5 ms·

wait, you are proposing government control of election funding so you can change the government?... hahahahahahahahaha there are plenty of rich people on all

wait, you are proposing government control of election funding so you can change the government?... hahahahahahahahaha there are plenty of rich people on all parts of the political spectrum always trying to unseat the current government. That's probably a good thing. The idea that taking away private citizen's influence in order to swing the pendulum in any direction except more deeply entrenching the political incumbents is naive at best.

zanny 10y ago
The only real lasting solution is the decentralization of power. If all it takes to buy the violence of the state is owning a handful of senators, that is a bargain few can resist. If it took thousands of individuals to be under your influence, it gets harder. Make it millions and even the richest oligarchs cannot command absolute loyalty with their measly fortunes. Of course, they have to be accountable millions, which means you want to try to respect Dunbar's Number in relation to how many individuals any one representative actually represents.
devin 10y ago
> "There are plenty of rich people on all parts of the political spectrum always trying to unseat the current government." This is wildly reductive. Your post in general seems to suggest that "rich people" (ill-advised usage, IMO) have equal sway in every corner of politics that could possibly matter to large swaths of voting US citizens. To sit there and defend "private citizen's influence" while shouting down the idea of public funding is _truly_ naive. Even a fool's review of The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) effect on elections and public policy show that there is disproportionate private influence that needs tending to. I'd suggest you give http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corporations-are-people-they-should-act-like-it/385034/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corpo... a read.
noobermin 10y ago
Let's just trust the rich people you say, be the grass under which the elephants that fight. Yes, it's difficult, but the hope is that if we make it so the government we elect is closer to the will of the people, then at least when the government is corrupt, we can vote them out. Sorry, but as far as I can tell, I don't see "plenty of rich people" trying to unseat anyone other than installing their cronies which will do their bidding.
- blastrat 10y ago
  You don't need to explain your goals, I get it, it's obvious. What I'm saying is, you won't achieve them by giving politicians more control over elections, they already have too much control over elections. "public financing" is snake oil that a particular group of people are selling because it suits them. It will not lead to more democracy.

zanny 10y ago

The only real lasting solution is the decentralization of power. If all it takes to buy the violence of the state is owning a handful of senators, that is a bargain few can resist. If it took thousands of individuals to be under your influence, it gets harder. Make it millions and even the richest oligarchs cannot command absolute loyalty with their measly fortunes. Of course, they have to be accountable millions, which means you want to try to respect Dunbar's Number in relation to how many individuals any one representative actually represents.

devin 10y ago

> "There are plenty of rich people on all parts of the political spectrum always trying to unseat the current government." This is wildly reductive. Your post in general seems to suggest that "rich people" (ill-advised usage, IMO) have equal sway in every corner of politics that could possibly matter to large swaths of voting US citizens. To sit there and defend "private citizen's influence" while shouting down the idea of public funding is _truly_ naive. Even a fool's review of The American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) effect on elections and public policy show that there is disproportionate private influence that needs tending to. I'd suggest you give http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corporations-are-people-they-should-act-like-it/385034/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corpo... a read.

noobermin 10y ago

Let's just trust the rich people you say, be the grass under which the elephants that fight. Yes, it's difficult, but the hope is that if we make it so the government we elect is closer to the will of the people, then at least when the government is corrupt, we can vote them out. Sorry, but as far as I can tell, I don't see "plenty of rich people" trying to unseat anyone other than installing their cronies which will do their bidding.

blastrat 10y ago
You don't need to explain your goals, I get it, it's obvious. What I'm saying is, you won't achieve them by giving politicians more control over elections, they already have too much control over elections. "public financing" is snake oil that a particular group of people are selling because it suits them. It will not lead to more democracy.