5 ms·

I think I want my legislators insulated from money overall. They should not have their chances of election boosted by their cash flow. Of course, this doesn't

by md224 13y ago

I think I want my legislators insulated from money overall. They should not have their chances of election boosted by their cash flow. Of course, this doesn't help the problem of poorer candidates trying to run against candidates who are already wealthy to begin with. But I think it could be a start. There has to be some way to equalize the playing field so that everyone running for office has a voice. Otherwise the democratic process is distorted. Here's a radical idea: what if we outlaw electioneering? No advertising, no campaigns, just structured dissemination of information via debates and perhaps online charts comparing differences in candidate views.

MartinCron 13y ago
At some point, it becomes impossible to differentiate "electioneering" from political speech, which is a pretty important thing to protect.
- md224 13y ago
  This is a very good point and needs to be addressed. Two thoughts: 1) What about differentiating between speech in support of an idea vs. in support of a person running for election? This may be useless though, as it still privileges viewpoints held by wealthier individuals. 2) What about restricting political speech to mediums where reach is (mostly) independent of financial input, such as internet forums and public/private meetings? For example, I can post something on Hacker News about a candidate, but I can't pay to get that posting to #1. This is a more egalitarian platform for the dissemination of ideas.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    What about differentiating between speech in support of an idea vs. in support of a person running for election? Then you get into the wide gray area of "public interest organizations" that aren't supporting a candidate, just supporting the idea that Obama's birth certificate is fake. I've come around to the far opposite position on this. The only regulation on any political donations should be transparency. Give as much as you want to whomever you want, as long as it's completely out in the open.
rayiner 13y ago
So the solution to elections is to suppress political speech and disenfranchise the average voter by moving the political discourse to media they don't watch or listen to. Also: you wouldn't hire someone based on just a resume and a canned promotion video, and YC wouldn't fund a startup based just on an initial business plan, so why would you vote for someone based on the same? Politics is about persuading large groups of people to go along with you. You can't evaluate that from a chart.
- md224 13y ago
  Right, but the problem is when money becomes correlated to your ability to persuade people. There needs to be some way to weaken that connection. I don't think candidates should be prohibited from trying to persuade voters, hence the need for debates. In fact, I would argue that political commercials are more akin to "canned promotion videos" than live televised debates. Also, I think it's inaccurate to characterize my suggestions as disenfranchising voters. They still have the power to seek out information on the candidates running for office. The only difference here is that biased viewpoints won't be forced upon them in isolation. How is preventing voters from exposure to one-sided campaign commercials disenfranchisement? If the important thing is informing the electorate, then let's do so in a balanced way.

by md224 13y ago

MartinCron 13y ago

At some point, it becomes impossible to differentiate "electioneering" from political speech, which is a pretty important thing to protect.

md224 13y ago
This is a very good point and needs to be addressed. Two thoughts: 1) What about differentiating between speech in support of an idea vs. in support of a person running for election? This may be useless though, as it still privileges viewpoints held by wealthier individuals. 2) What about restricting political speech to mediums where reach is (mostly) independent of financial input, such as internet forums and public/private meetings? For example, I can post something on Hacker News about a candidate, but I can't pay to get that posting to #1. This is a more egalitarian platform for the dissemination of ideas.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  What about differentiating between speech in support of an idea vs. in support of a person running for election? Then you get into the wide gray area of "public interest organizations" that aren't supporting a candidate, just supporting the idea that Obama's birth certificate is fake. I've come around to the far opposite position on this. The only regulation on any political donations should be transparency. Give as much as you want to whomever you want, as long as it's completely out in the open.

rayiner 13y ago

So the solution to elections is to suppress political speech and disenfranchise the average voter by moving the political discourse to media they don't watch or listen to. Also: you wouldn't hire someone based on just a resume and a canned promotion video, and YC wouldn't fund a startup based just on an initial business plan, so why would you vote for someone based on the same? Politics is about persuading large groups of people to go along with you. You can't evaluate that from a chart.

md224 13y ago
Right, but the problem is when money becomes correlated to your ability to persuade people. There needs to be some way to weaken that connection. I don't think candidates should be prohibited from trying to persuade voters, hence the need for debates. In fact, I would argue that political commercials are more akin to "canned promotion videos" than live televised debates. Also, I think it's inaccurate to characterize my suggestions as disenfranchising voters. They still have the power to seek out information on the candidates running for office. The only difference here is that biased viewpoints won't be forced upon them in isolation. How is preventing voters from exposure to one-sided campaign commercials disenfranchisement? If the important thing is informing the electorate, then let's do so in a balanced way.