A few thoughts on fixing the politics in the U.S....

[mjr]

Anyone else remember MAD magazine's non-slanderous political smear speech?

I do! I think I still have that issue (or at least a re-print of that particular piece from another issue) laying around somewhere!

"His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine..."



In fact, I Googled for it...and lookie what I found:

http://gis.washington.edu/~phurvitz/...mearSpeech.htm

[wolfie]

Then there's the 22nd amendment that limits the President to two terms: the President can only be elected twice, or once if he finishes the term of his predecessor. This prohibits a third term no matter when the election is held.

My understanding is that a "promoted" VP is allowed to be elected twice IF his promotion happened more than halfway into his predecessor's 4-year term. If he's promoted before the halfway mark, he can only be elected once.

No, they're not immune from libel. They just have a think tank on had to write up reports that sound like they're accusing the other party of nefarious goals while merely giving voice to the implication and not going full accusation.

Anyone else remember MAD magazine's non-slanderous political smear speech?

[HYHYBT]

Nothing makes lies go away once they've been uttered except there being nobody willing to believe them. In that sense, no matter how severe a punishment they received, they'd still in a sense "get away with it." Especially when the purpose is to affect an election; once the votes are cast, it's over. (In that sense, it's similar to an abortion prevention strategy I've read of: the state appoints a lawyer to act on the fetus's behalf, who then ties things up in court until the pregnancy has progressed far enough to make the issue moot.)

[Panacea]

I don't think I'd say they got away with it cold. They were forced to disband, fined $300,000, and required to donate the remainder of their funds to charity.

And yet I still hear people repeat the lies they told. I heard them come up with Kerry was nominated for Secretary of State.

Still I didn't realize they'd finally been forced to pay up.

[Hyena Dandy]

Swift Boat Veterans said some blatantly false things about John Kerry and got away with it cold.

It happens.

I don't think I'd say they got away with it cold. They were forced to disband, fined $300,000, and required to donate the remainder of their funds to charity.

[Panacea]

No, they're not immune from libel. They just have a think tank on had to write up reports that sound like they're accusing the other party of nefarious goals while merely giving voice to the implication and not going full accusation.

Swift Boat Veterans said some blatantly false things about John Kerry and got away with it cold.

It happens.

[Andara Bledin]

In the US they are. It's considered a free speech issue; you're allowed to smear the other side. The courts consider politicians to have less protections than the rest of us. I could say things about a politician I didn't like that I could never say about a fellow citizen, and get away with it scot free.

No, they're not immune from libel. They just have a think tank on had to write up reports that sound like they're accusing the other party of nefarious goals while merely giving voice to the implication and not going full accusation.

[Panacea]

I'll go one step further. Do away with "straight ticket" voting. Get rid of that option completely.

We've done that in North Carolina. Republicans pushed the change because Democrats supposedly have more of an inclination to straight ticket voting than Republicans.

Since our state is so badly gerrymandered, it's hard to tell what effect it is actually going to have.

you need to be a bit careful with consecutive limits though- look at Russia for an example of how it can be abused ( Putin swapped his job title to Prime Minister with a relative puppet President, and swapped back at the first opportunity)

Russia uses a Parlimentary system, similar to many governments in Europe and the British Commonwealth. That wouldn't work in the American republican system.

In Parliamentary systems, Head of State is usually the President, while Head of Government (who does the day to day executive management of government on behalf of the Head of State). In a Constitutional Monarchy like the United Kingdom, the Head of State is the monarch: Queen Elizabeth II. The Head of Government is the Prime Minister, who leads the party or coalition of parties that control Parliament. In Russia, it's a similar situation except that Head of State is an elected position. In both countries, the Head of State wields respect but nominal authority.

In the United States, the Head of State and Head of Government are one and the same person: the President of the United States.

Then there's the 22nd amendment that limits the President to two terms: the President can only be elected twice, or once if he finishes the term of his predecessor. This prohibits a third term no matter when the election is held.

Republicans in Congress pushed it through after FDR died. They didn't want another FDR

You have my interest. Are you saying that smear campaigns etc are immune from libel?

Rapscallion

In the US they are. It's considered a free speech issue; you're allowed to smear the other side. The courts consider politicians to have less protections than the rest of us. I could say things about a politician I didn't like that I could never say about a fellow citizen, and get away with it scot free.

