3 ms·
If what you're saying is true, democracy is worthless. Decreasing the amplitude of political discourse would have no effect on the ignorance of the general popu
by ewillbefull 13y ago
If what you're saying is true, democracy is worthless. Decreasing the amplitude of political discourse would have no effect on the ignorance of the general population and their lack of skepticism and poor decision making. It would just create a new game of regulations that rich individuals could play around and avoid to get the result they want anyway.
It is not an uncommon belief that laws like BCRA were designed to entrench incumbents.
"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, 'fat cat' bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or 'special interest' group when they can't talk back." Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform
- Shinkei 13y agoI agree with you. I mean consider 'single issue voters' as a perfect example of this failure of democracy. I consider my vote MUCH more thoughtfully than others, maybe that's bias... but in my defense I have a higher education, read many different news sources and discuss political issues with people who have contrarian viewpoints... if those things are worth nothing, then so be it. And yet objectively, my vote is worth exactly the same as someone who is voting only to keep gay marriage illegal, let's say. I don't know if the policical discourse changes much except for that thin sliver of 'moderates' and swing voters... as emphasized in elections of late. People do change their ideologies--I've seen it. But it's a minority.