How to best shorten the nomination/election process in the US?

[Sirotnikov]

I can't think of a workable (read: constitutional) way of cutting down on campaigning. Free speech and all that. The same problem keeps coming up to stymie campaign finance reform... I do like the idea of forcing limited public funding for any candidate who can muster X verified signatures.

this type of public campaigning exists in Israel.

what actually happens is that all the candidates cheat by setting up various back-channels of money, that are secretly funneled into the campaign.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Solomwi

Small 1st Amendment problem with that. Same goes for Seedle's "reading-only" proposal.

You mean even your constitution says the US is a plutocracy?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
what actually happens is that all the candidates cheat by setting up various back-channels of money, that are secretly funneled into the campaign.

But at least it's illegal, and sooner or later the truth gets out and the politican's image gets burned.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Solomwi

Small 1st Amendment problem with that. Same goes for Seedle's "reading-only" proposal.

I never said my proposal was feasible under the current constitution (Because I knew it wasn't). Just that if we could implement it, it has some very nice potential effects.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'd much rather win Powerball... more money and no responsibility... don't waste your lucky numbers on the White House

You can't lose if you don't play.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Maniac


But at least it's illegal, and sooner or later the truth gets out and the politican's image gets burned.

it doesn't because everyone know that the current limitations are impractical, and merely force people to create secretive mechanisms to obscure campaign costs.

this is common in all major political parties.

[Sirotnikov]

dp

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Seedle


I never said my proposal was feasible under the current constitution (Because I knew it wasn't). Just that if we could implement it, it has some very nice potential effects.

...and then there was that three-way land swap between Reagan and two wealthy Republicans in the 60's. Reagan must have been much smarter than the other two, because he came out of the deal with a multimillion dollar profit.

And, IIRC, Hillary Clinton made a very, very, very "lucky" commodies deal with a liberal backer, that left the Clintons with millons of dollars in profits.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


...and then there was that three-way land swap between Reagan and two wealthy Republicans in the 60's. Reagan must have been much smarter than the other two, because he came out of the deal with a multimillion dollar profit.

And, IIRC, Hillary Clinton made a very, very, very "lucky" commodies deal with a liberal backer, that left the Clintons with millons of dollars in profits.

I think you quoted the wrong poster...

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Seedle


I never said my proposal was feasible under the current constitution (Because I knew it wasn't). Just that if we could implement it, it has some very nice potential effects.

Didn't mean to imply that you thought that. Just speaking to the content itself.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Solomwi

Didn't mean to imply that you thought that. Just speaking to the content itself.

Fair enough.