POLITICAL EDUCATION

.

SUMMARY:

.

A:  REAL DEBATES

Proposed, that presidential and other candidates have debates — real debates, not debate/Q&A exchanges, but ones with resolutions to be proven or disproven.  And that these debates be not necessarily between the candidates, but between advocates selected by political candidates. And that these debates be not oral, but in writing — conducted over the Internet.

It is not proposed that such debates to replace the present debate/Q&A oral exchanges, but rather to supplement them; to precede them — in the same way that legal briefs precede oral arguments in a trial.

.

RELATED PUBLICATION: 

“Coming to Grips with Muslim Immigration”

.

B. DEBATES BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTIES

Proposed, in order to avoid an excess of debates, and to allow for scheduling unrelated to particular elections, advocates chosen by the governing bodies of the political parties could engage in debates.

.

C:  A VOTER’S RESPONSIBILITY 

Proposed, that the various states enact parameters for political debates by candidates and/or political parties that, if met, would would  become required reading (or, with audio files, required listening) for voters. That is, such transcripts would be made available to voters, and, prior to voting, they would be required to attest to having read or listened to such material. Waivers, including waivers for conscientious objection, would be available. Should a citizen not comply, and not seek to avail him- or herself of any waivers, or to qualify for them, then such citizen is nonetheless still be free to vote, but be subject to 12-hour daytime solitary incarceration, with only voter materials (ones presenting opposing views) available for diversion.

.

SUPPLEMENTAL: 

AN ABSTRACT OF SUCH A LAW

RELATED AFFIRMATIONS

PRIVATE PARTY DEBATES AUTHORIZED BY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES…

.

RELATED PUBLICATION:

“Let us raise a standard…”  (to be revised; currently not in print. See Kirkus Review HERE.)

.

Comments are closed.