3 ms·

For one thing, it equates money with speech, which destabilizes our democracy by giving more power to those who have money. Obviously, money does that in many

For one thing, it equates money with speech, which destabilizes our democracy by giving more power to those who have money. Obviously, money does that in many ways outside of the electoral process, but one would imagine that any serious democracy would want to keep its democratic processes maximally equitable.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
I hear you , but that doesn't seem to pass the smell test. The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc. So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost. At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far. Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser. So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game . Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?
- zelias 2y ago
  The massive influx of money has empirically had a tendency to turn a substantial portion of your "high information votes" into "high _dis_information votes"
- drawkward 2y ago
  American democracy does not give special preference to information content of a voter, nor should it. Did you skip the entire Jim Crow era of history where the racially-presumed information content of a particular voter was used to disenfranchise those voters, even spuriously? Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..." Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
  - MacsHeadroom 2y ago
    Our constitution established a republic, not a democracy. The drafters famously despised democracy. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Yawn-inducing attempt at sleight of hand. Despite being a republic, we nevertheless select our representatives democratically. I vote directly on state-level constitutional amendments.
- piva00 2y ago
  > At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc. No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.
  - googledocsftw 2y ago
    Is a voter more like a VC: invest in the person not the idea (aka policy). Although the policies and how they are communicated are of course part of how you judge. I think everyone knows election promises are just promises.
- drawkward 2y ago
  >That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. Did you miss all of COVID era on social media?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
    For the best ideas to win, they must subject themselves to open conflict. I didn't make a claim on how long conflict would last, but money is not infinite. Noise is part of the system, and the system is not perfect, but that's a reflection of our imperfections, vs anything wrong with the final outcome.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Yes, well we are discussing elections which very definitely have time frames. We can't wait for Edward Gibbons to come along 2 millennia later and tell us that some bullshit idea's poisoning of this particular election is going to wreck democracy. Add to that the fact that bullshit is cheaper to produce than truth. Sprinkle in the notion also that bullshit is likely more profitable too. Consider what might happen if the bullshitters control orders of magnitude more money in the first place, and then filter through Brandolini's Law: Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Democracy is too sacred to be left to the loudest.
- googledocsftw 2y ago
  A superpac has no bidders. It influences voters. To even get power you now need to nod to crypto, nod to a certain middle eastern country and so on. Eventually politicians will be entirely impotent suits. Look at the current "choice" the electorate has.

IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago

I hear you , but that doesn't seem to pass the smell test. The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc. So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost. At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far. Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser. So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game . Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?

zelias 2y ago
The massive influx of money has empirically had a tendency to turn a substantial portion of your "high information votes" into "high _dis_information votes"
drawkward 2y ago
American democracy does not give special preference to information content of a voter, nor should it. Did you skip the entire Jim Crow era of history where the racially-presumed information content of a particular voter was used to disenfranchise those voters, even spuriously? Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..." Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
- MacsHeadroom 2y ago
  Our constitution established a republic, not a democracy. The drafters famously despised democracy. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Yawn-inducing attempt at sleight of hand. Despite being a republic, we nevertheless select our representatives democratically. I vote directly on state-level constitutional amendments.
piva00 2y ago
> At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc. No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.
- googledocsftw 2y ago
  Is a voter more like a VC: invest in the person not the idea (aka policy). Although the policies and how they are communicated are of course part of how you judge. I think everyone knows election promises are just promises.
drawkward 2y ago
>That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. Did you miss all of COVID era on social media?
- IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  For the best ideas to win, they must subject themselves to open conflict. I didn't make a claim on how long conflict would last, but money is not infinite. Noise is part of the system, and the system is not perfect, but that's a reflection of our imperfections, vs anything wrong with the final outcome.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Yes, well we are discussing elections which very definitely have time frames. We can't wait for Edward Gibbons to come along 2 millennia later and tell us that some bullshit idea's poisoning of this particular election is going to wreck democracy. Add to that the fact that bullshit is cheaper to produce than truth. Sprinkle in the notion also that bullshit is likely more profitable too. Consider what might happen if the bullshitters control orders of magnitude more money in the first place, and then filter through Brandolini's Law: Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law Democracy is too sacred to be left to the loudest.
googledocsftw 2y ago
A superpac has no bidders. It influences voters. To even get power you now need to nod to crypto, nod to a certain middle eastern country and so on. Eventually politicians will be entirely impotent suits. Look at the current "choice" the electorate has.