Informed voters without campaign spending?

[Elwar]

Ok, so I've been trying to wrap my head around this whole political process and it just seems wrong as far as how much money plays such a huge role in a campaign.

Why does one need to spend money in a campaign to win office? The candidate still has the same voting record and character whether he raises $1 or $1 billion.

I know that it all comes down to them fundraising so that they can advertise, put up signs, hold huge events, show off their fundraising numbers...

But shouldn't we start putting some of the blame of the corruption in DC on the voters who are actually swayed by a candidate's spending?

Couldn't we break the pattern of a candidate sucking up to lobbyists to get the donations to advertise in the papers, TV and radio so that those media outlets will be more likely to discuss that candidate so that the viewers will form their opinion based on all of those outlets, or based upon seeing so many signs or hearing about some huge rally, or getting some flyer in the mail...

I'll readily admit that I do not do enough research into each and every candidate that I vote for, and I usually make a point of doing at least an hour of checking on the various candidates from judge to dog catcher on the 'net before I go to the polls. But even with that, I'm not verifying the sources or checking rhetoric vs voting history.

Shouldn't we, in the digital age, be able to more easily decide on whom we want to vote for based on our own views and opinions of how things should be run without the need for a candidate to come on our TV and tell us why we should vote for him, or for some TV station to run a hit piece followed by more money spent on commercials to counter the hit, etc..?

This should be the end goal. A truly informed voter walking into the voting booth with all of the facts without the need for millions of dollars being spent to get there.

Any ideas on how the beginnings of this could be accomplished?

[Elwar]

With the recent announcement by the Supreme Court that corporations can now advertise for candidates, I think a new way of informing voters needs to be looked into.

Every voter needs to go into the voting booth fully informed. Not just reacting to commercials.

[Zippyjuan]

Being an informed voter takes time and effort. Most people don't have the time or interest to bother and political commercials break it down to emotional buttons which get an immediate responce. It is far easier to get people to resond that way than trying to make rational arguements.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Personally, I think a complete ban on TV and radio advertising (maybe newspapers too) would be a huge improvement, along with a requirement that TV / radio stations must provide free and equal air time to candidates as a condition of their broadcast license. Not time for commercials but rather a sit down interview with a nutral host and maybe call in from the community with questions or debates between candidates.

Just take money out of elections for the most part - the big money, anyway.

another approach would be to do a writeup on where you can find voting histories and background for all the candidates and sending that out to local papers.

failing that, it might be possible to make the uber expensive advertising ineffective... "well, gee - I'm SORRY my tin foil kite / mylar balloon drifted into your sat download path...", and so on...

-t

[Elwar]

Hmm, what I was thinking was something along the lines of vote-smart.org which was originally set up to be a bipartisan site for giving people information on each candidate.

Usually they have a list of questions that you answer and it gives you the person that most represents your views in percentages. But people usually see their pick and they're like "Ya, I took it and it gave me this Tommy Thompson guy"...it gives them someone they've never heard of and since they know that they're not in the top tier they don't vote for them, they go back to the lesser of two evils type.

Maybe create a quiz with some ratings on the issues, including how much emphasis you want to put on electability or how much you don't want the guy you disagree with the most to win, etc...

Or maybe have a bipartisan effort to put together a basic summary of the honest differences between the candidate that supporters of both candidates can agree on. Like a Ron Paul supporter does a write up for Ron Paul, then a Romney supporter takes the write up and marks up what he doesn't agree on and maybe add some other things, they go back and forth until a true and honest summary is created. Then distribute that to every voter, maybe have people waiting outside of polls with a summary of each candidate.

I know I would like an unbiased view of each candidate while at the voting booth. I usually have no idea about the differences between the different judges or school superintendants...

If the group could stay bipartisan and have integrity, people would rely on their input to make their decision and look past the propaganda being shown on TV.

[slothman]

Usually they have a list of questions that you answer and it gives you the person that most represents your views in percentages.
But people usually see their pick and they're like "Ya, I took it and it gave me this Tommy Thompson guy"...it gives them someone they've never heard of and since they know that they're not in the top tier they don't vote for them, they go back to the lesser of two evils type.

Maybe create a quiz with some ratings on the issues, including how much emphasis you want to put on electability or how much you don't want the guy you disagree with the most to win, etc...



I came up with this awile ago.
Each candidate gives answers to various issue questions.
You then vote for what issues you agree with.
I does take the closest but you also vote for a person so the person whith the most votes out of all that are equally close wins.
That last part eliminates multiple people using the same issues to make a more liked person not get in.