Enough with the Mudslinging Campaigns
A Major decision to be Made
As the November elections approach, we the American voters have a big decision to make. The country is dealing with a struggling economy, issues with healthcare, an ever increasing national debt and a war in Afghanistan. Not to mention international issues including the economic crisis in Europe and tense situations in Syria, Iran and North Korea.
This November, we the people will decide whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will lead us through these issues during the next four years. It is important that we are able to make an informed decision in the voting booth because this is our future we are talking about.
Already we are seeing political advertisements all over the television, yet neither of the candidates seems to have a plan to share. All we keep hearing is reasons why we should not vote for the other candidate. I can not be alone in feeling turned off by this approach.
So far, during this election season, it seems that all we hear about is how bad the other candidate is. Have the campaigns for the highest office in the United States sunk to the level of high school politics? Watching the television sure makes me think we have. All I hear are accusations thrown back and forth. I would like to see the candidates show me why they are the right choice for the job.
The SuperPacs Are Not Helping
I admit that I am not a political expert, but where did the SuperPacs come from? I do not remember ever hearing about them in previous elections. It seems kind of shady to me, another way to get around the limits on campaign contributions.
Now we are left with anonymous people and corporations giving large sums of money in an attempt to help their candidates cause. This in turn helps the cause of the donors. It seems the idea of elections being decided based upon merit, rather than money has been lost forever.
Are SuperPacs a Good Idea?
Do you feel SuperPacs are good for elections?
Time for Major Campaign Reform
America is long overdue for a major reform of how we conduct our elections. Money needs to be taken out of the equation. Wealth and financial backing should not be a factor in who gets elected.
Take a cue from the NFL and put a cap on how much each candidate is able to spend on their campaigns, sort of level the playing field a little. The candidates would then have to be more careful in regards to where and how they choose to spend the money.
Next, change the way third party ads are handled. If a person or corporation chooses to run an advertisement endorsing a candidate, then require a complete and clear disclosure as to who paid for the ad. No more of these commercials paid for by "people for better government" disclosures we now see. It would remove the mystery of who is supporting who and why.
I would also like to see more debates on television. These debates show us so much more about each candidate than the commercial endorsements. We all know that every corporation and organization has a candidate they would like to see in the Whitehouse, but they have their own best interest in mind, not yours and mine.
Finally, Shorten the Length of Campaigns!
Do we really need to spend two years deciding who the next President will be? These campaigns go on so long, leaving some voters feeling overwhelmed. This leads some people to stop paying attention and tuning out the entire process. We should shorten the length of the entire election process to no more than six months. This would make the whole process more concise and to the point.
Each candidate would have time to lay down their plans for the issues and share them with the public. The limited time frame would surely cut down on the amount of time spent slinging mud at their opponents.
The elections are supposed to be about the American people. It is time the process is put back in our hands.
© 2012 Christopher J Wood