2 ms·
I think you are saying the same thing. The commenter to whom you are responding didn't say that money is the root cause, but that the amount of money required
by jMyles 11y ago
I think you are saying the same thing. The commenter to whom you are responding didn't say that money is the root cause, but that the amount of money required to win is the root cause.
And the reason that it costs this amount of money, as you point out, is that attack ads (inter alia) are often successful.
- danieltillett 11y agoExactly right. It is the scale of money required to get elected that is the issue. When you have districts with upwards of a million people then they only way you can have any contact with any voter within that district is via adverting. A 15 second ad is not a good way to get across a complex idea, hence we end up with campaigns built around personal attacks and dog whistles. Get the electorate down to the size where each politician knows the majority of their electorate personally, where you can call up your representative and talk to them rather than some staffer, and where public meetings can work, and then you will change the whole dynamic of politics. It won’t be perfect, but it should be more resistant to corruption as the root cause will be removed.
- jMyles 11y agoAlthough, anybody who has been involved in municipal or campus politics can attest that, at least occasionally, oversimplification and attack ads work in those markets as well. All things considered though, I agree with you. One other thing to overcome though, is gerrymandering. If we have 10x-100x the number of house districts, the gerrymandering algorithms will have a field day unless we take action to stop them in practice first.