The system as it is designed now guarantees I get someone I DETEST foisted upon me, and I'm forced to pay for it, so at least it is no different in those departments.
I am not sure how the current PRIVATE method of funding in any way leaves you with the bill of paying for someone you don't want. You don't even have to show up at the polls (unlike, say, Australia where you are FINED if you don't vote).
What we ultimately are aiming for is to de-fang the two major parties - they have so much power as to make other parties less relevant. People are ok with a concept such as a Green Party, whose policies are intended to coalesce around a safer, cleaner environment. Do all this other stuff, but the environment is paramount. But what happens with money, debates, airtime is that their message is erased.
I am okay with the concept of a party. Have an issue, or a philosophy, you should be able to get your voice heard. What got the Republican Party started was primarily the issue of anti-slavery. This is the basic idea of representation and representative government instead of democracy. That's why the representative and Senators from Wyoming are chosen by the people of that state, even if the majority of the nation does NOT agree with them. They represent their constituency. I get it. Same with parties and factions and so forth.
What I don't like is what many on here don't like - the differences between the two major parties disappearing, but no one else gets a shot at the brass ring. So we're left to choose between two people, neither of which we want, whose views don't differ radically.
I've looked at solutions in other countries - and I don't like them either. For example, Norway doesn't permit political ads on TV and radio. Wow. That levels things a BIT, doesn't it?
But philosophically, it's an intrusion on free speech I can't trust.
