6 ms·

Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. As a side note, I wish there was less exposure to political opinion in general. I think there's

by kypro 7y ago

Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. As a side note, I wish there was less exposure to political opinion in general. I think there's a problem in how a single celeb, or a close friend talking about their political views can be so influential. Not because they've made a particularly good argument, but because that person is trusted or looked up to. I often wonder how we would vote if we were blind to the opinions of the media, celebs and friends. I find it fascinating how political memes exist and evolve for almost no reason. How one generation can be almost universally opposed to something like gay marriage, then suddenly in just a generation the majority of the population is in almost religious support of it. Would this happen if we were forced to think about politics for ourselves instead of relying on the main stream opinion for what's right and wrong? As someone on the spectrum I find frustratingly difficult to find anyone with their own takes on the popular political topics of the day.

C1sc0cat 7y ago
Define "political" lobbying for improved minimum wages is political as would be climate change.
viraptor 7y ago
> How one generation can be almost universally opposed to something like gay marriage, then suddenly in just a generation the majority of the population is in almost religious support of it. This is a bit ironic way to phrase it since (in some areas) the previous generation was against gay marriage under the influence of religious institutions. (to a significant degree anyway) The new generation has very non-religious support for it.
adolph 7y ago
See also preference falsification: * A person who hides his discontent about a fashion, policy, or political regime makes it harder for others to express discontent.* One socially significant consequence of preference falsification is widespread public support for social options that would be rejected decisively in a vote taken by secret ballot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
fennecfoxen 7y ago
I fear you have an excessively optimistic view of the processes by which humans will form opinions under this proposed regime.
jdietrich 7y ago
You don't need a complete ban, just sensible financial limits. In the UK, campaign spending by political parties must not exceed £30,000 ($38,000) per candidate. That's enough money to inform potential voters of your policies, but little enough to reduce the influence of money in politics to a minimum. The EU referendum was highly controversial because some campaign groups may have spent over £15m ($19m) nationally, which I understand is chump change in the US. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campaigner/political-parties/election-campaign-spending https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campa...
captainmuon 7y ago
> Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. There is a de-facto ban on political advertizing (or "worldview" advertizing) in Germany, and it is really frustrating. The army can run ads looking for recruits, but you cannot run an ad for a peace campaign. There are ads for cigarettes, soft drinks, and alcohol, but most places won't let you run an ad to advocate, lets say, better healthcare. Basically, this just helps cement the political status quo.
- HunOL 7y ago
  > How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. It increase impact of money. Who have more money more likely to win.
  - abfar 7y ago
    What if we require that every $1 spent by someone on a political ad must also be balanced by a $1 subsidy for the opponents' ads? Seems fair to me and would reduce the impact of money. (I'm sorry but I forgot who proposed this idea.)
    - afiori 7y ago
      What about systems that are not strictly with two sides?
      - dictum 7y ago
        I'm not convinced, but there's a possible setup: a fund. Entities donate to the fund, and then the money would be distributed among the candidates (either equally, among a smaller number of qualifying candidates, or for all candidates, proportional to e.g. a party's representatives in the legislative branch) (This would do nothing about money buying influence — as long as the donors are known, their wishes would be carried out by at least the major parties)
DisruptiveDave 7y ago
I had a thought recently: What if we voted for policies instead of people? A bunch of policies are put forward, we vote on those, then we choose people to implement them/oversee their implementation. I'm sure this falls down under any level of analysis, but as someone who has avoided politics all his life, it seems soooooo ridiculously silly to hold this popularity contest / PR event we call elections.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The problem is when the voters see a government with expenses > revenues and send someone in to implement: 1) Increase government spending on services by 10% 2) Reduce taxes by 10% 3) Run a balanced budget. No borrowing or tricks. The politicians need to have some level of freedom to deal with impossible voter demands and then you get back to voting for people who are most likely to make decisions the voter likes.
dexen 7y ago
>Political advertising should be banned entirely This strikes way too close to throwing the 1A out the window, in all the ways that touch the everyday activities. That sci-fi book you wrote, with Lord Admiral character? It was a manifesto for a new governance system. That meme you shared online a month ago? It's now associated with a particular candidate. Your proposal voiced in parent's meeting at school? It's a political position favoring a particular social group. Not to say everything is political, no. However any single aspect of life can, and many ultimately will, be talked about and negotiated on by a politician or a political movement at some point. I often wonder how we would vote if we were blind to the opinions of the media, celebs and friends. The biggest difference would be among candidates and the policies they propose. Presently the celebs & the media gate-keep which opinions & political programs are acceptable. We effectively have two Overton Windows, and the candidates are constrained to the overlap of the two. The first Window is the usual voters' preference, expressed freely in the privacy of the voting booth. The second Window is maintained by the media - only the candidates that espouse certain views & policies get to be listed on the ballot, endorsed by mainstream parties, etc. All other ones get to be "crazy crystal lady"[1] at best, and maybe even "celebrated & defended by Russia's propaganda machine"[2]. -- [1] https://news.yahoo.com/marriane-williamson-190502156.html https://news.yahoo.com/marriane-williamson-190502156.html [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-prop...
- afiori 7y ago
  But there is a difference between advertising and propaganda/activism. Printing a book that brings you to an understanding of a political idea [1] is one thing. Passively sticking your posters on other people books (after paying) is another. Propaganda gets a lot of well deserved criticism as it is often dishonest, we simply tolerate similar dishonesty in advertisements. [1] Whether by truth or lies does not really matter in a sense here.
celticmusic 7y ago
> How one generation can be almost universally opposed to something like gay marriage, then suddenly in just a generation the majority of the population is in almost religious support of it. 2 reasons. 1. That isn't actually what happened, DADT was in the 90's, for example, and 2. Each generation learns from the mistakes of the generation before it (and makes mistakes of their own). DADT was the death knell of anti-gay sentiment. It was the military drawing a line in the sand, and when that line got stepped over, drawing another line in the sand. It was inevitable that line would be stepped over as well. This is how life works.
corodra 7y ago
It wouldn't change. Most people's political views are molded by first their parents, then by their social circles. We're an "average" of the people we hang around with. It's extremely rare for someone to be an outlier in political views. Not saying it's impossible, but it always takes effort. Most people don't like "effort". Most people don't even vote. Their opinions normally only exist as empty words. As much as political advertising sucks, I have to agree it should still happen. Finding ways to squash political opinion, good or bad, has unintended consequences. It's not like "politics" is a new thing. It's always been a talking point. Whether at home, work or the market square with someone on a literal soap box (where the term comes from).
soulofmischief 7y ago
> Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. That's a dictator's wet dream.
elliekelly 7y ago
You might find the BBC documentary “The Century of the Self” interesting. It’s a four part series and the first episode is a little slow but I found it really interesting to see how quickly businesses and politicians learned to influence the masses.
Aperocky 7y ago
Totally agree. All ads present a very one sided story, for products this is fine as you would need to pay for it, hence the negative consideration. For a political opinion it’s just there to influence and appeal to inherent bias in the direction of the ad.
brightball 7y ago
Message density and peer pressure is my guess. I've long wondered if it's easier to influence people in more densely populated areas. There's so much concentrated advertising and messaging to such a large number of people, it seems inescapable. What constantly reinforces this idea is the amount of, what appears to be emotionally driven political conversation that comes from densely populated areas.

