Originally Posted by
MellowGold
It is an interesting concept. I can not think of anything outright wrong with it.
I would like to see what DVP has to say? I am sure there is a counter-point, and I am too tired to think of it.
It must be said, however, that money oftentimes has very little to do with votes. Many, many millionaires have run for office and lost by a landslide. I would have to say that charisma, policy, and public backing has more of an effect...
I think it is a good idea, anything to clean up the current mess that both parties adhere to.
My issue with 100% public financing is that a) you need to pay for it somehow and I do not want my tax $ to go up. b) there needs to be some limitations on who can and cannot run. If any Joe can stand up and say he wants to run and gets $xxx,xxx,xxx.xx to run a campaign we will go broke faster in a heartbeat.
What I would actually like to see is a more parliamentary style system so we can include more political parties. Both parties are forcing out their moderates with Lieberman the most public example. While I may be a Republican I do not always agree with the hard core right, and while there are certain democrats I do like I will never vote for them because I cannot stand the far left of the Democratic party, what they stand for, and the fact they are fast becoming the mainstream of Democratic politics. Having more parties in the mix will give voters more of a choice rather than wanting ice cream and only having to pick chocolate or vanilla, both of which you may not really like. More parties will also help to keep politicians more honest as their choices may not be limited.