5 ms·

Ok, we disagree. But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be

Ok, we disagree. But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be allowed to be able to get more votes because they spend more money because they literally got paid/owned by some private interests/ultra-rich people? It's just plain stupidity. How can we allow that? We're technically not exactly there yet, b/c not every household has an Internet connection yet, but why shouldn't the goal be this: Set up just 1 website where all political parties can express their positions. And let that be the only allowed form of communication with the voter. It's a sane pull versus an insane push approach. And it would take a lot of money out of politics, which can then be spent for intelligent things like research, for example.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Because of the constitution. Suppose you are running for President, I support you, and I am rich. I rent a billboard and hang paper on it saying 'northwest for President!!' Well, the other candidate (southeast) is not happy about that, but under the first amendment there is no question that I have the right to publish my opinion that everyone should vote for you. So southeast reasonably argues that it is unfair for her to be prevented from renting a billboard, which is true. And so it goes. This is a simplistic example, but that's basically what the famous Citizens United case was about - did a wealthy third party have the right to publish something designed to influence an election (in that case, by saying negative things about Hilary Clinton)? The first amendment says pretty clearly that Congress cannot make any law that limits the freedom of the press, and so people who want to use their money to publish election messages have to be allowed to do it. As a European I agree that it's far from ideal, but that's something you have to accept if you want the freedoms of the first amendment as it is written.
true_religion 13y ago
> It's just plain stupidity. Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm? If you take away the ability of wealth to actually influence the world, then all you can do when you're rich is buy increasingly banal toys.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm?" America is, in theory, a representative democracy and not some kind of plutocracy or aristocracy. That is your answer.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    > America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... America was once a republic, precisely to avoid the madness we are talking about in this thread. One by one the protections against mob rule have been dismantled.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > > America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... > America was once a republic The two are not incompatible. And it pretty unquestionably still is a republic and, in form at least, is also a representative democracy.
      - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors. I know of no reasonable definition of "republic" under which either of these statements is defensible. "Republic" doesn't mean a system of government that produces exclusively outcomes that meet with Daniel_Newby's approval.
        Daniel_Newby 13y ago
unethical_ban 13y ago
Just to be clear: northwest is for the repeal of the 1st amendment. OK, so candidates can only use one site. Then "Friends of Candidate" will set up a site, or some random blogger with a million followers will set up a website. There is no stopping the message, or the money. The voting system needs to change, among other things. the government should also do less, so there is less power to be had at the top.
- northwest 13y ago
  > Just to be clear: northwest is for the repeal of the 1st amendment. I am certainly not against any part of the constitution! > OK, so candidates can only use one site. Then "Friends of Candidate" will set up a site, or some random blogger with a million followers will set up a website. Of course that is and should be possible, because it is free speech! The thing is: it should be made illegal to advertise such a blog with money. Of course there will still the possibility of abuse, but that is the case with any other law. Doing what I propose would make a huge difference in the money-based corruption of the entire system.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Because of the constitution. Suppose you are running for President, I support you, and I am rich. I rent a billboard and hang paper on it saying 'northwest for President!!' Well, the other candidate (southeast) is not happy about that, but under the first amendment there is no question that I have the right to publish my opinion that everyone should vote for you. So southeast reasonably argues that it is unfair for her to be prevented from renting a billboard, which is true. And so it goes. This is a simplistic example, but that's basically what the famous Citizens United case was about - did a wealthy third party have the right to publish something designed to influence an election (in that case, by saying negative things about Hilary Clinton)? The first amendment says pretty clearly that Congress cannot make any law that limits the freedom of the press, and so people who want to use their money to publish election messages have to be allowed to do it. As a European I agree that it's far from ideal, but that's something you have to accept if you want the freedoms of the first amendment as it is written.

true_religion 13y ago

> It's just plain stupidity. Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm? If you take away the ability of wealth to actually influence the world, then all you can do when you're rich is buy increasingly banal toys.

betterunix 13y ago
"Why shouldn't money have meaning in the political realm?" America is, in theory, a representative democracy and not some kind of plutocracy or aristocracy. That is your answer.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  > America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... America was once a republic, precisely to avoid the madness we are talking about in this thread. One by one the protections against mob rule have been dismantled.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > > America is, in theory, a representative democracy ... > America was once a republic The two are not incompatible. And it pretty unquestionably still is a republic and, in form at least, is also a representative democracy.
    - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > A country with a Supreme Court that believes threshing wheat is interstate commerce is not a republic. Ditto for a country with federal bunny rabbit inspectors. I know of no reasonable definition of "republic" under which either of these statements is defensible. "Republic" doesn't mean a system of government that produces exclusively outcomes that meet with Daniel_Newby's approval.
        Daniel_Newby 13y ago

unethical_ban 13y ago

Just to be clear: northwest is for the repeal of the 1st amendment. OK, so candidates can only use one site. Then "Friends of Candidate" will set up a site, or some random blogger with a million followers will set up a website. There is no stopping the message, or the money. The voting system needs to change, among other things. the government should also do less, so there is less power to be had at the top.

northwest 13y ago
> Just to be clear: northwest is for the repeal of the 1st amendment. I am certainly not against any part of the constitution! > OK, so candidates can only use one site. Then "Friends of Candidate" will set up a site, or some random blogger with a million followers will set up a website. Of course that is and should be possible, because it is free speech! The thing is: it should be made illegal to advertise such a blog with money. Of course there will still the possibility of abuse, but that is the case with any other law. Doing what I propose would make a huge difference in the money-based corruption of the entire system.