Elections are too long, we need to limit the length of them.

We need to limit the size of elections because the lack of engagement make people become apathetic to the process. In most countries election season is a few weeks or months when candidates are allowed to campaign. The amount of money spent is limited and debates are state funded. The result is short election seasons that keep voters attention and are far less political.

The solution is simple IMO.

1. Reduce election season to 36 days. That is how long it is in Canada. Have election day be a federal holiday and make voting super easy by having poling stations at every school holding elections in the summer. Mid June though July.

2. Allow every candidate 1 televised and radio advertisement free. They have until the start of election season to submit it. They run evenly though election season.

3. Hold 1 debate each week on specific issues. State and federal level. 4 debates total and then early voting week 5 though election day.

4. Have an independent election commission draw districts and administer the election like in literally every other democratic nation.

So simple. Completely uncontroversial for literally the whole world.

 

~ A lie detector test for each candidate would be fun !

 

That would be perfect lol. Ask direct questions and then reveal what they said under polygraph.

 

This would eliminate many issues our election system currently has

Never party will allow it to happen

 

It's not the system's fault that politicians start campaigning for the next election the week after they start their term, at least it seems that way. I don't know if that was always the case, but competition is fearce for government jobs. Everyone wants the few positions available. And there are not enough to go around.

 

There's room for much improvement in our elections.

 

Oh No! We can learn a lot by watching these people trying to be perfect for as long as they have to, Watching them handle the stress, the sleep deprivation, the changes in tactics/strategies, and we can learn how they manage their campaign staff.
We will see all sides of their character, all aspects of their nature if we do not narrow our attention span,

I don't mind restricting the length of time that candidates can buy television time, the ads themselves are always more in the way, than educational, but free speech being what it is, how do you legislate the content of political advertising to 2 months?
As for apathy, the apathetic will always come up with an excuse not to give a crap. We should not change anything to accomodate the intellectually lazy.

 

We can restrict it by simply mandating the rules for political advertisements via the FCC against Networks. Big fines for violating. Political donations should be restricted $100 per day/$3600 total per person per election and only allowed during election season. No PACS, no money allowed to be made outside of their government mandated salary. For part time legislatures this doesn't apply during off season.

We've seen that character matters little in current politics.

 

I am a fan of most of the above. But the advertising done on networks is no longer all that big a piece of the pie.
Regardless, its not going to sell with this conservative court. They are wholy disinterested in any state compelling interest in regulating any of the above.

 

If anyone can beat a lie detector I am willing to bet it would be a politician.

 

I think we definitely need election reform. Somehow we need to get campaign contributions out of politics. I don't know if that means government funded elections only, (which sounds yicky and would probably be a nightmare to manage) or some type of fund raising system that goes to the party only with maximums and the party distributes the money to its candidate. The maximum would need to be low so that they cannot be held hostage by rich donors. I am sure some country must have some good ideas on how to control this. We need to consider some new ideas and come up with a solution.

 

I'd have it a bit longer than 36 days. 6 months imo. As another poster mentioned, a person can learn a lot by how a person runs their campaign. Adjust number 3 to match this and make number 2 to 3 advertisements (rebuttals are useful) and I'd be good with your suggestions here. I would also add that no advertisement may mention any other candidate. That would actually force them to focus on issues/policy rather than trying to slander the opposing side. "They're worse than me so vote for me!!!" was never a good argument imo. And yes, make it all completely State funded. That will get rid of the lobbying aspect to a large degree, even if not completely.

 

Something we can agree on.

 

Its actually not that hard to beat a lie detector test. Causing yourself pain is the most often used way. There's a reason that lie detector tests are not usable in courts. They're too unreliable.

 

Hi, Sackeshi!

Election laws can only be altered by the federal and state legislators. Federal and state legislators are the people who benefit most from the laws as they are presently constituted. The huge inflow of money generated by the present situation of almost continuous campaigns does wonders for them. Why would they have any reason to effect change?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Impressive idea.

 

I think fact checks should appear on the tv screen during debates.

 

Some of these people would pass a lie detector test because they actually believe the lies they are saying.

 

Since when do politicians answer a direct question directly?

 

Fact checks can be just as biased as what the candidate says. Who are the fact police and how do you determine what is a fact and what is not? There are all kinds of cherry picked facts out there which can prove whatever the hell you want. Therefore, you will always be able to find "facts" which disprove anything you want.

 

Fact checking is mostly just calling out lies. If what you say is different than what you did or have said in the past it should be put on the screen.

 

Everyone changes their minds on things. Changing your mind does not make what you said previously or now a lie. I'm just saying the lie police could have a biased partisan agenda, making fact checking nothing but a political agenda.

 

It's not the American Way. How can money be made with that "business" model? How would the wealthy be able to exercise overwhelming influence over the system. Dark Money is Divinely Godly and IS People too.....

 

Facts are just that - facts. I agree that people can change their minds, but they should say that...that they've changed their mind. If someone says, for example, that they decreased something by a specific percentage in a given period - that CAN be fact checked. Another example - someone can say 'I never said that'. But to display them actually saying it would be fact checking.

 

then they need to explain why they changed their mind. Because saying "I support the ending the war on drugs" yet voted no on decriminalizing weed. That needs to be explained.