more debates = less commercials
October 17th, 2008 |How would you feel about outlawing campaign commercials on radio and television in favor of increased mandatory debates and press conferences?
On one hand we would be infringing upon the 1st Amendment of the candidates. But on the other hand it would force those running for elected office to do much more than lie and distort without sufficient chance at rebuttal.
The debates would be set up by an independent commission that would decide the format, the questions and the follow ups. The press conferences would be 5 hours spread throughout each week open to all media outlets..
Would this improve our political process?
I think it would.
It would force the electorate to educate themselves regarding the candidates positions and platform and reduce the chance of the election turning into a popularity contest.
11 Responses to “more debates = less commercials”
I don’t know there’s anything you can do about the add’s and there are plenty of people who don’t bother to take the time to watch debates or read or do much research. Sad but true.
But I agree that it’d be great to see a greater number of debates; I would enjoy more vigorous and thorough debates as well, ones that focused primarily on single subects (such as the debate that was intended to cover foreign policy) covering the major topics of the time: edu, economy (maybe twice this year), healthcare, etc.
Would your system allow candidates to have their own flags flying behind them?
1) You’d have to ban ads on radio, television *and* internet in order for that idea to be effective
2) I would only agree with the idea we the people turned over control of the debates (rules, moderator choice, etc) to the League of Women voters. Candidates and political parties would have no say in determining the fundamental debate protocols, yet they would be bound to adhere to them.
3) All presidential candidates on the ballot in at least 1/2 of the states (at least 25 of the ballot) would be invited to the debates. The debates should not be a showcase for only the two major parties, yet should not be a soapbox for ultra-fringe candidates, either.
I really should re-read before I hit “submit”, but you get it…
The adds a candidate runs tells as much as a debate sometimes. For instance, McCant has no substance or understanding of the issues Aamericans are concerned with, this is loud and clear in his commercials.
@Jake: of course
as long as we allow stupid people to vote, politicians will run tv/radio ads, that’s the best way to reach them. Any one who makes up their mind based on a sound bite shouldn’t be allowed to vote. We have to pass proficiency tests to drive a car. We should have proficiency tests to vote. Test topics such as history, constitutional law, economics, create an incentive for people to pay attention and get their info from a variety of sources…
“On one hand we would be infringing upon the 1st Amendment of the candidates… It would force the electorate…”
Sure.. why not? Equate money to speech while we’re at it. Fuck the candidates… free speech should only be allowed within accepted fenced-off areas. Dissent should be forbidden. A two-party system allows for both opinions to be represented, so no one would have anything to complain about. The electorate should be forced to do all sorts of things, not just educate themselves. They should be forced to listen (“listen, dammit!”) to what they are being told.
What… the… fuck.
@biscodo: Equate money to speech while we’re at it. Like that is not already happening.
free speech should only be allowed within accepted fenced-off areas.
already happening
It would force the electorate
Yes, force “the electorate”, as in those who are interested in participating in the process.
If you don’t want to participate you have that right.
However, if you think the current system supports more speech instead of less I would disagree.
@skibby: Though I appreciate the sentiment behind desiring a more informed electorate, you have to admit this is pretty unconstitutional.
I think it would be a great idea if every voter had to read a informational packet before voting that would describe the duties of the elected office and a statement of the candidates positions on 3 or 4 key issues.
I know I vote for judges, commissioners and council seats not knowing the full extent of what or who I’m voting for.
It was sarcasm, in astonishment. Perhaps not obvious enough. Negate each statement…
——-
Money is not speech (speech is speech, as long as it’s not slander).
Speech should not be restricted in public.
Dissent should be engaged/embraced.
A two-party system reduces issues to an overly simplistic, unrealistic, single dimension.
The electorate should not be forced to do anything, even if it’s “good for them”. They have the choice to ignore their rights/obligations, even if it results in their own demise.
And remember: voyeurism is still participation.
——–
“However, if you think the current system supports more speech instead of less I would disagree.”
… “more” and “less” are relative terms, and they need a “than” (implied or explicit) for comparison. More or less than what? Disallowing political campaigning in favor of contrlled press conference, whether it’s standing on a soapbox on the town square or broadcasting a TV commercial, is less speech than allowing campaigning.
No amount of approved debate format or press conference can make up for what is lost by restricting when and where political expression is permitted. Politicians should be able to freely express themselves just as much as any… roofing company or herbal viagra. Yard signs, TV commercials, newspaper ads, whatever.