by kypro 7y ago

C1sc0cat 7y ago

Define "political" lobbying for improved minimum wages is political as would be climate change.

viraptor 7y ago

> How one generation can be almost universally opposed to something like gay marriage, then suddenly in just a generation the majority of the population is in almost religious support of it. This is a bit ironic way to phrase it since (in some areas) the previous generation was against gay marriage under the influence of religious institutions. (to a significant degree anyway) The new generation has very non-religious support for it.

adolph 7y ago

See also preference falsification: * A person who hides his discontent about a fashion, policy, or political regime makes it harder for others to express discontent.* One socially significant consequence of preference falsification is widespread public support for social options that would be rejected decisively in a vote taken by secret ballot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification

fennecfoxen 7y ago

I fear you have an excessively optimistic view of the processes by which humans will form opinions under this proposed regime.

jdietrich 7y ago

You don't need a complete ban, just sensible financial limits. In the UK, campaign spending by political parties must not exceed £30,000 ($38,000) per candidate. That's enough money to inform potential voters of your policies, but little enough to reduce the influence of money in politics to a minimum. The EU referendum was highly controversial because some campaign groups may have spent over £15m ($19m) nationally, which I understand is chump change in the US. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campaigner/political-parties/election-campaign-spending https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campa...

captainmuon 7y ago

> Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. There is a de-facto ban on political advertizing (or "worldview" advertizing) in Germany, and it is really frustrating. The army can run ads looking for recruits, but you cannot run an ad for a peace campaign. There are ads for cigarettes, soft drinks, and alcohol, but most places won't let you run an ad to advocate, lets say, better healthcare. Basically, this just helps cement the political status quo.

