The conversation turned to elections today...

[JD Barleycorn]

....and how to make the campaigns more fair and inclusive. I have a couple of ideas that you can critique (that kind of means make fun of ladies). I was a war gamer and there were two major types of games; one with representative forces meaning someone had an advantage and the other everyone started equally in assets.

I think we can make elections (federal and state) like a wargame in which all candidates start with equal forces so no one has an advantage except their ideas and strategy.

The first thing is to qualify. All elections will be paid for by the tax payer and only the taxpayer. Each candidate would have to raise both a certain amount of cash and collect a set amount of signatures to prove viability. For a presidential candidate it may be $20 million to show that people are interested in your ideas and maybe 100,000 signatures per state (Alaska and Wyoming will have to have special rules). Once you qualify (even third party candidates) you are allocated so many hours of TV, radio, and print advertising. Some time is more expensive than others so you have to be careful when you use it. For example, a nationwide, network 30 second commercial during the World Series may be worth 10 minutes of time in the morning or drive time. You don't want to waste your time and you do want to use all of it. It may stop October surprises if you have to ration your media time for the event.

Every candidate will have to participate in certain events. Speeches and debates, after all this is a contest and we want to see them strut their stuff. No more incumbents avoiding debates because they have become senile or where never smart to begin with.

Sever penalties will have to be put in place for candidates, parties, or donors who break the rules. I mean jail time! Every consideration has to be accounted for. Every plane ride, every "independent" commercial on your behalf, every party (campaign event) paid for by a donor must be counted. Unfortunately, we cannot not prevent the press from taking sides. They can cover an favored candidate (free advertising) and refuse to even name the opponent.

The general idea is that all candidates start on an equal footing. They can bias the game with great staffers, great strategy, or great skills.

Comments?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

....and how to make the campaigns more fair and inclusive. I have a couple of ideas that you can critique (that kind of means make fun of ladies). I was a war gamer and there were two major types of games; one with representative forces meaning someone had an advantage and the other everyone started equally in assets.

I think we can make elections (federal and state) like a wargame in which all candidates start with equal forces so no one has an advantage except their ideas and strategy.

The first thing is to qualify. All elections will be paid for by the tax payer and only the taxpayer. Each candidate would have to raise both a certain amount of cash and collect a set amount of signatures to prove viability. For a presidential candidate it may be $20 million to show that people are interested in your ideas and maybe 100,000 signatures per state (Alaska and Wyoming will have to have special rules). Once you qualify (even third party candidates) you are allocated so many hours of TV, radio, and print advertising. Some time is more expensive than others so you have to be careful when you use it. For example, a nationwide, network 30 second commercial during the World Series may be worth 10 minutes of time in the morning or drive time. You don't want to waste your time and you do want to use all of it. It may stop October surprises if you have to ration your media time for the event.

Every candidate will have to participate in certain events. Speeches and debates, after all this is a contest and we want to see them strut their stuff. No more incumbents avoiding debates because they have become senile or where never smart to begin with.

Sever penalties will have to be put in place for candidates, parties, or donors who break the rules. I mean jail time! Every consideration has to be accounted for. Every plane ride, every "independent" commercial on your behalf, every party (campaign event) paid for by a donor must be counted. Unfortunately, we cannot not prevent the press from taking sides. They can cover an favored candidate (free advertising) and refuse to even name the opponent.

The general idea is that all candidates start on an equal footing. They can bias the game with great staffers, great strategy, or great skills.

Comments?

Every candidate will have to participate in certain events. Speeches and debates, after all this is a contest and we want to see them strut their stuff. No more incumbents avoiding debates because they have become senile or where never smart to begin with.

JD, you mean like G. W. Bush and his 'C' average in history at Yale?

[JD Barleycorn]

I mean everyone.

Be careful, I've spoken with Corrine Brown and seen footage of Barbara Boxer that was never seen on TV. A couple of real rocket scientists. Before you tout the myth about the Bush "C", where are Obama's transcripts which is one more thing that they should have to provide including a verified birth certificate (if required). Our country, our elections, our rules.

[filbone]

Sorry, just like voter ID, your ideas will hurt minorities for reasons no one can logically explain.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

JD, you mean like G. W. Bush and his 'C' average in history at Yale?

W's GPA was higher than Kerry's. Ijs

[boardman]

You'd never get it to work. The people you want to approve the legislation are the same people that your are asking to become responsible with our money.

You want the candidate to raise money but the election is to be paid for by taxpayers. I don't understand that part.

Also, we've tried "equal time" before. Turns out it is a limitation of free speech.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by boardman

Also, we've tried "equal time" before. Turns out it is a limitation of free speech.

... only if one is a conservative like Alan Peterson. Meanwhile, HBO, NBC, CBS, Harvey Weinstein and Michael Moore remain unfettered and are accorded all of the "free speech" they can produce!

[JD Barleycorn]

We bypass the Congress and go for the constitutional amendment.

There are two concrete ways to show viability; money and support (dollars and signatures). Very few will give you money if they don't think you have a chance and getting signatures in 2/3s of the states will help eliminate regional candidates. The money goes into the election fund to help offset the expense.

I think I like the idea of raising $20 million for the chance to run for president. It shows you have support and the candidate does not get to keep it. In fact, they will never see it. It will go into an account so we wouldn't have any more problems like in 2008 when the Obama team failed to vett their donors. Put the money into the hands of a third party (not a political party). This only applies until you qualify and then the taxpayer will pick up the tab. And it sure won't be close to a billion dollars either.
Signatures force a candidate to do the ground work among the people. Like I said, it also helps to eliminate candidate like George Wallace who only appealed to about six states. Like the Constitution, we can go with a super majority instead of the original every state.
33 states would have to support a candidate with a petition. California has 38 million people. How about 5% of that or 1.9 million supporters. That shouldn't be hard for an inspirationa candidate. Maybe tighten that a bit more. There are about 17.8 million registered voters in CA. Maybe only 890,000 signatures of registered voters. In Wyoming there are about 250,000 registered voters so you need 12,500 supporters to sign the petition.

At this point, all this expense is on the candidate and not the people which should reduce the participants further. The two major parties could fund this and we would likely get some third party candidates to qualify as well. We might truly have an election with three or four good candidates with broad appeal.

The enforcement mechanism I haven't figured out yet.