3 ms·
Who's competing? Who decides what's competitive? How can you assure no bias by those on whom there is tremendous pressure for bias? Speaking to more than a doz
by ctdonath 13y ago
Who's competing? Who decides what's competitive? How can you assure no bias by those on whom there is tremendous pressure for bias?
Speaking to more than a dozen people at a time costs money. If you're going to try to persuade 50,000,000 people to vote for you (about how many voters needed to win a US presidential vote), that's going to cost a LOT of money. If your message is a tough sell, it will take even more money to sell it.
Your example proves my point. Precisely because regulations exist to limit political speech, those seeking to fund more speech than allowed have to launder campaign money thru Super PACs et al; those who hit the regulatory limits on political speech but don't have the huge sums available for such "laundering" are stuck. The more you try to tighten limits on political speech, the greater the cost to bypass those limits - and the greater the rewards to those who do, seeing their competition impeded by regulation. And those limits WILL be bypassed, as there will ALWAYS be some way, given enough money, to bypass them.
Libertarians are primarily for less governance, removing barricades erected where there is no need for them in the first place. There is no need for regulatory accountability in political speech if the regulations exist for oppressive purposes: restore liberty by removing the regulations, and there is nothing to account for. No need to make barriers open, transparent, and accountable if you remove the barriers entirely.
Sure, you have to use your real name when petitioning the government. When citizens speak to other citizens, it's not the government's business.
- specialist 13y agoWho's competing? Who decides what's competitive? Really? Okay. It's a three way cage match between the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. No holds barred. We all decide by TXTing to vote while watching the pay per view live telecast.
- ctdonath 13y agoSerious question. Take a contentious branch like the "tea party": much of the political spectrum view them as marginal nutcases with no chance of winning and a dangerous threat if they do ... but win they do, and those "deciding who's competitive" may be motivated to see to it they can't.
- specialist 13y agoFair question. Tangental to districting, where public financing is used, elected representatives are far more diverse along the political spectrum.
- specialist 13y agoReread your question (while not at work). Voting and election reforms must be partisan neutral. To better serve the voters, vs serve the parties. Currently, districting carves out safe seats. Part of the horse trading that goes on. Serves the existing parties, but not the voters. Competitive in Wyoming means taking the partisan index for the state and dividing it down the middle (per Durverger's Law). The most "liberal" elected in Wyoming is probably far more conservative than the "conservatives" in California. Which is okay. The people deserve representatives that reflect their values. The point of fair redistricting is to ensure that all of these campaigns, no matter where, are competitive. Right now, the only serious challenge to many candidates, both Ds and Rs, come during the primaries, which are low voter turnout elections. So the candidates have become ever more extreme. I have no problem with any extremist position, eg Tea Party, so long as it reflects the will of the people. The People should get the government they deserve.