As I am sure you all know, England's Prime Minister election is raging on. Right now there are three men in the running. I don't know anything about any of them and to be honest I could not care less who wins. However, a few nights ago on Colbert a writer for Atlantic Monthly talked about how the election in England works. Apparently the general election only takes a month long and the candidates are not allowed to use televised advertisements. This topic brought another election related piece of news to my mind. I recently heard that in California they are trying a new system of primary election where people cast their vote for a candidate from a single list (i.e. there will be no separating democrats and republicans). In the end the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of their party, will go head to head. In my opinion, both England and California are on the right path. I think the idea of minimal advertising and a one month election is great. I also like the sound of the top two candidates moving on from the primaries regardless of whether they represent different parties or not. What do ya'll think? Is our system fine? Do we need a change? Would it be wise to follow in either England's or California's footsteps? Should should there be a limit to how much can be spent on advertisement and should our elections be shorter?
POST!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Andy I couldn't agree with you more. The current state of presidential election contains far to much advertising and commercials and the like. It should just be a quick experience, where the candidates have to really get to know and impress their voters. No more mass media marketing for elections, to me that is impersonal and not worthy of hard working Americans. I've never understood the idea of a two party system in America, why not just let the two most qualified or popular candidates go head to head? Quality post Stone.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you. I think that in America, we spend too much time advertising for presedential elections. Thats not to say that I think all advertisements should be banned, but I think the number of ads is too high. I think we shoud create a middle ground to the issue. Some ads should be allowed so that voters at home can understand the views of the candidates. But, I think there should be a limit on this number so that the media can't be used to warp a person's view. I also think that the California system is a good idea. People are too focused on what party they support, and not focused enough on the views of the actual candidate who is running. Thus, if parties are not included on the ballot, voters will be more focused on the qualities of the cnadidate instead of just voting for their favorite party.
ReplyDelete