View Poll Results: Would you vote for an Amendment like this?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    20 50.00%
  • No.

    15 37.50%
  • Other.

    5 12.50%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

  1. #31
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Seen
    12-14-15 @ 04:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    997

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Yesterday, I voted yes. Now I want to vote no.
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Absolutely. It would be one of the best things to happen to our country.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  3. #33
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,648

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    A million should be plenty if TV ads were eliminated. In fact, limiting campaigns to a million would pretty much preclude the current practice of spreading BS through ad campaigns.

    It shouldn't matter who donates either, as pretty much any serious candidate could raise a million nationwide. That amounts to only a third of a cent per capita, after all.

    So, really, all you'd have to do is limit what can be spent on campaigns.
    Really? The cost of one presidential visit to endorse a candidate would then exceed their spending limit.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #34
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Like some people have noted here you can't, realistically, take all the money out of elections but you can dramatically restructure it, so that it has a minimal impact.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  5. #35
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Why does the presidential candidate have to travel about the country anyway? Just interview them on TV, pay for the interviews the same way the broadcasters pay for everything from soap operas to ball games, then stage debates paid for the same way, and let the voters hear first hand what the candidates have to say on the issues. That has to be better than hearing ads repeated ad nauseum telling us how terrible the opposition is and repeating half truths and outright lies to mislead the voters.

    After all the money is spent, and all the "speech" is broadcast, the voters still don't really know much about the candidates or where they really stand on issues. A lot of what they think they know is false.
    Because people like to meet the candidates, it affords the opportunity to give speeches to diverse audiences, it allows for comments to be made to groups without being under the glare of a TV interview, etc. Policy speeches and discussions are regularly rolled out at conventions, closed gatherings, college campuses, and innumerable other venues. Shunting every candidate to a series of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC interviews seems like a positively awful (maybe even dystopian) way to conduct an election.

    I'm not overly sympathetic to the argument about hearing ads ad nausea. It's annoying I'll admit but you can always hit mute or change the channel. It's a small price to pay.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Nope, I wouldn't support it. I want the elimination of *ALL* funding for particular candidates, I want publically-funded campaigns where anyone can donate to the process and at a certain point, that money is distributed to all legally-registered candidates. Even the playing field so nobody can buy their way into office and have to run on merit, not money.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #37
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,558

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Really? The cost of one presidential visit to endorse a candidate would then exceed their spending limit.
    Then let them endorse from afar.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #38
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,558

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Because people like to meet the candidates, it affords the opportunity to give speeches to diverse audiences, it allows for comments to be made to groups without being under the glare of a TV interview, etc. Policy speeches and discussions are regularly rolled out at conventions, closed gatherings, college campuses, and innumerable other venues. Shunting every candidate to a series of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC interviews seems like a positively awful (maybe even dystopian) way to conduct an election.

    I'm not overly sympathetic to the argument about hearing ads ad nausea. It's annoying I'll admit but you can always hit mute or change the channel. It's a small price to pay.
    Except that all those ads are paid for by special interest money, and those special interests all expect to be paid back in one way or another.

    As for speeches to specific groups, that's where the candidate is best able to tailor his stance on issues to what he thinks that group would support. His position is likely to shift dramatically when speaking to a different group, so how are we to know where he really stands?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #39
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,699

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Yet another attempt to silence the voice of the People in order to fix the problem of crooked politicians. People, the problem isn't the presence of the money, it's the fact that we have a system that rewards being bought. FIX THE PROBLEM. This idiocy is like making wallets illegal to stop pickpockets. The problem isn't the presence of the money, the problem is that we reward candidates that get bought. There are several ways you can attack his problem without silencing the voice of the People. Term limits is my favorite, but it's not the only way. Making all campaign contributions completely anonymous would break the connection between the donor and the candidate. Making all campaign contributions 100% public and following that up with monitoring of all actions taken by candidates that reflect undo bias towards high dollar donors and making those decisions public knowledge. There are a lot of ways we can fix this, but silencing our voice should NOT EVER be considered to be one of them.

    For those who think that corporations shouldn't have a voice: The cry of the Founding Father of "No taxation without representation" comes to mind. Since corps. pay taxes but don't (and shouldn't) vote, this is their voice in the process. If you're going to tax them, then you should give them voice in the process.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  10. #40
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,266

    Re: Another new amendment...how would you vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie Loucks View Post
    Yesterday, I voted yes. Now I want to vote no.
    Go ahead. I won't tell. Now, if tomorrow you decide you'd like to vote "maybe", I'm talkin.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •