3 ms·
Hard to elect better leaders when you do not have multiple billions of dollars to spend.
by esalman 16d ago
Hard to elect better leaders when you do not have multiple billions of dollars to spend.
- XorNot 16d agoOh, do they have some mechanism by which they just took people's votes away entirely?
- Avicebron 16d agoPretty much, corporate lobbying, corporate donations, superpacs, the list is pretty much endless. Little timmy's vote in rural nebraska isn't moving the needle. Maybe he can complain at his local town meeting about the datacenter they're building in his back yard. Or put a sign in his yard to show he's on the blue team or the red team but practically it doesn't matter. As an aside, I emailed my congressman (blue) about one of the proposals (bipartisan) to essentially force device age verification and his office emailed me back well after it passed with a few reguritared sentences about protecting the children. I bet if I called a lobbyist in Maryland and had him meet the congressman for coffee to express my view he might be more willing to listen.
- deleted 15d ago[deleted]
- deleted 15d ago[deleted]
- chanakya 15d agoThere was more corporate and billionaire backing and donations to the Democrats than the Republicans. Also, studies have shown that the power of money in elections is overestimated. Money tends to go for the viable candidate, it's not the money which makes them viable.
- esalman 14d agoYou don't need to take everyone's vote to influence an election. Look at the data. Most elections are decided by a small percentage of swing votes. With appropriate amount of data and resources (i.e. money) it is possible to swing elections.