Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[Ragoczy]

Again, my point is that the current system is flawed, and any suggestions I've made are purely speculative, without having all the bumps and valleys smoothed out.

And questioning the speculation smooths out the rough spots and reveals the flaws ... that and Satan has me on retainer.

For example, one answer to your question would be to have local networks provide time, whether weekly or daily or whatever (paid for by the same group which controls the funds for all candidates, perhaps), during which any citizen could air his views regarding his candidate. This still allows free speech without permitting individuals to spend large sums of money in support of one candidate. And in my (admittedly less than perfect) world, the corporations would have no political say, nor would the churches.

"The same group" sounds suspiciously like taxpayers. And the idea sounds suspiciously like the "Free Speech Zones" that have cropped up over recent years -- I don't like those. The Constitution doesn't say "or abridging the freedom of speech down the road two miles from where the candidate is speaking" or "or abridging the freedom of speech on Channel 17" -- there's no qualifier, the nation itself, airwaves included, is a free speech zone.

I agree with you, it is hard. And I'm not trying to make a definitive rule here that would have to be followed to the letter. I'm merely tossing out ideas. While I agree with you about the undesireability of a pure democracy, I don't particularly care for the current brand of corporate republic which this country's political arena has become. Keep big business and religions out of the political arena and let the citizens decide. Of course there would need to be checks and balances, just as the original Constitution was aiming for.

Would you agree that part of the influence corporations have is through lobbyists whose fundamental objective is to use campaign contributions to influence the byzantine tax structure? If so, what do you think of the Fair Tax, which would eliminate that?

Religion has its place in the political process. Individuals form their views from their religion (primarily) and that's always going to influence their political decisions.

But change is needed, in my opinion. The current system, while keeping a nodding acceptance of the Constitution, has become so corrupt and controlled by a very small minority that it is virtually impossible for anyone who might threaten that minority to get elected, or even nominated.

I agree, and so did the Founders, as several of them warned against the dangers of entrenched political parties.