lmao

Jiggs Casey itt

Well... thh... anks? I think?

Anyhow, why wouldn't it work? Because they'd break the law and do it anyway?

I see... So they're all, collectively (both left and right), lying, or just all dumb?

Why don't you detail for us what the ruling means, and how those individuals completely have it wrong?

Once more, I'm talking about the final internationally televised, head-to-head debates before the general election. Not the entire campaign trail itself.

I'm clearly talking about the corporate banking model of debt and expansion based on that debt and nothing tangible. Until that changes, lower Manhattan dictates to the Beltway, not the other way around.

That still would be too large of a pool of candidates. Most people don't care about the majority of the parties outside of a few, and you would be taking up time that could further be used to ask questions to the actual potential winners.

What you've done above, is advocated to KEEP the political system by insisting what "couldn't" be pulled off.

"Taking up time,"... so? Tough. ... Provide more time. It's only about our leadership and the most powerful individual on Earth. No big deal.

No it is not. It is showing problems in your theory.

How long do you think people will actually sit down, and watch a debate? You would need half a day to do that type of a debate, which you are advocating for. Most people select who they are going to vote for prior to the final debates, and in most cases it only effects swing votes, and people who are still not sure who they are going to vote for.

The way I see it USA is ****ed because the bipartisan system is too strong and all the dissident social movements are too small and have no common ground.
Its funny that you people propose stuff like giving candidates the same amount of time, lol how are you going to do that? Ask the media to not be so mean?

The US is ****ed because of what? Do please explain in more detail.

Right, because of course, the TV debates are about ratings and keeping people glued to the television. ... Not for the public record and bullet-point consumption later in reviewing how each candidate dealt with one another. The print media wouldn't gleefully tackle every angle of that or anything, for the consumption of those ADD sufferers who went to bed early.

please elaborate.

I think the idea of public debates that you are required to attend and mandatory TV time even if no one watch it is to remove the effect of money and allow more access to the ballot. All the money and ratings hasn't produced better government, quite the opposite. Who cares if there are 8 choices on a ballot no one really knows about, it will break down the mess we have there. If an electoral commission sets a strict limit to the money spent in an election, and forbids outside expenditures, everyone has an equal input of speech in the process. If the press then does its job, and needles and vets candidates, and provides real information on them and policies, the chances are there for good choices, and better office holders. Then, if you lose your first $500 of tax credits or food stamps for not voting, we might be back on the road to democracy.

Yes you would Jiggs. Have you ever seen a ballot with the amount of parties in it? If you were to guarantee the same exact amount of time for each candidate multiply the average length of one by the new amount of candidates that have time. Most people would also miss most of it because they would be at work.

Well you need to have a actual audience who are going to want to you know actually watch these things? Yes? Most people would only care about the people in their parties, and most people already have their minds made up long before these debates that do very little to explain further on what they actually believe in. Most of the information is already out there for modern candidates in these times. And yes these debates are about ratings for news channels such as CNN, and Fox News who use the coverage to keep people on their channels after the debates are done with reviewing how each other did.

This whole thing just wouldn't work that you have planned when put into effect in reality vs paper.

Mainstream has too much power compared to non mainstream, its a battle that is more uphill than other countries.
And even then the small non mainstream movements are too different and have no common ground.

I dont know what else you want me to explain in more detail.

What are you referring to when you say "non-mainstream" and why exactly does that equate the US with being ****ed, again?

USA is ****ed in its fight to break the political system, mainstream is Republicans and Democrats.

Have you seen the non-mainstream assbags? They're full blown tardballers.

No I havent, if that is the case then that is even worse and means less chances of USA having any kinda hope in changing the political system, but its not all that bad, you have a bunch of material goods.

Need more government, about 1000% more congressmen.

I think 90% of the U.S. people flagrantly not paying their Income Tax would be a start

Yeah!

Government is basically an extension of our parents. Once we stop abusing our children, the government will stop abusing us.

Just ignore it.

I find it comical that these guys were against the bill. Green party, how is the no campaign contribution system working out. The green party has been around 20 years and has gone nowhere. All Nader did is cause the Iraq War, $100,000 deduction to buy a guzzler, and selling the spectrum to right-wingers, no doubt Gore would have won. In looking at the list and it appears losers are satisfied with being losers as long as the can get 60 minutes of fame and a nice retirement package.

Thanks for the link, I listened to it. It would help the house but 6,000 congressmen would be cool. But it would also involve 6,000 salaries and 6,000 earmarks.

Something distrubed me a little in the show they were against term limits. I don't know about that but it prevents the set-up of dynasties. You get the name recognition along with the campaign doners. Hard to lose even if you are horrible.

Instant Runoff Voting

Break the two party system by removing the concept of a "wasted" 3rd party vote. IRV forces candidates to be appealing to more voters than just the radical wing of their one party. Less negative campaigning, more stances on issues to bring others in.