Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I thought about this more while laying in bed trying to fall asleep. This is what I would do:
Primary candidates announce their intentions to run in May of the election year, a set number of debates are held by each party.
Primaries are a one day event in August, the whole country, same day. Then the Conventions are held with the same timing as this year.
10 televised/radio broadcast debates of varying formats between mid-September and November with no personal appearances, no bus tours of the country, no flying all over the place. There can still be grass roots level things like mailings, door to door, lawn signs, etc, but NO pre-recorded telephone calls! NO PRE-RECORDED TELEPHONE CALLS! (they are making me crazy, honestly, and I think the No Call List should include political propaganda)
That gives us a 6 month election process rather than two years. It really was two full years this time and that's just nuts.
|
Mainly playing devil's advocate here: so you are willing to place limits on people's first amendment rights (of speech and assembly) to shorten the process?
I don't answer or listen to the calls so it's a pretty quick fix to hit delete.
If the parties both just agree to the terms because members of the public will hate them if they don't, it's not really a constitutional issue. But if there are actually legal restrictions, you get into some funny areas pretty quickly. Isn't this the biggest objection to the campaign finance reforms that almost all of us want? To make them, you actually interfere with other people's political expression?