2 ms·
That implies campaign material and finances are capable of swinging an election, surely that affirms the statement you’re replying to? Namely: > the general pu
by jahewson 2y ago
That implies campaign material and finances are capable of swinging an election, surely that affirms the statement you’re replying to? Namely:
> the general public is so easily influenceable that allowing them to vote is a danger for democracy
I hate to admit it but he’s got a point. My counter would be that the recent US election was not won by the biggest spender.
- ben_w 2y agoIf campaign material was not capable of changing the minds of the electorate, nobody would waste time effort and money on it. Free speech is valuable and worth defending specifically because it has the potential to change minds, not just because people like the sounds of their own voices. (For the recent US election, people also point to Musk buying Twitter and getting his president of choice and saying this demonstrates why Musk is smart and $44bn was worth it, so are you sure it wasn't won by the biggest spenders?)