It is time that we draw a line in the sand.

[zeemike]

A very bright line.
And here it is;
We will not accept the results of any election until the following changes are made and the congress passes laws that take the money and influence out of politics. The following laws must be passed.

1) All donations or gifts to elected officials are illegal unless it is a living person residing in the district of the elected official, and that donation is limited to $….

2) All broadcast media outlets are required to give free and equal, air time as part of their public service requirements to political candidates 3 months before the election.

3) It be made a federal requirement under the equal protection clause of the constitution that all elections be on verifiable ballots and that a fair and equitable system for recounts be adopted by the states.

Now I know that there are many other things that need to change, but I suggest we not confuse the issue by making them also a line in the sand. And really you should know by now that these changes as outlined above must be made before many of our problems can be solved.
It is essential for us to stay on message and make it simple and plain what we want and the best way to torpedo the whole thing is to bring up all kinds of other things and lump them in this demand to discredit the whole thing….and I predict that if this line in the sand is drawn the ones that oppose it will try to do just that…try to make controversy where there should be none, because the demands above are just good sense…if you want democracy that is.
And the right wing would have a hard time coming up with believable talking points that could effectively make people think that this is a bad thing.
There is a down side to this and that is that it would shut down K street in DC and put a lot of lobbies out of work. And take all kinds of money out of the Advertisement industry and so I would expect a violent reaction to any such proposal…so the left would need to get some major balls and we would need to sacrifice…a lot.
So I am running this up the flag poll to see if anyone salutes it.

[el_bryanto]

1. How much airtime should they be required to give?

What about redistricting to ensure competitive elections? Instead of the current state of gerrymandering which exists in almost all states.

Bryant

[zeemike]

5. Again this only complicates things by bring up "other" concerns.

We have to beat back that desire to address every issue and the reason they can defeat it every time is because of the corruption of the system....these three things goes to the heart of the matter not the fingers and toes.

[Robb]

9. Wait, what?

:rofl:

I mean, these might be good ideas, but if you can't explain how it's going to generate lift, the plane ain't gonna fly.

[zeemike]

11. I can't explain it, I can only put out the idea.

I have no power...never did...and I have no organizing skills...
And besides I am a short timer on this earth...at 66 my odds of seeing any reform are slim.

[el_bryanto]

10. Yeah

First of all how much airtime should networks be required to give the candidates, should that be for all candidates or just the big two, should they continue their own work on the election? What about congressional candiates, state candidates, local candidates?

Secondly, Congress is at least as important as the President, and probably more so. The current gerrymandering is a far more critical problem than the media problem; because, let's face it, there are plenty of districts were all the free advertising in the world won't change the underlying reality. And the reason they won't is that such districts have been carefully set up to be that way.

Bryant

[zeemike]

12. All of that is the realm of the cort system

Law always cause questions to arise and that is what the cort system is designed to do...to decide what is and is not permissible under the law.

[el_bryanto]

14. That's nonsense

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but come on - Courts (note the u) are there to interpret the law; not to provide an out for bad law. In theory the congress tries to write clear laws that anticipate how they are to be implied.

Bryant

[zeemike]

16. Is that not what I said?

That it is up to the courts to interpret (or make the law work) the law.
There is noting clearer to me than fair and balanced...and it is easy to anticipate how they are implemented.

[el_bryanto]

23. So you are ok with the law just saying what you wrote there

That should be interesting. So say they have the Presidential Nuttiness hour - every presidential candidate who can get to the studio gets 5 minutes to expound on their views before they turn it over to the next person.

That would of course be fair (everybody gets to participate) and balanced (everybody gets 5 minutes). But would that really achieve anything?

Bryant

[zeemike]

24. And what keeps that from happening now?

Don't we now have rules that keep it from bing chaos now? Don't we have requirements now that prevent just any nut from signing up?
And are you satisfied with the rules now?

but i suspect that what scares people about this is that in reality people are afraid of democracy because they are afraid that things will go against what they want and are more content to trust leaders to decide things for them.
The system we have now guarantees that no change of any magnitude will take place...and insures that the elite can chose which two we have to chose from.

[el_bryanto]

25. For the record I am not afraid of democracy

I am rather in favor of actual solutions rather than impractical bandaids.

And again you are overly focused on the Presidency.

Bryant

[zeemike]

26. No I am not this is about the congress.

We were able to elect a president this time that is somewhat open to change....but the congress is quite another matter.
And the corporate interest know that the congress is where laws are passed or blocked and so that is why they own them and actually are not that concerned by a reformer president.

Obama has the mandate but just look what actually will happen...he must go along to get along...and that is because of the money in the congress that corrupts our elected officials.
And until the money is taken out of it noting much will change...we are already seeing that but we would rather just blame Obama for not forcing the issue and hang it all on him....at least that is what the status quo want us to do.

[el_bryanto]

27. If youa re concerned with the congress than you will look at redisctring

and ending the gerrymandering that makes most congressional seat holders completely safe.

Bryant

[zeemike]

30. I understand that gerrymandering is a problem

But it is not the root problem and that is what I am talking about.
Gerrymandering would not be so attractive if they did not have the candidates by the financial balls.
And if that candidate was beholden to the electorate and not the special interest.
You could stop the gerrymandering and they would just by the congressmen of that district off like they do now....It could cost them some more money but money is not a problem because they get back more than they spend from that congressman.
And we the people are forced to compete with that money...and of course we can never match them.

