General Forums >> Controversial Topics >> Voting for What is Best!
Voting for What is Best!
|
Posted about 1 month ago Greetings, and good monring! My will begin my discussion with two questions. Number one, "when will we have a system in place that will allow PEOPLE to vote for "what is best," vs gender, race, and/or favorite person, etc.? I don't openly discuss Politics for this very reason, and this is due to folk trying to put you in a certain category by who you choose to vote for verses "dirty" campaigning. What is best for the people should be everyones main focus. Second question, "What if the system would only allow us to vote for a candidate to serve his/her country as President, etc. based on their ability to do so? No pictures, dirty-commercials, Gender, race, etc., only tprovide infomation about heir abilities? I thought FREEDOM of SPEECH and CHOICE was what America is suspose to be about. My comments derive from reading some of the comments in the General Forums Controversial Topics. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion! Enjoy, Carolyn Hood, Carolyn Hood |
|
| Posted about 1 month ago Good morning- Great questions! Here's my thoughts:
When we stand up and start taking our country back into our own hands and not let 2 parties decide everything for us. We currrently have a system where we are limited to 2 choices. There are many other parties and candidates running for President, but you would never know, as they are not allowed to have equal media time (Ralph Nader was on CNN stating that the other stations won't even talk to him) and not allowed to participate in debates, etc. Also, money is a big factor. The amount of money spent on campaigning is gross. Candidates should be limited on funds, to make the playing ground fair. Take a look at this link and see how many other people are running for President that we've never even heard of. http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm ; - there are many representatives of different genders and races there, but they don't make the news, do they? Why? Because they're not viable candidates, due to the fact that they aren't given a fair chance. Where's the democracy in that???
You would think that would be the way the system is supposed to work, right? This would cut down on that gross campaign spending that's meant to 'educate' people who are otherwise politically illiterate. That's not how it should work. You shouldn't be swayed by dirty ads and a bunch of fluff - just the facts is all we need. I'm on another forum where someone brought up the fact that in the days of our forefathers, the loser of the election became the Vice President. Now wouldn't that be interesting if things were still that way. Would there be less mud-slinging? Would the door be open to other parties, so to not make it certain that out of 2 candidates one would be President and the other be Vice Pres? Obviously, if the election were conducted like a blind study, that would be ideal - where people were only given the information that they need to know (where a candidate stands on the issues, their work history (were they successful at their career, if they were in poliitics, what was their record, did they just vote 'present' on issues, etc.). No need for names, pictures, gender, etc. Nothing that can cause bias or prejudice. It would be interesting to do that sort of things with ALL the current candidates on the link I gave above. If a blind poll were taken based solely on the candidates information, like you suggest, I wonder who would come out ahead? I would put my money on one of those no-name people being in the top 2. Maybe even 2 of them.
Great questions, Carolyn. Thanks for letting me vent. :) |