a complete waste of time for those voters.
As for publicly funded elections, I don’t see how you can avoid having tons of private dollars flooding elections without the courts finding it a first amendment violation (since corporations now have many of the same rights that people do). Since it can’t be beat, why not encourage it? Tax any and all spending that explicitly mentions an election, candidate, proposition, etc, to provide a fund which is then divided equally amongst all candidates. The more political spending there is in favor of one candidate/issue, the more political spending there will be given to the opposite side. Neither side has limits on how much they can spend.[/quote]
Interesting observations, but I would add that the bolded part can indeed be changed. People are working on repealing “Citizens United” as we speak.
We’ve lost the battle, but we haven’t lost the war.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.