5 ms·

Do you think President Obama is naive and idealistic as well? He's started to argue for the same. (http://www.infowars.com/obama-calls-for-mandatory-voting/ htt

Do you think President Obama is naive and idealistic as well? He's started to argue for the same. (http://www.infowars.com/obama-calls-for-mandatory-voting/ http://www.infowars.com/obama-calls-for-mandatory-voting/) Since his term is nearing its end, he's becoming more fearless in talking about the influence of big money in politics and how making it easier to vote would greatly reduce its influence. And yes, you are in my generation (Y). Please enlighten me in ways big money influences politics that cannot possibly be stopped by the democratic process.

mikk14 12y ago
I do not understand what is the mechanism that equates "more people voting" with "less money influence". You have done little to explain it, only using an argument from authority ("An important man said it, therefore it's true"). "Big money" isn't directly buying votes. Increasing the number of votes doesn't make an election "more expensive" to buy. If you have only three candidates, to buy out their loyalty you need the same amount of money, regardless if you have one million of people voting for them or ten. Direct democracy renders the process even worse. People cannot be fully informed about all topics at all times - I hope you realize how uncontroversial this opinion is. So they'll just find the information that is easiest to find and digest and be influenced by it. If you have enough money, you can be the easiest source of information in the topic you care.
- llSourcell 12y ago
  The idea of liquid democracy is appealing because the issues are all opt-in. If there is a particular topic you feel passionate about, say funding stem-cell research, you can choose to vote on it. That + more votes makes it harder for special interest groups to influence outcomes.
Crito 12y ago
I think it is naive and idealist to think that a very accomplished career politician would not have ulterior motivations. Politicians don't get behind "go vote" initiatives out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because they think those extra voters will swing the vote in the favor of their particular party.
- llSourcell 12y ago
  It's pretty naive to say that 'politicians' don't have goodness in their heart, period. Like most things in life, one can't group a large subset of people to think exactly the same way.
  - Crito 12y ago
    I never said that politicians have no goodness in their heart. I am criticizing your absurd wiliness to believe that politicians want more people to vote for purely selfless reasons.

mikk14 12y ago

I do not understand what is the mechanism that equates "more people voting" with "less money influence". You have done little to explain it, only using an argument from authority ("An important man said it, therefore it's true"). "Big money" isn't directly buying votes. Increasing the number of votes doesn't make an election "more expensive" to buy. If you have only three candidates, to buy out their loyalty you need the same amount of money, regardless if you have one million of people voting for them or ten. Direct democracy renders the process even worse. People cannot be fully informed about all topics at all times - I hope you realize how uncontroversial this opinion is. So they'll just find the information that is easiest to find and digest and be influenced by it. If you have enough money, you can be the easiest source of information in the topic you care.

llSourcell 12y ago
The idea of liquid democracy is appealing because the issues are all opt-in. If there is a particular topic you feel passionate about, say funding stem-cell research, you can choose to vote on it. That + more votes makes it harder for special interest groups to influence outcomes.

Crito 12y ago

I think it is naive and idealist to think that a very accomplished career politician would not have ulterior motivations. Politicians don't get behind "go vote" initiatives out of the goodness of their heart. They do it because they think those extra voters will swing the vote in the favor of their particular party.

llSourcell 12y ago
It's pretty naive to say that 'politicians' don't have goodness in their heart, period. Like most things in life, one can't group a large subset of people to think exactly the same way.
- Crito 12y ago
  I never said that politicians have no goodness in their heart. I am criticizing your absurd wiliness to believe that politicians want more people to vote for purely selfless reasons.