HunOL 7y ago
> How can society change for the better if you can't communicate and try to convince people of your ideas in the public space? If you see a problem and think you have a (political) solution, you should be able to advertize your solution. It increase impact of money. Who have more money more likely to win.
- abfar 7y ago
  What if we require that every $1 spent by someone on a political ad must also be balanced by a $1 subsidy for the opponents' ads? Seems fair to me and would reduce the impact of money. (I'm sorry but I forgot who proposed this idea.)
  - afiori 7y ago
    What about systems that are not strictly with two sides?
    - dictum 7y ago
      I'm not convinced, but there's a possible setup: a fund. Entities donate to the fund, and then the money would be distributed among the candidates (either equally, among a smaller number of qualifying candidates, or for all candidates, proportional to e.g. a party's representatives in the legislative branch) (This would do nothing about money buying influence — as long as the donors are known, their wishes would be carried out by at least the major parties)

DisruptiveDave 7y ago

I had a thought recently: What if we voted for policies instead of people? A bunch of policies are put forward, we vote on those, then we choose people to implement them/oversee their implementation. I'm sure this falls down under any level of analysis, but as someone who has avoided politics all his life, it seems soooooo ridiculously silly to hold this popularity contest / PR event we call elections.

roenxi 7y ago
The problem is when the voters see a government with expenses > revenues and send someone in to implement: 1) Increase government spending on services by 10% 2) Reduce taxes by 10% 3) Run a balanced budget. No borrowing or tricks. The politicians need to have some level of freedom to deal with impossible voter demands and then you get back to voting for people who are most likely to make decisions the voter likes.

dexen 7y ago

>Political advertising should be banned entirely This strikes way too close to throwing the 1A out the window, in all the ways that touch the everyday activities. That sci-fi book you wrote, with Lord Admiral character? It was a manifesto for a new governance system. That meme you shared online a month ago? It's now associated with a particular candidate. Your proposal voiced in parent's meeting at school? It's a political position favoring a particular social group. Not to say everything is political, no. However any single aspect of life can, and many ultimately will, be talked about and negotiated on by a politician or a political movement at some point. I often wonder how we would vote if we were blind to the opinions of the media, celebs and friends. The biggest difference would be among candidates and the policies they propose. Presently the celebs & the media gate-keep which opinions & political programs are acceptable. We effectively have two Overton Windows, and the candidates are constrained to the overlap of the two. The first Window is the usual voters' preference, expressed freely in the privacy of the voting booth. The second Window is maintained by the media - only the candidates that espouse certain views & policies get to be listed on the ballot, endorsed by mainstream parties, etc. All other ones get to be "crazy crystal lady"[1] at best, and maybe even "celebrated & defended by Russia's propaganda machine"[2]. -- [1] https://news.yahoo.com/marriane-williamson-190502156.html https://news.yahoo.com/marriane-williamson-190502156.html [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-prop...

afiori 7y ago
But there is a difference between advertising and propaganda/activism. Printing a book that brings you to an understanding of a political idea [1] is one thing. Passively sticking your posters on other people books (after paying) is another. Propaganda gets a lot of well deserved criticism as it is often dishonest, we simply tolerate similar dishonesty in advertisements. [1] Whether by truth or lies does not really matter in a sense here.

celticmusic 7y ago

> How one generation can be almost universally opposed to something like gay marriage, then suddenly in just a generation the majority of the population is in almost religious support of it. 2 reasons. 1. That isn't actually what happened, DADT was in the 90's, for example, and 2. Each generation learns from the mistakes of the generation before it (and makes mistakes of their own). DADT was the death knell of anti-gay sentiment. It was the military drawing a line in the sand, and when that line got stepped over, drawing another line in the sand. It was inevitable that line would be stepped over as well. This is how life works.

corodra 7y ago

It wouldn't change. Most people's political views are molded by first their parents, then by their social circles. We're an "average" of the people we hang around with. It's extremely rare for someone to be an outlier in political views. Not saying it's impossible, but it always takes effort. Most people don't like "effort". Most people don't even vote. Their opinions normally only exist as empty words. As much as political advertising sucks, I have to agree it should still happen. Finding ways to squash political opinion, good or bad, has unintended consequences. It's not like "politics" is a new thing. It's always been a talking point. Whether at home, work or the market square with someone on a literal soap box (where the term comes from).

soulofmischief 7y ago

> Political advertising should be banned entirely in my opinion. That's a dictator's wet dream.

elliekelly 7y ago

You might find the BBC documentary “The Century of the Self” interesting. It’s a four part series and the first episode is a little slow but I found it really interesting to see how quickly businesses and politicians learned to influence the masses.

Aperocky 7y ago

Totally agree. All ads present a very one sided story, for products this is fine as you would need to pay for it, hence the negative consideration. For a political opinion it’s just there to influence and appeal to inherent bias in the direction of the ad.

brightball 7y ago

Message density and peer pressure is my guess. I've long wondered if it's easier to influence people in more densely populated areas. There's so much concentrated advertising and messaging to such a large number of people, it seems inescapable. What constantly reinforces this idea is the amount of, what appears to be emotionally driven political conversation that comes from densely populated areas.