Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Brits run far better elections than the US
There are two very simple things Britain does in their elections that we in the US don't do but that we should. The first is that they don't allow "mis-statements" in campaigns. They are outlawed, formally. If, after the fact, a person is in office and is found to have done such a thing, they must forfeit their office. So simple, so smart. The second thing the Brits do that we need so horribly here in the States is--and I've said this before--we need to make our campaigns for election a certain length of time. Three or six months seems about right. In this way, we wouldn't have to keep hearing from these people but far more importantly, once in office, they could merely legislate instead of virtually constantly campaigning and raising money for those campaigns, as they must now. (Then, if we put this with true, stringent, touch, accountable and prosecutable campaign finance reform, we could get the "big money" from the wealthy and corporations of these campaigns out of our election system and government). We can always hope. That said, we must work for these changes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The Brits don't have that pesky 'freedom of speech' provision in their constitution, so the government gets to say what speech is acceptable. It is almost certain that mainstream views would be more likely judged to be 'true' than opposing views.
How do you determine the differences between meeting constituents and campaigning? Protected free speech about an issue or campaigning for office?
How would third party candidates overcome the advantage of the major parties? A republican running can lean on the party and have an organization set up and running on the first legal day.
It is critical that we don't give incumbents more advantages over challengers than they already have. Applying restrictions only to incumbents would remove most of my objections here, and would accomplish almost as much.
While the Brits don't, as we know, have a formal Constitution and so, can't also have a formal "Freedom of Speech" clause, they do, in fact have all the rights, etc., we enjoy in their informal, unwritten Constitution.
This wouldn't interfere with Free Speech at all. Anyone and everyone could still say what they wish, leave no doubt.
Everyone would get the same amount of funds. It would just have to be worked out. It would no doubt require a certain minimum of votes or signatures or something, in order to get campaign funds.
You're right, we'd have to make certain incumbents didn't rule forever.
That said, it could be done. And we'd be far better for it.
Term limits, of course. I know you're for it. I'd say two elected terms, tops, then out.
And kill their automatice pensions.
The Brits may have all the rights you think we should have, but they don't have full freedom of speech or press, they certainly don't have the right to keep and bear arms.
Everyone getting the same amount of funds can't work--there will have to be a cutoff of some sort, and the cutoff will almost certainly be high enough to protect the incumbents. The other option would result in fringe groups 'running for office' just to get funding.
I don't like the idea that every politician is a lame duck. A better idea might be to make them choose--they can run for office, or hold office, but not both at once. (that would include running for one office while holding another)
Post a Comment