Palin has been dipping in Alaska's Funds

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I would love it if the campaign season was streamlined. However, the trend still seems to be going the other way. I can't think of a candidate, other than Ross Perot, who wasn't a current politician and placed in this position. It stinks though.

How would you do it, especially with the sort of mind-boggling amounts of money they have to raise to even be competitive in the primaries?

It sounds like a great idea, but how?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

How would you do it, especially with the sort of mind-boggling amounts of money they have to raise to even be competitive in the primaries?

It sounds like a great idea, but how?

Well, I have problems with how much money is spent on these things too. How many hungry people could be fed with that money instead? There was a time when the candidate was actually determined AT the convention... what a concept, eh?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

How would you do it, especially with the sort of mind-boggling amounts of money they have to raise to even be competitive in the primaries?

It sounds like a great idea, but how?

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.

[UGAalum94]

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?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

I can see where this could be seen as a limit on a right to assembly, but not of speech. Nobody would be stopping them from saying anything they want during their alloted times, or at any other time either. However, we do have certain laws in affect with regards to elections that could arguably be seen as such also, so there is some precedent. There are limits on how close to the polls campaigners can be, where literature can be distributed, etc. I wouldn't see this as being all that different from those rules. All of those rules were more geared toward eliminating campaign funds/contributions than shortening the time.

Just before the last election, the calls completely filled up my voicemails both at home (while at work) and at work (while at home) to the point that I couldn't receive messages that I needed to receive. THAT is annoying. Perhaps this is considerably worse in battleground states?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I can see where this could be seen as a limit on a right to assembly, but not of speech. Nobody would be stopping them from saying anything they want during their alloted times, or at any other time either. However, we do have certain laws in affect with regards to elections that could arguably be seen as such also, so there is some precedent. There are limits on how close to the polls campaigners can be, where literature can be distributed, etc. I wouldn't see this as being all that different from those rules. All of those rules were more geared toward eliminating campaign funds/contributions than shortening the time.

Just before the last election, the calls completely filled up my voicemails both at home (while at work) and at work (while at home) to the point that I couldn't receive messages that I needed to receive. THAT is annoying. Perhaps this is considerably worse in battleground states?

It must be worse there. It's never happened here although I did get a bunch of calls before the Republican primary. I just deleted.

Do we have any current laws that limit when candidates can speak right now? I got the impression that you wouldn't expect them to be on TV, putting ads out, etc earlier than you noted.