thranx said:
Kasz216 said:
thranx said:
SamuelRSmith said:
makingmusic476 said:
You can't honestly buy into this, can you? Yes, elections are now more competitive... because candidates that are in the pockets of various businesses are given more support than ever before.
Yeah, there's more competition, but the average persons' voice is made increasingly insignificant. It is as undemocratic as you can get.
We should've been taking steps to remove money from politics, not pump more money in, so even poorer candidates have an equal chance of getting the public's attention as richer candidates. Publicly funded elections, for instance.
Now it's just lobbying groups spending inordinate sums to get their preferred candidate elected, and they'll lie through their teeth to do so.
Free speech shouldn't correlate with how rich you are.
|
I have numerous problems with these statements.
1) Read Freakonomics. Money doesn't pick winners, it's the other way around. The money flocks to the candidates who are assumed to win.
2) It's not like there wasn't money in politics before these super-pacs, now it's more open (super-pacs must report all donations).
3) Publicly funded elections are bad news. If you consider how long the election period lasts in the United States, and how many elections there are (Presidential, Congressional, Governor, State Legislature, Mayoral, plus all the public servant roles), costs will rack up high.
4) Things won't become cheaper if the elections become publicly funded, if anything, the reverse will happen. There's a significant moral difference between choosing to donate your money to a candidate, rather than being forced to pay for all candidates through taxation.
5) Publicly funded elections don't stop anything. We have them in the UK, our defence secretary is still working with lobbyists, News Corp are still buying their way past competition laws, Goldman Sachs are still taking all the top positions in our central bank.
|
didn't read the whole thread. Just wanted to comment on publicly funded campaigns. The capmaigns do not need to have unlitited funds. Political campaigns have gotten out of hand with ads all over the place. Why not switch to public funding, put a cap on it, and force TV news Networks to show debates between candidates(or use pbs to broadcast them). Not allow commercials. You know that way candidates have to discuss the issues with each other and you can see where they stand instead of them just throwing out claims with no need to debate them. Just a thought. I haven't put too much thought into this so there may be some issues but its a thought.
|
In general you tend to find two-three big issues with publicly funded campaigns like that.
1) It destroys third parties and unpopuar primary candidates. That or it becomes super expensive as everybody can run.
2) Fox News/MSNBC. How do you account for them. Those "News Networks" become the most powerful forces in the election. Other "News Networks" likely will pop up as well. Maybe local newscasts show up in the middle of shows just to keep us updated.
If your answer is "Well just don't let them brodcast because they're biased" Think for a second... you are now censoring the media soley on a perception of bias. Should that perception shift.... then what? Government has been given the power to censor whatever it views as biased.
3) Doesn't prevent rogue actions like robocalls, flyers, people on the street talking about how so and so is an awful candidate, volenteers etc.
|
1. I know third parties exist in the us, but on the national level do they have much impact?
2. I was thinking limiting the debates to what would be the free networks or broadcast tv. Not sure what effect that would have, but mainly that they are free so anyone with access to a tv could see the debates.
3. I agree.
I dont think it is a perfect solution but maybe wih some fleshing out it could be done. I am not fully against our current system either as it agrees with my view of the government staying out of things where as publicly funded campaigs would put more government in it. I guess i'm not really a fan of either idea. I would prefer a requirment that every citizen that is able to vote is forced to do so. Kind of like we are "forced" into jury duty. Not sure if that would be any better, but i think getting all americans as part of the decison process will moderate things and lessen the extremes on both sides (dems/repubs).
|
1) They hold some impact. Some people blame Ralph Nader for Gore losing the election for example. They've had a bigger impact in the past, Your essentially getting rid of the option all together however if you get rid of them.
2) Well, what i mean is. Fox news and MSNBC are essentially Propganda stations, they spin everything to their parties beleifts. As such their coverage of events and elections are going to be biased towards one group. This kind of electioneering and story targeting would only increase if you prevent a free market of ideas. Say for example, they broadcast the debate on public tv, news storys, and newspaper stories about a key point puts things one way depending on their tone. For example, the losses in afghanistan painting it in as a bad light, or a news report talking about a villiage and people thing have gone great for. How do you think that all gets effected by corproate money.
Elections have giant amounts of bias coming from everywhere, every election does anywhere. Stifling some simply because we see them as "Less honorable" is if aything, damaging because it creates an uneven playing field. Heck getting endorsed by a newspaper used to be the BIGGEST thing in an American election. Endorsement from a news source.
If you think we have a distorted field now, think about way back when.
