(12-20-2017 09:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 05:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 02:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is only one solution for this and it hasn't been practiced in this country for well over 150 years, free elections. In the early days of the nation the press gave the space to carry the individual views of the candidates. Candidates spent as much on their elections as they needed to for travel, but the press carried their promises and views because it sold papers so they didn't have to purchase "air time".

My problem with your "solution" is that I think it will be turned into the same problem we have today. The R's and D's will get free air time and nobody else will. It's pretty easy to set a threshold level of perceived support to qualify for the free time, and to set that level high enough to create a barrier to entry. How do you implement it to keep that from happening?

Then you obviously didn't read the post. All candidates got space to present their visions. What I didn't mention was that they couldn't use the free time to criticize one another so much as to lay out their agenda. Stump speeches were the time for muckraking. As for the entry point it's been on the books until H.W. Bush. Get the requisite number of signatures to get your name placed on the ballot. The total was once a national one for national elections. H.W. made sure it was per state and grandfathered in the Republicans and Democrats. Strike his legislation and return to the original. Then limit the space and appearances to a certain amount or limit of time and restrict the presentations to what you will do, and how you will accomplish it. That frees the election process up to new ideas and new approaches. Then the people choose. Those who've taken over the country don't like ideas that they don't approve of so we get two parties of candidates who they already own. Everyone else is dismissed, or even if they qualify aren't invited to the debates (corporate TV policy), and usually can't afford commercial time on television.
Make the elections free as far as message goes and we will finally get reforms and a new vision.

But who decides who is a candidate and who isn't? Do the Greens get this? Do the Libertarians? Do the Communists? Does the Constitution Party? Where do you draw the line?

And what constitutes the forbidden criticizing each other? If republicans had self imposed that rule and followed it, Donald Trump would not have been their nominee.

Are you willfully being obtuse? Any candidate who can acquire the requisite number of signatures of registered voters can run. That's how it was initially set up.

As for what constitutes forbidden criticism the media governs it for the time they give (and remember they do this as a public service). They set the parameters for advancing your point of view or agenda and restrict air time or space if it is violated.

As in every election since the dawn of democracies and republics the mudslinging is reserved for private speaking engagements and stump speeches. You can't stop it, but you can limit it to those realms. Debates should include all candidates and they are moderated. The electorate determines the candidates, not the danged parties. The process should be same for all of them regardless of party affiliation, and it once was.