> I think it might need a bit of a redesign when the campaign goes on longer and there won’t be a single YouTube clip that can summarize a candidates views on a large topic, but excellent rough draft in my opinion.

I’m not sure I understand. The goal is not to collect every (or even more than one) video by any one candidate per issue. As I see it a candidate needs the ability to summarize his position on any given issue within a five minute video. That doesn’t mean every detail, but rather an overview of the position. Besides, even with one video per candidate-issue, the total viewing time is already very large. Multiple? Yikes!

gary

Republicans are middle and upper middle class whites who live in the exurbs and the smaller towns. Democrats are the ultra-rich (Manhatten is 80% Democratic, the poorest whites, and minorities. The demographic groups that have the best ability to get people to provide manhours are the left side of the Democratic Party. I cannot think of a single Republican demographic group that could legally provide campaign support under any system administraterd by Democrats.

If you want Congress to be dominated by Bernie Sanders clones, public financing of elections is the way to go. The Democrats would lose some candidates such as Maria Cantawell, John Dayton, Jon Corzine, etc. But the Republicans would lose many more.

If would also return power to the career politicians and end the idea of getting into politics later in life. Public financing would give the Congressional Black Congress a huge amount of power but would destroy any Republican based caucus.

Also, I can’t find the stats right now, but I know I’ve seen data to show that the poorer you are, the more likely to are to vote democratic, and the richer are more likely to vote republican. So if anything it would benefit republican party more. But I think the results would be negligible.

For a bit, I thought I almost agreed with Mit Romney then I clicked on Energy, Taxes, and Campaign Reform….. wow

Public financing give a huge advantage to those who have the most man-hours (not just individuals) to an election. That means that professional activist (generally on the left), professional students, and those who can hide their spending inside their organization are the ones who benefit.

Those on right who have to get up and go to work everyday can no longer substitute money for time. The only people who can be active in poitics are those special interest where the people have time.

Now you promised to act like a centrist when here.

This still has problems with organizations such as Swift Boat Vets/MoveOn.org, but then again, so does public financing.

There, I fixed that for you since you must have thought you were still over at Kos.

The internet may help a little for a national election or an election in California, the internet probably hurts local elections. How do you reach voters about a state representative election or county commissioner election when people are reading newssites from across the world.

Chris,

Publoic financing doe not get special interest out of politics, it just changes the special interest. Public financing would give NGOs like Public Interest Research Group, moveon.org, and public sector unions a huge advantage. It would cripple the chamber of commerence though.

If you want politics to be like France, wouldn’t it be easier to move to France instead of moving France’s political system here?

http://www.ExpertVoter.org

gary

So to encourage that process, I created a website that compares candidates by issue:

gary

While the article seems to be focusing on individual candidate financing, I hope they are not brushing aside the 527 issue.

We have to get back to valuing ideas and performance instead of pocket books.