[Hyena Dandy]

You have my interest. Are you saying that smear campaigns etc are immune from libel?

Rapscallion

No, but to be libelling, you need to be knowingly, maliciously lying. Not just saying something untrue. There's no law against being inaccurate.

[HYHYBT]

Not exactly... but libel in general is narrower here than in your country, and for public figures, narrower still.

[Rapscallion]

There is one big problem with banning lobbyists or smear campaigns--it would violate the First Amendment. No one ever said that free speech doesn't have some downsides. But on the whole, it has more benefits to society than downsides. And I shudder to think of a government that has the authority to decide who can say what about things.

You have my interest. Are you saying that smear campaigns etc are immune from libel?

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

There's a difference between gathering together and speaking your mind as an organization and effectively bribing politicians to vote on certain issues which, in turn, fund their campaigns to keep that machine running. That can be as damaging to society as a totalitarian government because it's run by a few folks who can afford such tactics and also undermines the very system that encourages free speech.

[Barracuda]

There is one big problem with banning lobbyists or smear campaigns--it would violate the First Amendment. No one ever said that free speech doesn't have some downsides. But on the whole, it has more benefits to society than downsides. And I shudder to think of a government that has the authority to decide who can say what about things.

[fireheart17]

1. I'd like to ban smear campaigns. Stop talking about why I shouldn't vote for the other guy and start talking about why I should actually vote for you.

2. Don't put that letter next to the candidates name on the ballot. No more just looking down the list and voting for everyone with a R or D next to their name. If you can't vote without having it in front of you which party the person works for, you are too dumb to vote.

1. I would also like to see this happening down under. The last two election campaigns I've encountered (one state, one federal and I'm about to get another state one) spent more time basically attacking each other than actually telling us why the hell we should vote for the party (they couldn't do the individual candidates because our TVs do not work that way ) in question. How about telling us how you're going to fix the problems that you supposedly find with the previous party (ignoring the fact that a majority of the legislation these days requires YOUR approval too!)

2. I'd like to see this here too. In our case though, the candidates party is listed next to the ballot, so people just blindly vote for the party rather than for the candidate. My parents and I are one of the few who do actually vote for the candidate in question because we know that he/she will actually do something useful (for instance, the federal MP for my parents area has been known for actually providing half-decent services for that area. The MP for my current area is actually a decent guy and has been known for challenging parliament on more than one occasion over his parties stupidity)

I have mixed feelings on this one. I don't like the mudslinging that goes on, but if the other candidate did something bad, I think people need to know about it, or be reminded of it in case they forgot about it. Like when our current (soon to be ex) governor jacked up our fuel taxes, I think it needed to be mentioned. Especially since in his own ads, he clamed that he "did not raise taxes." I know all politicians lie, but most of them aren't that blatant about it.

Most of the adverts I've seen attacking the opposition tend to mudsling the entire party rather than individual candidates. If it's a federal election, the mudslinging just goes on between the leaders of the two main parties. (The next election will put Tony Abbott vs Bill Shorten barring some challenge on the federal leadership) Sure, if the candidate has pulled a dickish move, expose them for all they have (like Abbott's way of getting his copayment introduced), but if it's attacking them over cheap point-scoring (to use Abbott, attacking him because he's Catholic*), then it's a bit questionable.

*-I've been guilty of this on occasion, but it's generally been his beliefs influencing his policies (ie cutting uni funding and diverting it to chaplains and seminaries) rather than insinuating that Catholic = pedophile or misogynist.

[mjr]

Add to that people with nothing to lose in terms of elections really have no governor on their actions. I can totally see the public being mad about a policy, electing a large number of "we'll blow it all up" types, and then for once actually seeing it followed through as they won't be the ones dealing with it. So imagine being a retirement age and seeing Social Security blown up while you're on it because it fixes a lot of problems in the budget. The congress knows it's not being reelected, it knows it causes a huge budgeting problem, and it knows it's a huge line item. So blow it up and let the next guys figure out a better way.

This is interesting, and I'd like to address it...

Remember, my thought is consecutive term limits. I don't think certain things would be modified too much, simply because whoever holds that office would want to hold it again.

In other words, if Bill is term-limited out of the House, Bill isn't going to want to do too much to damage his reputation or his possible chances for future re-election. So when Steve takes over after Bill leaves, Bill can then hope that Steve does a bad enough job that when Bill is eligible to run again, he can re-acquire his House seat.