oldsoul
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #21
Even more than the "cash grab", I am sick of the entitlement mentality that has permeated most all of U.S. politics.True, it has. However, are the negatives of an 18 month circus really worth the occasional positive? Just a point to consider. I don't know the answer, and I seriously doubt anyone could, unless we try a different model to see how it would play out. I'm not sure it is worth the risk to attempt it though...What harm would it do to allow more candidates with less name recognition to participate in the national debates?
I guess the answer to that depends on how one feels about a candidate having to earn name recognition through their own efforts vs. being given it by dint of being permitted to participate in the debates.
I think if I had my way, the election announcements would be made a month before the first debate, the party primaries held two weeks later (yes, everyone just has to haul out and vote or the parties decide among their leaderships), the conventions in the next week, followed by a week of "stumping," and then the first debate itself would become the first time anyone sees the candidates on a level playing field. I'd also make the debates span two or three evenings so that each candidate would have time to present themselves overall and then bicker amongst themselves about the merits and detractors of their proposals.
I go back and forth on this. Yes, a shorter election season seems to be the way it should work (and it works well in the UK and other countries). Then again, our thorough vetting of candidates over a year and a half has, at times, been beneficial in weeding out the bad apples.
Agreed, if you force me to pick, I pick a 6-week election season. I'm sick of the cash grab it has become. It's infected our government.