It should be remembered that when our country was founded there were no major parties dictating candidate choices. No need for big money corrupting the process in their realization they could buy candidates and votes to their advantage. Indeed, I understand George Washington was concerned and warned of the dangers that were inherent in parties when they went down the path where too much of a good thing emerges.
We know from the example of the Lincoln-Douglas debates that cooperation in campaigns was still the norm until at least just before the Civil War. And until large populations demanded mass media to pass around information the only way candidates and the voters could directly interact was at events like country fairs, church picnics and the like. People that worked from dawn to dusk had no spare time for special rallies.
To return to that model as a basis for the way our elections are conducted seems quite practical to me. We have new tools in terms of communications technology so that ideas and concepts, like voter issues, can be distributed without any need for major investment or organization. These tools include websites like this one and social media networks. Yes, there really can be an app for that.
The main tool available to candidates that do intend to collect the issues important to voters is through the Town Hall. But we know that because the parties are structured to keep us divided along”Us versus Them” lines the Town Halls of party candidates tend to only draw views in harmony with the party platform.
The more productive alternative to this, if the objective is to learn from all the represented, is to have us candidates conduct our Town Halls together. So that along with sharing the input to our site we have live submissions and can get even better perspectives. We can still conduct individual efforts to distinguish us as the better one to go to DC to get the job done. What to get done just is defined by the represented and to be championed by whichever one of us is selected.
As is noted separately in a section further on in the this Home Page I am engaged in this cooperative effort as much as I can from my end. This includes links to my opponent's sites. Copies of emails sent to my opponents and the two major party HQs in NH. Waiting for now on any of the above providing me an official statement on the concept and its enacting.
I am certain all those politically motivated this election season are well aware foreign adversaries are looking to once more hack into our election process for no beneficial reason. At least not for our benefit. Note that in cooperative collection on the issues it will be very difficult for outside sources to corrupt and distort what the represented define for resolutions.
Of course, since the two parties have no interest in resolving issues the millions spent on their candidate purchases go mostly to discrediting the other opponents and their opposing party in general. Again it is all about “Us versus Them” and building party loyalty. Again that too much of a good thing effect leading us down the dark side.
We do know that the way, until recently, of being polite and considerate about your opponents was considered the civilized way to conduct campaigns. Cooperative campaigns could see us returning to that practice. And the hated those foreign hackers try to robot in through false ads will stand out for what they are and be properly vetted by the voters. If you are standing side by side with your opponent on the same stage dumping on your opponent will make you look all that much less. If the opponent does have flaws the voters should remind and demand of the media to investigate and inform as their parts of the process. With what is going on in Washington these days they are getting very much better at it.