Here is the next set of questions for Public Opinion & Political behavior, due Wednesday, April 29, 2009. Please choose one (1) question to answer.

1). One concern that many democratic theorists raise is that political campaigns, which should be an opportunity for a  broad, public  debate over what direction the nation is going, have instead deteriorated into "spin" contests, run by professional marketing professionals, featuring easily remembered "sound bite" slogans. In addition, most voters do not have the opportunity to meet candidates in person, but instead form their impressions largely through exposure to 30-second campaign ads in which the images of the candidate have been carefully constructed to create a positive or negative impression.
 These theorists feel that if a truly informed vote should be based on a careful evaluation of the issues and contrasting candidate's position, then voters in the current media climate are not getting the type of information that they need and elections resemble propaganda campaigns more than voter education forums. (The Sanes article offers this viewpoint)  What do you make of this argument? Do you see the literature on propaganda as applicable to the analysis of campaigns? Why or why not? What solutions might you suggest that would help to reform the way that elections are currently run?

2.) Those that call for campaign finance reform or for increased public funding of candidates argue that the infusion of large amounts of money to candidates has corrupted the political system and give donors a disproportionate amount of access to candidates compared to most other citizens. Further, that government regulation of campaign contributions and/or public financing of campaigns is essential to preserving the notion of "equality of influence" for all citizens and a "level playing field" for all constituents. Others argue that the ability to contribute to a candidate of one's choice is an important form of political speech and should be protected. Further, that any suggested reform will just create a new form of abuse, perhaps even more difficult to regulate. Instead, a worthy group should just work harder to raise money to support a candidate of their choice. Where do you place yourself in this debate?  Which argument seems more right? Why?

3.) Those who would like to restore a healthy, vigorously involved, educated citizenry are concerned greatly about the increasing use of propaganda techniques in modern campaigns- whether to elect a candidate, or to encourage people to follow a course of action, i.e. anti-obesity campaign, anti-drug campaign, anti-smoking campaigns.  While the messages may be very powerful, they operate primarily by appealing to strong emotions rather than convince through superior arguments. Yet, these ads have been empirically proven to be very effective in persuading citizens to take a position.   Those that support elite democracy, would argue that in a sensationalist media climate, that these are the only effective ways to get the general public's attention, and if the cause is a good one, it doesn't matter, even if the message is deceptive.  Those that argue from a participatory democracy standpoint feel that simulation and deception destroy any possibility of a true democracy and are insulting to citizens who would like to decide on the basis of conflicting arguments rather than images.
Where do you place yourself in this debate? Why?

4.) Since the economic meltdown has been the single biggest issue that has been facing americans this year, there is a fair amount of coverage of it and yet, little comprehensive understanding of all of the problems and all of the effects and possible solutions. Instead, political pundits have been working to use it in a way to attack their enemies, to defend their own ideological agendas, and to deflect blame from their own parties and most media only tell one part of a very complicated puzzle and sequence of events. Given this lack of comprehension by the public, what would be necessary for the public to develop enough substantive information that they could make wise decisions on what to do? Or, is it hopeless, in this case, and the decision is better left to experts? Why or why not?