1. Does negative campaigning really work? I’ve tried to keep an open mind to the two presidential candidates as much as possible, but still have not even come close to reconsidering my vote. I’m thinking most people decided who they will vote for a while back and probably haven’t changed their minds…at least not as a result of the mudslinging ads since they really don’t have enough substance to change ones mind. So enough of the money wasting negative ads already…this voter rather hear more information on where candidates stand on the issues, etc. as opposed to why the other guy is an evil loser who can’t drive this country in the right direction.
2. Do we really need so many rules around the debate? Some seem appropriate (like handicap access to the debate, agreements on equal time to speak on the issues, etc.), but others policies like an agreed upon temperature of the debate room so the candidates sweat doesn’t appear on camera, a coin toss three days prior to the debate so the coin-toss winner can choose one of two equal stage positions for the debate are just silly. Nixon and Kennedy didn’t have their panties in a wad on such issues during the 1st televised US presidential debate in 1960. BTW, here’s a really cool site on US Presidential televised debate history: http://www.museum.tv/debateweb/html/history/index.htm
3. Why does this country require people to take a test prior to receiving the privilege of driving, but they’ll let any uninformed registered voter vote in a president when they have no clue where this candidate stands on the issues and worse have no clue of the consequences that this country will incur once their elected candidate begins making life critical decisions and begins implementing their policies!? I’m thinking voters should earn the privilege of voting on individual issues and candidates only if they pass a simple test to validate that they have an adequate amount of knowledge on the decisions they are about to make.