4 ms·

What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#Voting_with_dollars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_

by leot 15y ago

What about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#Voting_with_dollars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_... It seems like a smart, simple system. ?

JoshTriplett 15y ago
As systems for public financing of campaigns go, it sucks less than some alternatives I've seen, but it remains a system for publically financing campaigns, which gives it a certain baseline level of unavoidable suckage. Implementing such a system today would have the net effect of funneling piles of money towards the two well-known parties, making them even more unassailable. For candidates other than those of the two well-known parties, it seems unlikely to produce any useful effect beyond that attainable today through voluntary donations. How about I keep my $50 and spend it as I see fit, on political candidates or otherwise, and you do the same? That seems like a far smarter, simpler system than the one you linked to, and than almost any other system I've seen proposed.
- leot 15y ago
  Why would it end up going to just two political parties? Aren't 3rd parties more likely to get attention if they are gunning for money that people need to spend anyway? As for the system you're proposing, that's pretty much the one we have now. And it sucks.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    First of all, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law for one major reason why we have an entrenched two-party system in the first place. As for your other question: why would third parties get any more money than they get votes? Look at the abysmal number of votes that go to third parties; why would they get money from people who don't vote for them? I won't claim the system we have doesn't suck. I will claim that most potential replacements suck more.
    - leot 15y ago
      I'm familiar with Duverger's law, but it's almost completely irrelevant here. "why would they get money from people who don't vote for them?" Please, think about this statement a little more deeply. Elections are, usually, winner-take-all. Donations assuredly are not. A vote for the Bloomberg party might definitely be a vote thrown away. A donation to this party does not suffer the same fate.
      - JoshTriplett 15y ago
        Donations to a campaign, presumably, try to support a candidate trying to win an election. With winner-take-all elections, if the candidate does not win, the donation does not magically get un-spent. Or do you suggest that donations to a campaign should get spent on something other than that campaign? Donating to a party has the effect of donating to one or more of their campaigns, so the same problem applies.
        leot 15y ago
        No, the donations need not be for a particular election. They're donated to parties or individuals to use as they see fit, allowing year-on-year cumulative effects. Imagine three candidates A, B, and C. A and B are from major political parties that almost always win. C is is a new third party candidate who is very viable, but for all the reasons Duverger's law is true is (all else equal) never going to win. Vouchers, however, make all else not equal, especially over multiple election cycles. If some significant proportion of the population supports C, they might know their votes will be wasted on C, but voucher money allocated to C will not be allocated to A or B, and will serve to increase C's prominence for the next election. When something big about a system changes, there is some burden of proof on those claiming it will have no effect (there is also a burden of proof on those claiming it will have a particular effect, but we've not really gotten there yet).
        JoshTriplett 15y ago
        > No, the donations need not be for a particular election. They're donated to parties or individuals to use as they see fit, allowing year-on-year cumulative effects. In that case it seems even less likely that this proposal will work. The major political parties will receive such a large proportion of the funds that they need only spend a fraction of those funds to get elected, and can accumulate much of those funds for future elections. Meanwhile, the third parties need all the money they can get just to get anyone to remember their name. > When something big about a system changes, there is some burden of proof on those claiming it will have no effect (there is also a burden of proof on those claiming it will have a particular effect, but we've not really gotten there yet). I'd argue that as in any other instance of a proposed solution to a problem, the default assumption remains "this will have no effect", and it falls to the proposers of the solution to argue convincingly why it will work.

by leot 15y ago

JoshTriplett 15y ago

As systems for public financing of campaigns go, it sucks less than some alternatives I've seen, but it remains a system for publically financing campaigns, which gives it a certain baseline level of unavoidable suckage. Implementing such a system today would have the net effect of funneling piles of money towards the two well-known parties, making them even more unassailable. For candidates other than those of the two well-known parties, it seems unlikely to produce any useful effect beyond that attainable today through voluntary donations. How about I keep my $50 and spend it as I see fit, on political candidates or otherwise, and you do the same? That seems like a far smarter, simpler system than the one you linked to, and than almost any other system I've seen proposed.

leot 15y ago
Why would it end up going to just two political parties? Aren't 3rd parties more likely to get attention if they are gunning for money that people need to spend anyway? As for the system you're proposing, that's pretty much the one we have now. And it sucks.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  First of all, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law for one major reason why we have an entrenched two-party system in the first place. As for your other question: why would third parties get any more money than they get votes? Look at the abysmal number of votes that go to third parties; why would they get money from people who don't vote for them? I won't claim the system we have doesn't suck. I will claim that most potential replacements suck more.
  - leot 15y ago
    I'm familiar with Duverger's law, but it's almost completely irrelevant here. "why would they get money from people who don't vote for them?" Please, think about this statement a little more deeply. Elections are, usually, winner-take-all. Donations assuredly are not. A vote for the Bloomberg party might definitely be a vote thrown away. A donation to this party does not suffer the same fate.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      Donations to a campaign, presumably, try to support a candidate trying to win an election. With winner-take-all elections, if the candidate does not win, the donation does not magically get un-spent. Or do you suggest that donations to a campaign should get spent on something other than that campaign? Donating to a party has the effect of donating to one or more of their campaigns, so the same problem applies.
      - leot 15y ago
        No, the donations need not be for a particular election. They're donated to parties or individuals to use as they see fit, allowing year-on-year cumulative effects. Imagine three candidates A, B, and C. A and B are from major political parties that almost always win. C is is a new third party candidate who is very viable, but for all the reasons Duverger's law is true is (all else equal) never going to win. Vouchers, however, make all else not equal, especially over multiple election cycles. If some significant proportion of the population supports C, they might know their votes will be wasted on C, but voucher money allocated to C will not be allocated to A or B, and will serve to increase C's prominence for the next election. When something big about a system changes, there is some burden of proof on those claiming it will have no effect (there is also a burden of proof on those claiming it will have a particular effect, but we've not really gotten there yet).
        JoshTriplett 15y ago
        > No, the donations need not be for a particular election. They're donated to parties or individuals to use as they see fit, allowing year-on-year cumulative effects. In that case it seems even less likely that this proposal will work. The major political parties will receive such a large proportion of the funds that they need only spend a fraction of those funds to get elected, and can accumulate much of those funds for future elections. Meanwhile, the third parties need all the money they can get just to get anyone to remember their name. > When something big about a system changes, there is some burden of proof on those claiming it will have no effect (there is also a burden of proof on those claiming it will have a particular effect, but we've not really gotten there yet). I'd argue that as in any other instance of a proposed solution to a problem, the default assumption remains "this will have no effect", and it falls to the proposers of the solution to argue convincingly why it will work.