6 ms·

Banning campaigning would go a long way. The state already mails out voter information containing a little stump speech of each registered candidate at least fo

Banning campaigning would go a long way. The state already mails out voter information containing a little stump speech of each registered candidate at least for Californian elections. Further advertisement is purely propaganda and leads to establishment victories over merit and a genuinely attractive platform.

roenxi 1y ago
> Banning campaigning would go a long way. With tongue in cheek, that qualifies you as the "people like Stalin" category. Not a good idea.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  And allowing for infinite money to pay for propaganda is somehow not Stalinist?
  - roenxi 1y ago
    If you're happy to accept almost literally everyone as Stalinist I suppose so. But if the word is going to mean anything then no, spending a lot on propaganda isn't Stalinist. It is routine governance. If you intend to organise people politically it is going to take a lot of propaganda.
    - close04 1y ago
      Routine governance in Stalin’s time is what we now call Stalinism. “Just the way we do things” doesn’t tell you much about the quality. Unlimited campaign spending has a huge potential to consolidate power and allow more spe ding in a positive feedback loop.
SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
Are stump speeches not propaganda? I don't see why the election system should privilege candidates whose political views are most compellingly expressed in quick little text blurbs.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  That is how the system already works. Tv and social media soundbites are king, rather than substance.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    I don’t think that’s true? There are exceptions, but Mike Johnson or Chuck Schumer aren’t successful because they’re getting really good zingers on social media.
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      I mean, that is exactly why people even know their names. You think people actually read schumers policy positions on his website? Maybe a single digit percentage do. Most everyone just blindly picks the party line option even on primaries usually the party endorsed candidate wins.
jahewson 1y ago
Being able to give a good speech is merit when the goal is to select a leader.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  I used to think that, before 2016. Apparently, incoherent rambling is also a successful strategy.
  - esafak 1y ago
    Harlan McCraney, Presidential Speechalist (2004) https://vimeo.com/90583017 https://vimeo.com/90583017
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Initial debates usually feature all serious candidates anyhow. Advertisement aka propaganda draws a line for me.
- yepitwas 1y ago
  Strongly disagree, in the age of teleprompters and speech writers this is a major part of campaigns (because of TV) but hardly matters at all for actual governing. Our excessive focus on it is not helping us select better leaders.
ch4s3 1y ago
File this under Lies Engineers Believe About Political Science.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  If you don’t understand that advertisement and public relations are merely propaganda, I’m not sure what to tell you beyond that. We think in terms of wholly different realities I guess. Nothing can convince you of my side and nothing can convince me against this conclusion that advertisement is fundamentally propaganda, and as long as we allow for it in politics we allow for the opportunity of malicious intent on the part of moneyed individuals.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    Suppose we allow only short published stump speeches and nothing else. What prevents the green team from registering 200 yellow candidates who will all submit yellow-sounding platforms in order to split the vote? Don’t we want to allow the public to judge candidates on more than their ability to write a single speech? Politics and representation is picking someone to perform tasks as our agent that go well beyond writing a single short speech with lots of lead time.
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      Well that doesn’t happen currently so it probably won’t happen in this scenario. Nor does it really happen in countries that have implemented bans on private campaign financing.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    Propaganda is definitionally just strategic spread of information. You shouldn't expect people to turn their brains off just because you've said propaganda. Any political speech done with forethought and intent is propaganda.
- mantas 1y ago
  Not 100% what OP proposed, but in my country political funding is extremely capped. Compared to US, campaigns here are tame to say the least. But overall it’s for the better IMO.
TFYS 1y ago
I don't think that would do much in the current environment of media consolidation. Instead of direct campaigns we'd just see the issues of some candidates be more present in the media. Trumps stump says that illegal immigrants are the cause of all our issues and the media will be full of crimes by illegal immigrants, etc.
bee_rider 1y ago
I think this would be pretty tricky to do. For example, I love the idea of limiting candidates to a little stump speech pamphlet that gets included in the voting materials. But, what if instead of doing typical advertising, a candidate coordinates secretly with people outside your jurisdiction. Co-conspirators could spend months or years running stories about some issue—crime, homelessness, drugs, etc, that might even have some kernel of truth (but be wildly overblown). People in your society might jump in with their own stories related to the problem, legitimate stories of things that happened to them, but filtered up by “the algorithm.” Then, the malicious candidate can just reference the well-known (overblown) issues in their pamphlet. It’s perfect because they don’t even have to make or defend any specific claims, just gesture broadly at the fears that individuals have self-selected. What do we ban? Getting your news from outside the jurisdiction? Discussing your experiences? Politicians meeting people outside jurisdiction? I don’t really see it… I dunno. My gut feeling is that we just have to come to terms with the idea of democracy requiring some sort of media literacy. But then if people were good at identifying ads and ignoring them, they wouldn’t be used so widely.
pqtyw 1y ago
Or complete stagnation and entrenchment of current political class and their networks. Not that its necessarily not the case anyway but it would be very heard for anyone outside the system to break in.
- martin-t 1y ago
  That's why term limits exist. Currently, they are only used for some positions like presidency, are usually 2 terms and don't apply to other positions. IMO: 1) We should get rid of presidents and other single-person positions altogether and replace them with groups of at least 5. Power concentrated in the hands of one individual attracts the worst individuals. 2) Term limits should apply to many more positions. 3) I am undecided whether the limit counter should be shared among all positions (i.e. if 2 terms is the max, you can serve 2 years as president, 2 as senator, or 1 as president and 1 as senator - changing position would not reset it). This would mean there would be no career politicians but also the politicians would be less experienced. The opposite is requiring people to ascend through the ranks (perhaps starting as low as a mayor of a town) but only allowing one term in each position. That way people can judge them on their past performance.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    Its tricky, though. There might be people who are doing a perfectly good job and kicking them arbitrarily might be suboptimal. Then there is room for quite a lot of direct or indirect corruption. e.g. if you know you won't have a job in 4-8 years major corporations and other organizations offering you a cushy job if you do the "right things" might become quite a bit more appealing. But yes, having a distinct class of career politicians has some significant downsides as well.. > The opposite is requiring people to ascend through the ranks (perhaps starting as low as a mayor of a town) Might work fine or there might be a lot of gatekeeping if you just want to get on the first step since that will likely be controlled quite tightly by the established parties/cliques.

