David:
The Republicans have so many candidates for the 2016 presidential election, that they are only going to allow the top 10 highest-polling candidates to participate in the debates.
The Democrats are desperately searching for someone other than Hillary Clinton, but their field is so weak, that most of them will overlook all of her ethical flaws and vote for her while holding their noses.
Is there a better way?
Doug:
I don't think you are qualified to speak for all of the Democrats. Nor all of the Republicans, for that matter. You may be right that there are many Democrats that are resisting Hillary Clinton. We have already explored the implicit bias against women. But the Democrats have a wide selection of candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb. These candidates cover quite a spectrum of political views for people to chose from.
David:
Who? I think they have all been instructed to run so that Hillary can say she had a race. They are all failed, former politicians that no one has heard of. Except for you.
Doug:
But I'm sure there are better ways to elect a person that would be more fair to each voting person in the U.S.
Perhaps you are upset that Fox is picking the Republican candidates based on their national polling? That will surely bias crazy people like Donald Trump.
Or perhaps you are upset that the Electoral College actually picks the president. I'd be in favor of one-person, one-vote.
David:
I'm not upset at all. But in this world of social media, the movie "Idiocracy" seems more like real life everyday. Or perhaps we're becoming "1984" or "Brave New World", where the big-money holders will just pick the winners, and promote them through social media where the masses get the news.
Doug:
Better way? How about a better educated electorate, with high expectations? How about getting all of the money out of the process? Those two things are about all that I would like to change.
David:
Wow! I don't think we've been in total agreement about anything so fast ever before!
Ah, but how to achieve that goal? Republican governors, and some Democratic governors have made great leaps in improving the education of the electorate by giving parents the choices they need to send their children to schools of their choice. And the benefits are starting to be seen. But young people still lack a basic understanding of important principles, like economics. We are making progress, however.
Getting Congress to eliminate big money may be dang-near impossible, though. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." ― Alexis de Tocqueville
Doug:
Well, that time has passed. But, we can agree on at least what to focus on, even if we don't agree on how to get there.
David:
I'm not sure what other ideas you have to educate the populace, but I might suggest individual states restrict how much money is involved in campaigns. As long as everyone has the same rules applied, it might work. The problem comes with the unlimited money other groups pour in to destroy a candidate.
I'm not really sure how to get the money out, but it's refreshing to see that we both find the same issues and problems with the election process.
The Republicans have so many candidates for the 2016 presidential election, that they are only going to allow the top 10 highest-polling candidates to participate in the debates.
The Democrats are desperately searching for someone other than Hillary Clinton, but their field is so weak, that most of them will overlook all of her ethical flaws and vote for her while holding their noses.
Is there a better way?
Doug:
I don't think you are qualified to speak for all of the Democrats. Nor all of the Republicans, for that matter. You may be right that there are many Democrats that are resisting Hillary Clinton. We have already explored the implicit bias against women. But the Democrats have a wide selection of candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb. These candidates cover quite a spectrum of political views for people to chose from.
David:
Who? I think they have all been instructed to run so that Hillary can say she had a race. They are all failed, former politicians that no one has heard of. Except for you.
Doug:
But I'm sure there are better ways to elect a person that would be more fair to each voting person in the U.S.
Perhaps you are upset that Fox is picking the Republican candidates based on their national polling? That will surely bias crazy people like Donald Trump.
Or perhaps you are upset that the Electoral College actually picks the president. I'd be in favor of one-person, one-vote.
David:
I'm not upset at all. But in this world of social media, the movie "Idiocracy" seems more like real life everyday. Or perhaps we're becoming "1984" or "Brave New World", where the big-money holders will just pick the winners, and promote them through social media where the masses get the news.
Doug:
Better way? How about a better educated electorate, with high expectations? How about getting all of the money out of the process? Those two things are about all that I would like to change.
David:
Wow! I don't think we've been in total agreement about anything so fast ever before!
Ah, but how to achieve that goal? Republican governors, and some Democratic governors have made great leaps in improving the education of the electorate by giving parents the choices they need to send their children to schools of their choice. And the benefits are starting to be seen. But young people still lack a basic understanding of important principles, like economics. We are making progress, however.
Getting Congress to eliminate big money may be dang-near impossible, though. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." ― Alexis de Tocqueville
Doug:
Well, that time has passed. But, we can agree on at least what to focus on, even if we don't agree on how to get there.
David:
I'm not sure what other ideas you have to educate the populace, but I might suggest individual states restrict how much money is involved in campaigns. As long as everyone has the same rules applied, it might work. The problem comes with the unlimited money other groups pour in to destroy a candidate.
I'm not really sure how to get the money out, but it's refreshing to see that we both find the same issues and problems with the election process.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!