http://professor-lyman.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] professor-lyman.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] fandomhigh2006-01-31 03:52 pm

Political Campaigning (Tuesday, January 31, 4th period)

Josh stopped throwing darts at the map of Montana when the campaign class began walking into the room. "Hey guys," he said. "Hope everyone had a chance to write their campaign messages that will no doubt pave the way for candidate victory." He pointed at his inbox. "Or not. Regardless, they're due today. He looked around the class. "Callisto: how many days until Election Day?"

He cleared his throat. "We've covered the broad strokes of campaigning. Today we're gonna talk ethics." He raised an eyebrow. "And yes, before you ask, there are ethics in politics. This is a matter of finding out where you stand. And some people stand a little more in the gray area than others."

He pulled up a piece of paper. "There aren't any right and wrong answers to these. Some of the scenarios I'm giving you fall onto the illegal side of the line, but they aren't anything that haven't been done, and repeatedly, in recent campaigns. It's better to be prepared for what your opponents might be throwing at you than to be surprised later.

"That being said, here are five scenarios that come up all the time in campaigns. Pick one, pick all five. Tell me what you think, how you would react to the situation.

1.You are sitting in a diner. The campaign manager and the communications director from the other campaign are talking strategy. Do you write down what they are saying and use it to counter their plans?

2. There's a dumpster behind their campaign headquarters full of paper. Do you go through it? Do you send someone else to go through it?

3. You have been told that your opponent has had an affair. You have no proof other than rumor. Do you use it? What if you have proof other than rumor?

4. You've been given medical records that show your opponent has a potentially serious medical condition he hasn't disclosed. Do you tell? What if he has a psychological disorder? What if his spouse does?

5. The election is going to be close. It's been shown that a police presence has a chilling effect on your opponent's voter turnout. Do you station people in uniform, who might not even be police, near polling stations? Do you put up pamphlets saying the election date has changed? Do you start rumors that there might be background checks to see if a voter has paid child support payments before they are allowed at the polls?

Re: Answering scenario #3

[identity profile] mparkerceo.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 12:47 am (UTC)(link)
"Without proof, no. With proof... possibly." Parker frowned. "I'd use it against someone running on a 'family values' platform. And if my own candidate can stand the same kind of reverse scrutiny. The hypocrisy is a legitimate issue, and I don't need to sabotage the campaign with an investigation if we can't survive it. Otherwise, I have to admit-- public and private are separate things, except in the eyes of the voters. Not relevant."

Re: Answering scenario #3

[identity profile] auroryborealis.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
Rory nodded in agreement with Parker.

"Unless it directly contradicts what's being promoted in their campaign, then no. It's irrelevant."

Re: Answering scenario #3

[identity profile] notstakedyet.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 04:32 am (UTC)(link)
"You want your guy to win," Angel said. Anyone paying attention to how he spoke in class might notice he seemed to be pretty comfortable with giving these answers, even though he never looked up from his notebook. "The opponant's the moron who made themselves vulnerable. Nobody who needs their issues represented is going to thank you for taking the high road that allowed the enemy to win."

Slight mixing of phraselogy there? Possibly not talking about elections? Hmmm. Nah, not Angel.
fh_jackass: Logan Echolls (Classwork)

Re: Answering scenario #3

[personal profile] fh_jackass 2006-02-01 05:51 am (UTC)(link)
Logan considered this. "I'd want proof," he said finally. "Might encourage rumors a little if they already existed, but if I were going to really use it, proof in hand is the only way to go."

Re: Answering scenario #3

[identity profile] notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com 2006-02-01 09:55 pm (UTC)(link)
"Not without proof," Elizabeth said immediately. "And pretty much what Parker said... if they're preaching one thing, whilst immediately doing the opposite, then probably yes.

But I wouldn't want to do it through the campaign. Tip off a reporter, and they'll have twice as much to run with next day in the Post. With catchier quotes too."

Re: Answering scenario #3

[identity profile] threeweapons.livejournal.com 2006-02-02 08:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Alanna shrugged. "Let the rumor grow on its own with a couple of nudges. By the law of gossip, everyone and their third-aunt would have heard of it in three days."