The incredible cost of a presidential campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobcat

bobcat

Well-known Member
Location
Northern Calif
The last presidential election cost around a billion dollars for each candidate, and this one is shaping up to be even more expensive.
If you add in all the other political campaigns for House, Senate, and Governors, it's an insane amount of money.
Seems like there should be a better way, and use that money for other causes.
 

IMO the U.S. should dump the presidency, which is such a complete dog & pony show on so many levels, and go with a parliamentary style system, where the duly elected members of said parliament elect the leader. I'm sure there is a ton of sentiment against such a move, but quite frankly, what do we have to lose? The U.S. really does not need a 'king-like' figure, we need a functioning legislative body that can maybe get the business of the nation done.
 

Nathan said:
IMO the U.S. should dump the presidency, which is such a complete dog & pony show on so many levels, and go with a parliamentary style system, where the duly elected members of said parliament elect the leader. I'm sure there is a ton of sentiment against such a move, but quite frankly, what do we have to lose? The U.S. really does not need a 'king-like' figure, we need a functioning legislative body that can maybe get the business of the nation done.
Click to expand...
That's a hard no, if anything the electoral college should be eliminated. Sagebrush and emptiness has far too much representation in our fed gov and we have been minority ruled long enough. 1 person, 1 vote.
 
againstthegrain said:
That's a hard no, if anything the electoral college should be eliminated. Sagebrush and emptiness has far too much representation in our fed gov and we have been minority ruled long enough. 1 person, 1 vote.
Click to expand...
Agree đź’Ż That would be a huge step in the right direction. Still though, the concept of the presidency needs a drastic makeover, aside from having a prime minister or an authoritarian dictator, are there any ways to do business better?
 
againstthegrain said:
... if anything the electoral college should be eliminated. Sagebrush and emptiness has far too much representation in our fed gov and we have been minority ruled long enough. 1 person, 1 vote.
Click to expand...
The United States are named that for a reason. It's a federation of States. Not some Federal mobocracy designed to be hijacked through easily bribed and duped pockets of high population density that would completely disenfranchise most of the States and their residents.

Remember "No taxation without representation?" That's a pretty core precept.

In recent history direct elections have been supported by both major parties, and the reason has always been to eliminate 3rd party challengers. Both Nixon and Humphrey advocated for this.

No, this sounds like a case of "Oh crap, we're very likely to lose this election. Quick, rejigger the rules more in our favor."
 
The existing system isn’t perfect but I think it’s important for each state to have the representation that the electoral college system is intended to provide.

A straight majority would put all of the power on the heavily populated areas along the coast and leave the rest of the country without a voice.
 
bobcat said:
The last presidential election cost around a billion dollars for each candidate, and this one is shaping up to be even more expensive.
If you add in all the other political campaigns for House, Senate, and Governors, it's an insane amount of money.
Seems like there should be a better way, and use that money for other causes.
Click to expand...
I agree that there should be a better way to finance elections.

The good news is that the money creates a lot of jobs as it ripples through the economy.

It doesn’t really matter if the money is spent on t-shirts, bumper stickers, television airtime, catering, office equipment, travel, etc…

Eventually everyone gets a taste and that can’t be all bad.
 
Not everyone in a specific area agrees with prevailing opinion of that area. Some even go along because of fears related to disagreeing with the status quo. I would love to see one person, one vote. We might be surprised.
 
bobcat said:
Seems like there should be a better way, and use that money for other causes.
Click to expand...
It's hard to argue against that. But I believe there are too many stakeholders on the receiving end of the cashflow to make it easy to change the system.

Things got a whole lot worse once "Corporations are people, with 1st Amendment rights to political speech" was dictated. That dramatically changed who had the biggest voices.
 
Maine and Nebraska already split up their Electoral votes into separate areas. Maybe more States should consider this. We may already have too much mob control at the State level.
 
Nathan said:
IMO the U.S. should dump the presidency, which is such a complete dog & pony show on so many levels, and go with a parliamentary style system, where the duly elected members of said parliament elect the leader. I'm sure there is a ton of sentiment against such a move, but quite frankly, what do we have to lose? The U.S. really does not need a 'king-like' figure, we need a functioning legislative body that can maybe get the business of the nation done.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the Constitution, Nathan?
 
Nathan said:
IMO the U.S. should dump the presidency, which is such a complete dog & pony show on so many levels, and go with a parliamentary style system, where the duly elected members of said parliament elect the leader. I'm sure there is a ton of sentiment against such a move, but quite frankly, what do we have to lose? The U.S. really does not need a 'king-like' figure, we need a functioning legislative body that can maybe get the business of the nation done.
Click to expand...
Actually, IIRC, some of the Framers of the US government (Adams, for one maybe?) wanted the President to be elected by the Senate but were overruled.
 
againstthegrain said:
1 person, 1 vote.
Click to expand...
Simple concept, one that is not only inherently fair but advances a society away from the patriarchal control of the middle ages.

For those not familiar with the origins of the Electoral College:

The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing president towards the end of the Constitutional Convention due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power (since they could count slaves as 3/5 of a person when allocating electors) and by small states who increased their power due to the minimum of three electors per state.[31] The compromise was reached after other proposals, including to get a direct election for president (as proposed by Hamilton among others), failed to get traction among slave states.[31] Levitsky and Ziblatt describe it as "not a product of constitutional theory or farsighted design. Rather, it was adopted by default, after all other alternatives had been rejected. United States Electoral College - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
Even a President and Cabinet can have a difficult time responding on a timely basis when serious matters occur. Imagine every daily issue going in front Congress for decisions?
 
Up here in Canada, the MOST a person can donate to a political party, or an individual candidate, is $1,750. 00 PER year. Corporations and Trade Unions CANNOT donate ANY money to a political party, or a candidate in Canada since the law was changed in 2004 . Read that last bit, again. No corporate political funding allowed in Canada. That means that Canadian political parties must work hard with the limited funds at their disposal.

link. Political Party Financing in Canada

JIMB.
 
I know this doesn't have a snowball's chance in Death Valley, but I think I could go for it.
Establish one government web page for the presidential candidates to state what they stand for and what they oppose, instead of flying all over the country attacking each other. The debates and rebuttals could be posted there as well.
State your case and after that, leave it up to the voters.
It's not perfect, but it would save over 2 billion dollars. Any donations could go towards the causes they are passionate about.
If the other political positions would do that, it would direct a couple trillion to go for good causes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top