[KharmaTrain]

7. More Specific...What Equals Equal...

I had to wrestle with this game in the 80's. While it sounds wonderful in offering "equal time"...not all time is equal nor all candidates equal either. Do you give the same amount of time to every candidate who files? For example, to all candidate that is able to scrape up the signatures to get on a ballot? Or do you reserve it for those who are polling over a certain percentage? Then...a minute of time in the morning isn't the same as a minute in the afternoon or evening...thus if candidate A is given a minute at 7am, do you have to make sure candidates B, C, D and E also appear at the same time? And who goes first? Someone is gonna get the short end.

While I don't favor a "Fairness Doctrine", I do strongly believe that radio needs to be re-regulated with more local ownership and control...reinstituting requirements for public service and news that were wiped away in the 90's. Creating more local stations and voices opens the airwaves to more candidates and viewpoints.

Cheers...

[zeemike]

13. That is the duty of the state and it's court system

The requirement is that it be fair and equal and the state would have to come up with a plan to comply with the law that could stand legal chalange....it is no different than writing the rules of the game.

[KharmaTrain]

18. So You Want The Politicians To Decide?

Now what if you have a state party that is dominated by one party and a county party that is dominated by the other. Good luck on trying to get anything that doesn't favor one party or another and surely will leave any independent in the dust. Judges? Many are political appointees and face their own elections. As is the current case...the golden rule applies...those who have the gold, make the rules.

Cheers...

[zeemike]

19. Look you present this as if it has no solution.

And it does and it is not that hard.
If I had the time I could sit down and come up with a fair and balanced system the gave the challengers a chance...and i am no legal mind.
We have the system in place already to solve your concerns so what is really the obstacle?

[KharmaTrain]

20. I Look Forward To Your Solution

Yes, I don't believe there is a real solution to "equal" time as someone will always feel they've been shorted. If Candidate A gets their minute at 7:20am when listening is at it's highest, and Candidate B gets 7:40am, when it's not as high, is that "equal"? No, it's not that easy. The only system I see in place is those with the most money get the best spots...those who can't afford get shut out. And this doesn't even touch the many legalities that lawyers are sure to jump on.

In a past life, I played in radio and had to confront the "Fairness" doctrine. Our local operation (which no longer exists thanks to "deregulation") took it upon ourselves to bring in local candidates...of ALL parties on talk shows, but we were the exception. Even with trying to reach out, we continually ran into hassles with candidates over who went first, who had more time and so on.

I'm always interested in alternatives...especially positive ones. Nothing personal...I would love to see the way our public airwaves more responsive, but I also know the "inside" game...and it's far worse now with most stations owned by a few fat cat owners.

Cheers...

[zeemike]

22. Well I really hate to get into explaining systems

Because it always degrades into petty arguments that distract form the goal.
So I would prefer to just get concessions on one point...It is possible to devise rules for a game that are fair and clear....we do it all the time in sports and other things...but when it comes to doing something that changes the game from an unfair advantage to a fair one no one is interested because they have there own intrists...which revolve around the system is profitable for them the way it is.

But never fear this to will sink into oblivion because it scares people to have real democracy that is by and for the people.

[Hutzpa]

15. It should be for General Elections

the final two candidates.

[zeemike]

17. Sorry I can't agree with that compromise.

It would only make the powerful corporations buy themselves two candidates for us to chose from.

[JackRiddler]

29. Preempt "Lost" and "American Idol"

Hours and hours! All stations!

I'd like a requirement that all political ads must be a minimum of 15 minutes, provided in prime-time slots to all candidates on a ballot. Sorry, if you can't make sense or at least keep up your schtick credibly for 15 minutes instead of the customary 30 seconds, tough!

[zeemike]

32. Me too

then they would be forced to say more than sound bytes. And we would know what they wanted to do.

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. I've already drawn my own line in the sand

Single payer health care.

[cali]

3. no thank you.

I don't want to be limited to donating only to VT candidates. I agree with two and three, but I'd add that IRV is as important.

[zeemike]

6. Did you ever ask why you have to donate money?

Is it because you have to compete with others that have a lot of money to through around? Are you in competition with them?

[TatonkaJames]

4. A good starting point, however

Lobbyists aren't confined to just the right, many on the left would miss their perks too
so the difficulty is weeding out those as a whole who go into office for said benefits, $$.
Case in point, Coleman wants to go all the way to the SC to keep his Senate seat. He fears
having to work for a living if not re-seated.

[zeemike]

8. I know...that is why WE must draw the line

We are the source of there jobs...they work for us not us for them.

WE must not accept the results of any election not reformed.

[LWolf]

21. It is years PAST time. nt

[JackRiddler]

28. 5th rec here and K! Simple and obvious criteria. Thanks.

[zeemike]

31. No ...thank you for the hi five. n/t

[midnight]

33. Your recommendations would certainly level the playing field.

A concern that our elected officials are having to entertain when considering how public choice will impact the insurance industry whom they believe will be unfairly jeopardized?