Yodabunny wrote:
Why doesn't the party vote internally for their leader and put that person up against the other party for president?
Well, each party IS voting for their candidate via the primaries but I don't think there'd be much support for a system where the public was shut out of the first round. Constitutionally,
anyone who is a naturally born citizen and 35+ years of age can run for President. On the state level, you need to have enough support to get your name on the ballot. Saying that the political parties would decide for you would be, frankly, unconstitutional in my opinion. Plus it would make every other presidental hopeful run as an independent, thus fracturing the parties completely. There's no benefit to the parties to choose internally.
Quote:
I think there should be a cap on campaigns to even the playing field. Each potential leader gets to spend x dollars on campaign expenses and no more.
There is if you accept public funding. If you privately fund yourself through contributions or your own pocket or whatever then you're free to spend as much money as you want.
Quote:
The way it's set up now, it's almost like the rich people get to pick your president (our system works roughly the same way of course).
One of the big surprises that came out of Obama's fund-raising organization is that it's based on lots and lots of donors giving in small increments. The average Obama contributor has given $200 so far, usually in several contributions. but all of those $25 donations add up and its a constant source of cash for the campaign. In contrast (and working against her), over half of Clinton's donors gave the maximum legal limit of $2300 and are shut out from donating again for the rest of the primary. She spent all that money early on and is working on a much smaller pool of donors to keep her going. which'll only get worse if people think they're backing a loser.
Edited, Feb 20th 2008 1:02pm by Jophiel