3 ms·

Do you believe that a small number of individuals providing most of the campaign funding is the problem, or do you believe that a concentrated donor base create

by nickff 11y ago

Do you believe that a small number of individuals providing most of the campaign funding is the problem, or do you believe that a concentrated donor base creates worse outcomes in government? Your citation describes the concentrated donor base, but does not make any attempt to demonstrate that it has negative consequences (in addition to being of disputed factual accuracy). If campaign spending was reduced, and this increased the effect of public opinion on the government, it is likely that government would be worse.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

rpedela 11y ago
It isnt really about the amount of campaign spending for me. I would be okay with 10x more spending. I personally dont like that the majority of contributions come from a relatively small number of people or organizations. I would like the rules changed so that they are more egalitarian. One possible solution is only individuals (no companies, PACs, organizations) can contribute up to $100 per candidate. And the money comes from federal taxes rather than people spending from their wallets directly. You could argue that whoever gets the most money in this system will also win the election because people are essentially voting with their wallets. And even poor people can participate which is the reason for the federal taxes. As far as governing, if something like that was the system then politicians would hopefully feel more free to do what they think is right rather than what they think will appease their donors. Even if that doesn't turn out to be true, I still think it is a good thing to make campaign finance more egalitarian because it eliminates one potential source of corruption.
- nickff 11y ago
  The first two of your paragraphs about your feelings are completely irrelevant to this policy discussion, though I understand they are of great importance to you. Your last point is interesting because you seem to prioritize elimination of donor influence. I on the other hand, am ambivalent when it comes to the prevalence of donor influence, and would only be inclined to minimize donor influence if it had a negative impact on governance. Caplan makes the point that political 'shirking', and non-voting both improve governmental results. Do you prioritize involvement of the citizenry in poltics over governmental outcomes (i.e. the good of the people)?
  - rpedela 11y ago
    > The first two of your paragraphs about your feelings are completely irrelevant to this policy discussion, though I understand they are of great importance to you. What are you talking about? The second paragraph has no feelings whatsoever. I guess the first does, but I was responding to your "do you believe" questions. Belief is sort of a feeling. I am happy to debate, but please stop the personal attacks.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Your second paragraph is a description of how to implement a more "egalitarian" system, which you describe your preference for in the first paragraph. I agree that your second paragraph is one possible vision of a more egalitarian system, but you provided no non-normative reason to implement this system. My reason for asking about your beliefs was to ascertain whether your preference for a more economically egalitarian system was positive or normative; your response made it clear that it is the latter. In addition, I have made no "personal attacks"; I never impuned your motives or insulted you.
jellicle 11y ago
It's not often that we see straight up arguments that democracy is bad and we should return to kingdoms. Thanks for the laugh.
- nickff 11y ago
  I never said "we should return to kingdoms", I am merely making the case that more direct democracy will not lead to better results. Please avoid making a straw-man of my position.
- Frondo 11y ago
  Behold, the neoreactionary movement: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement

by nickff 11y ago

rpedela 11y ago

It isnt really about the amount of campaign spending for me. I would be okay with 10x more spending. I personally dont like that the majority of contributions come from a relatively small number of people or organizations. I would like the rules changed so that they are more egalitarian. One possible solution is only individuals (no companies, PACs, organizations) can contribute up to $100 per candidate. And the money comes from federal taxes rather than people spending from their wallets directly. You could argue that whoever gets the most money in this system will also win the election because people are essentially voting with their wallets. And even poor people can participate which is the reason for the federal taxes. As far as governing, if something like that was the system then politicians would hopefully feel more free to do what they think is right rather than what they think will appease their donors. Even if that doesn't turn out to be true, I still think it is a good thing to make campaign finance more egalitarian because it eliminates one potential source of corruption.

nickff 11y ago
The first two of your paragraphs about your feelings are completely irrelevant to this policy discussion, though I understand they are of great importance to you. Your last point is interesting because you seem to prioritize elimination of donor influence. I on the other hand, am ambivalent when it comes to the prevalence of donor influence, and would only be inclined to minimize donor influence if it had a negative impact on governance. Caplan makes the point that political 'shirking', and non-voting both improve governmental results. Do you prioritize involvement of the citizenry in poltics over governmental outcomes (i.e. the good of the people)?
- rpedela 11y ago
  > The first two of your paragraphs about your feelings are completely irrelevant to this policy discussion, though I understand they are of great importance to you. What are you talking about? The second paragraph has no feelings whatsoever. I guess the first does, but I was responding to your "do you believe" questions. Belief is sort of a feeling. I am happy to debate, but please stop the personal attacks.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Your second paragraph is a description of how to implement a more "egalitarian" system, which you describe your preference for in the first paragraph. I agree that your second paragraph is one possible vision of a more egalitarian system, but you provided no non-normative reason to implement this system. My reason for asking about your beliefs was to ascertain whether your preference for a more economically egalitarian system was positive or normative; your response made it clear that it is the latter. In addition, I have made no "personal attacks"; I never impuned your motives or insulted you.

jellicle 11y ago

It's not often that we see straight up arguments that democracy is bad and we should return to kingdoms. Thanks for the laugh.

nickff 11y ago
I never said "we should return to kingdoms", I am merely making the case that more direct democracy will not lead to better results. Please avoid making a straw-man of my position.
Frondo 11y ago
Behold, the neoreactionary movement: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neoreactionary_movement