Do you know how a lot money has been spent in today's ongoing America presidential elections?
Here's a rough guide: By April 21, 2008, Senator Barrack Obama had spent US$158.5 million. Senator Hillary Clinton expended US$140.7 million. Candidate John McCain disbursed US$58.4 million.
then again, due to the Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2008, chronic neglect of the agricultural sector in Asia and the Pacific is condemning 218 million folks to continuing extreme poverty, and widening the gap between the region's rich and poor.
Climate alteration is emerging as the latest threat to the world's dwindling fish stocks a new report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests. At least three quarters of the globe's key fishing grounds may become seriously impacted by changes in circulation as a result of the ocean's natural pumping systems fading and falling they suggest.
In striking contrast, during every presidential election American candidates spend a large sum not to solve current pressing problems as such, but on self-promotion and advertising purposes instead.
There is one question - Is there any manner the election expenditure can be utilized more efficiently? In view of the world's current pressing problems such as poverty and climate alteration, is America spending too a lot on the elections? As the big brother of the world, America's presidential elections at the least ought to showcase two points to the world:
1. Election expenditure by the candidates is maximized to the fullest in terms of campaigning and advertising.Not a single cent has been wasted.
2. While conducting the election, it'll be ideal if it could benefit the world directly at the same time.
How can we achieve these two goals?
What is proposed?
A new proposed alternative would be in future, to cap the candidate's election budget at a minimum amount. This will have three direct implications on future elections.
First, if the proposal was implemented, in the future no candidate will ever be handicapped by financial difficulty while trying to run a campaign. Since the independent committee in charge has taken into consideration the current financial status of each presidential candidate and the size of their financial pedestal of supporters before deciding the maximum election expenditure, thus no candidate need to worry about financial difficulties.
Second, a cap on the election expenditure for each candidate will give hopeful presidential candidates the incentive to seek out more efficient ways of campaigning and advertising. Since all candidates are campaigning with the same financial resources, thus each will be encouraged by the restriction to maximize the spending power of their expenditure. Thus wastage of expenditure is minimized.
Maximum expenditure not equal to budget capped
Critics of the new proposal may argue that since election expenditure is to be capped, this will then discourage presidential candidates from aggressively seeking out financial support from the American population.
This is where the crux of the proposed alternative, or the third implication lies: There is no cap on how a lot financial support and resources that each candidate can raise on their own, but the remaining balance of their budget (after taking into account the maximum amount they are able to spend) will then be disclosed to the public, thereafter donated equally to two entities: The US treasury, selected charities and non-government organizations (NGOs) devoted to world problems.
There will nonetheless be incentive for presidential candidates to strive out to the maximum number of financial supporters, because a leader who can raise the largest amount can convincingly argue that this is so because he has the charisma and leadership capability to acquire the confidence from the American population.
Second, any candidate who wishes to be president have to also have a well-defined plan in coping with the economy. For someone who is able to raise the highest election budget inside a short time, it is able to be argued that he is perceived as financially sound and prudent so supporters have faith to lend their reserves to him.
Future candidates won't be at a disadvantage if the maximum expenditure rule was implemented. In fact, it may even help them, because since no one is held back by financial woes, they'll be encouraged to speak up even more so as to present themselves as a better candidate than the rest. As a result, the American population can judge the candidates more factually based on the clarity of their proposed policies and their characters. In short, just because candidates have less money to spend doesn't translate into less support from the American population.
If readers feel that the candidates are spending very prudently, then there is no basis for the proposed alternative. But, if you think America can further minimize wastage of resources during the elections, why not give this proposal a second thought?
In short, below is the simplified version of the new proposed alternative.
Enforce a legal cap on the total election expenditure by each presidential candidate (i.e. a maximum sum)
There is no cap on how a lot financial support and resources that each candidate can raise on their own, but the remaining balance of their budget (after taking into account the maximum amount they are able to spend) will then be disclosed to the public, thereafter donated equally to two entities: The US treasury and selected charities and non-government organisations (NGOs).
An independent committee comprising of three selected members will take into consideration the current financial status of each presidential candidate, the size of their financial pedestal of supporters and other related factors before agreeing on the value of the capped amount. The three members are to arrive on an impartial and sound judgement considering the minimum sum.
The election expenditure of each candidate will be monitored closely to make sure there is no suspected case of election fraud or corruption, which will taint the reputation of future America's Presidential elections to come.
Senator Toomey Responds! (Or, rather, "Responds")
47 minutes ago