The ideal political campaign paradigm?
Next option, we force everyone to spend as much as the other. We do like the A1 motor racing championship who unlike F1 (Formula One) forces all teams to race with the same car. This process would likely be financed by government. The obvious problem is that people do need to know what their candidates stand for hence they need to be fully exposed to them. This exposure can cost a lot of money. If the government pays, that means we the citizens pay. Would you rather that money be spent on campaigns or vaccines and education.
What about a compromise model. Everyone spends what they want but with a ceiling. You are allowed to spend up to X. Who establishes that X amount? And if it's too low we're back to the same problem. If it's too high, the poorer candidates and parties will never shine.
I have another approach that would put the responsibility of coverage squarely on the shoulders of media. As part of the television, radio or newspaper license you agree to support campaigns with a specified amount of free coverage for each candidate. You also commit to giving them sufficient space for their message to reach citizens unfiltered. If you are a medium, you are about to tell me I'm nuts because by the third election you'll be bankrupt. Think again. What if we forced the time to be specified. By this we mean that, for example, every Tuesday all stations cover the candidates from 8 to 8:30. This means that you will not be losing audience to a competitor. It also means that you will be, because of your superior coverage, getting higher ratings. Those ratings raise your advertising rates.
I have other models in mind that I'll give some more thought to but in all cases, one thing is certain, if the current trend continues, in the US, presidential elections will cost billions and in other countries, coups will remain the only affordable way to gain power.
Comments
Log in or create a user account to comment.