Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Supple Cow
Again, a popularity contest requires both candidates and voters.
|
It only requires the voters in the sense that a popularity contest is the entirety of their method of interaction. Provide a non-popularity contest method of interaction and you will find voters partake in a non-popularity contest.
Quote:
|
If you want to make it into an election about issues, then getting rid of campaign advertisements is not going to do the job.
|
I don't consider "massively controlled and regulated" campaigns to be the equivalent of "getting rid of campaign advertisements".
There are two things that should happen:
1- Zero campaigning. The only method of communication from candidates to populace will be written responses to questions, of equal lengths. Potentially radio debates, real debates.
2- Single-term presidencies. Maybe they can be a 6 year term. This is primarily to eliminate the ability of a sitting President from using the Presidency as a campaign stop.
That, or similar, is what I consider massively controlled and regulated campaigns. By virtue, lobbyists will effectively disappear and voters will not be presented with candidate-driven talking points, chaotic one-upmanship and a derth of substance. When each candidate is essentially understood as a series of specific responses to specific issues, the popularity contest domination of our current campaigns goes away - whether any specific voter wants it to or not. Sure, you'll still have the media attempting to create their own popularity contest - but the candidates themselves can no longer feed into it. All the while the
Official campaign is readily available by anyone. It would result in a paradigm shift.