roenxi 1y ago

> Banning campaigning would go a long way. With tongue in cheek, that qualifies you as the "people like Stalin" category. Not a good idea.

kjkjadksj 1y ago
And allowing for infinite money to pay for propaganda is somehow not Stalinist?
- roenxi 1y ago
  If you're happy to accept almost literally everyone as Stalinist I suppose so. But if the word is going to mean anything then no, spending a lot on propaganda isn't Stalinist. It is routine governance. If you intend to organise people politically it is going to take a lot of propaganda.
  - close04 1y ago
    Routine governance in Stalin’s time is what we now call Stalinism. “Just the way we do things” doesn’t tell you much about the quality. Unlimited campaign spending has a huge potential to consolidate power and allow more spe ding in a positive feedback loop.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago

Are stump speeches not propaganda? I don't see why the election system should privilege candidates whose political views are most compellingly expressed in quick little text blurbs.

kjkjadksj 1y ago
That is how the system already works. Tv and social media soundbites are king, rather than substance.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  I don’t think that’s true? There are exceptions, but Mike Johnson or Chuck Schumer aren’t successful because they’re getting really good zingers on social media.
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    I mean, that is exactly why people even know their names. You think people actually read schumers policy positions on his website? Maybe a single digit percentage do. Most everyone just blindly picks the party line option even on primaries usually the party endorsed candidate wins.

jahewson 1y ago

Being able to give a good speech is merit when the goal is to select a leader.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
I used to think that, before 2016. Apparently, incoherent rambling is also a successful strategy.
- esafak 1y ago
  Harlan McCraney, Presidential Speechalist (2004) https://vimeo.com/90583017 https://vimeo.com/90583017
kjkjadksj 1y ago
Initial debates usually feature all serious candidates anyhow. Advertisement aka propaganda draws a line for me.
yepitwas 1y ago
Strongly disagree, in the age of teleprompters and speech writers this is a major part of campaigns (because of TV) but hardly matters at all for actual governing. Our excessive focus on it is not helping us select better leaders.

