3 ms·

We may never have a true democratic election in the US again. As long as the NSA dragnet exists, we'll never know what privately collected information was used

We may never have a true democratic election in the US again. As long as the NSA dragnet exists, we'll never know what privately collected information was used to humiliate political opponents or cause them to withdraw from the race rather than face public embarrassment.

anigbrowl 13y ago
By your standards, we've probably never had such a thing. Look back to the election 1800: does this sound like a clean campaign to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign What you're specifically alleging could be equally applied to elections in which Nixon was involved, which wer influenced by McCarthyism, when J Edgar Hoover was in office...we could go on tracing it back to the suppression of Shays' Rebellion in 1787 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion#Impact_on_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion#Impact_on_Co...). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign
saraid216 13y ago
To agree with anigbrowl, corruption at the ballot box has pretty much been a thing in politics since America's inception. But there are a lot of assumptions in your lament that are extremely problematic. Political opponents are not the crux of democracy. Very few things in the apparatus of government are dismantled upon the election of any office. Office holders set the direction and make the crucial decisions, but they are not the messiahs we make them out to be. It's comforting to believe in benevolent dictators and lofty monarchs, but if your only real choice is between two people, you're already failing as a democracy. The choice for an elected official should stand on that candidate's character and their willingness to listen and engage on the issues you care about. But the issues themselves are something you yourself remain responsible for. We haven't had a "true democratic election" since we came up with party platforms.

anigbrowl 13y ago

By your standards, we've probably never had such a thing. Look back to the election 1800: does this sound like a clean campaign to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign What you're specifically alleging could be equally applied to elections in which Nixon was involved, which wer influenced by McCarthyism, when J Edgar Hoover was in office...we could go on tracing it back to the suppression of Shays' Rebellion in 1787 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion#Impact_on_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion#Impact_on_Co...). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1800#Campaign

saraid216 13y ago

To agree with anigbrowl, corruption at the ballot box has pretty much been a thing in politics since America's inception. But there are a lot of assumptions in your lament that are extremely problematic. Political opponents are not the crux of democracy. Very few things in the apparatus of government are dismantled upon the election of any office. Office holders set the direction and make the crucial decisions, but they are not the messiahs we make them out to be. It's comforting to believe in benevolent dictators and lofty monarchs, but if your only real choice is between two people, you're already failing as a democracy. The choice for an elected official should stand on that candidate's character and their willingness to listen and engage on the issues you care about. But the issues themselves are something you yourself remain responsible for. We haven't had a "true democratic election" since we came up with party platforms.