ch4s3 1y ago

File this under Lies Engineers Believe About Political Science.

kjkjadksj 1y ago
If you don’t understand that advertisement and public relations are merely propaganda, I’m not sure what to tell you beyond that. We think in terms of wholly different realities I guess. Nothing can convince you of my side and nothing can convince me against this conclusion that advertisement is fundamentally propaganda, and as long as we allow for it in politics we allow for the opportunity of malicious intent on the part of moneyed individuals.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  Suppose we allow only short published stump speeches and nothing else. What prevents the green team from registering 200 yellow candidates who will all submit yellow-sounding platforms in order to split the vote? Don’t we want to allow the public to judge candidates on more than their ability to write a single speech? Politics and representation is picking someone to perform tasks as our agent that go well beyond writing a single short speech with lots of lead time.
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Well that doesn’t happen currently so it probably won’t happen in this scenario. Nor does it really happen in countries that have implemented bans on private campaign financing.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  Propaganda is definitionally just strategic spread of information. You shouldn't expect people to turn their brains off just because you've said propaganda. Any political speech done with forethought and intent is propaganda.
mantas 1y ago
Not 100% what OP proposed, but in my country political funding is extremely capped. Compared to US, campaigns here are tame to say the least. But overall it’s for the better IMO.

TFYS 1y ago

I don't think that would do much in the current environment of media consolidation. Instead of direct campaigns we'd just see the issues of some candidates be more present in the media. Trumps stump says that illegal immigrants are the cause of all our issues and the media will be full of crimes by illegal immigrants, etc.

bee_rider 1y ago

I think this would be pretty tricky to do. For example, I love the idea of limiting candidates to a little stump speech pamphlet that gets included in the voting materials. But, what if instead of doing typical advertising, a candidate coordinates secretly with people outside your jurisdiction. Co-conspirators could spend months or years running stories about some issue—crime, homelessness, drugs, etc, that might even have some kernel of truth (but be wildly overblown). People in your society might jump in with their own stories related to the problem, legitimate stories of things that happened to them, but filtered up by “the algorithm.” Then, the malicious candidate can just reference the well-known (overblown) issues in their pamphlet. It’s perfect because they don’t even have to make or defend any specific claims, just gesture broadly at the fears that individuals have self-selected. What do we ban? Getting your news from outside the jurisdiction? Discussing your experiences? Politicians meeting people outside jurisdiction? I don’t really see it… I dunno. My gut feeling is that we just have to come to terms with the idea of democracy requiring some sort of media literacy. But then if people were good at identifying ads and ignoring them, they wouldn’t be used so widely.

pqtyw 1y ago

Or complete stagnation and entrenchment of current political class and their networks. Not that its necessarily not the case anyway but it would be very heard for anyone outside the system to break in.

martin-t 1y ago
That's why term limits exist. Currently, they are only used for some positions like presidency, are usually 2 terms and don't apply to other positions. IMO: 1) We should get rid of presidents and other single-person positions altogether and replace them with groups of at least 5. Power concentrated in the hands of one individual attracts the worst individuals. 2) Term limits should apply to many more positions. 3) I am undecided whether the limit counter should be shared among all positions (i.e. if 2 terms is the max, you can serve 2 years as president, 2 as senator, or 1 as president and 1 as senator - changing position would not reset it). This would mean there would be no career politicians but also the politicians would be less experienced. The opposite is requiring people to ascend through the ranks (perhaps starting as low as a mayor of a town) but only allowing one term in each position. That way people can judge them on their past performance.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  Its tricky, though. There might be people who are doing a perfectly good job and kicking them arbitrarily might be suboptimal. Then there is room for quite a lot of direct or indirect corruption. e.g. if you know you won't have a job in 4-8 years major corporations and other organizations offering you a cushy job if you do the "right things" might become quite a bit more appealing. But yes, having a distinct class of career politicians has some significant downsides as well.. > The opposite is requiring people to ascend through the ranks (perhaps starting as low as a mayor of a town) Might work fine or there might be a lot of gatekeeping if you just want to get on the first step since that will likely be controlled quite tightly by the established parties/cliques.