Verily, money is power. The huge and growing concentration of wealth occurring in the U.S. citizenry and in business translates directly to political power for the few, and political weakness for the rest. Because of this, the general citizenry of the U.S. cannot really hope to command real representation of their interests by their elected representatives. Thus the U.S. is in the midst of a several-decade long crisis of corrupted governance. Is there a non-violent solution to this problem which can gain traction despite the political weakness of the U.S. citizenry?
I would ask the SoylentNews community to comment on a proposal which my dad and I generated over stuffed turkey and too much red wine. While not a technological innovation, this is a community which has good ideas and can offer insightful criticisms.
The solution I’m proposing is simple:
The Federal government issues to every adult citizen $100 which can only be spent by donating it to a registered political candidate.
Why it might work:
1. $100 isn’t much in itself, but collectively it is three times the amount that was spent in the last presidential election. That is a real political power.
2. You can donate it to 3rd party candidates.
Why it could be put into law:
1. The media corporations cannot disregard the immense profits that would be had from the quadrupling of spending on elections by adding ~23 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they herald it as American as apple pie? As a noble investment in democracy?
2. The biggest lobby of government is Google, and Google would profit from increased political ad spending too, and by selling information about voter preferences so that politicians can figure out how to get your $100 donation.
3. On a personal note, politicians hate having to give so many fund raisers...this is an out.
4. The law is fair. There is no proposal to give certain disadvantaged groups more money than others. The richest American would get $100 too.
5. It doesn’t outlaw free speech by corporations and political groups. These groups can still provide their valuable input to the political discussion.
I’m trying to poke holes. It does increase spending, but most of that spending directly benefits key power brokers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:07PM
While we're discussing changing laws, I propose only one simple law - get the goddamn money out of politics. Make it a death sentence of an imprisonment of at least 10 years for accepting money in any way, shape, or form; directly or indirectly; PAC or no PAC. Punish similarly any entity caught throwing money at politics.
If there is any money to be allocated, it should be allocated evenly amongst presidential candidates and only that money will be allowed for campaign purposes.
Finally, many people will not be driven into being active in politics until their Facebook and twitter accounts are at stake, and by then it will be too late.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:15PM
How do you set the minimum threshold for who gets the funding? (or is that what signature drives are for already)
I suppose if you had a set pool and you just divided it between all the entrants...then it could be a tactic to field many candidates to dilute the establishment's budget. Hmm...I like it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:29PM
Or, we could render moot campaign finance by subsidizing and streamlining the campaigning process by broadcasting speeches and debates, but then we're assuming that the debates are not hosted by corporate media* and each candidate is given equal face-time and treated fairly by the debate moderator.
Imagine that! Actual debates, not scripted bullshit!
* Announcer: "What will you change in America?"
Romney: *snarl* "WAR WAR WAR! Israel FIRST! for JESUS!"
Audience: "Yaaaayyyyyyy!"
Bachmann: "GOD HATES GAYS! Brimstone and fire!"
Audience: *Clap clap clap*
Ron Paul: "I propose a sane domestic fiscal policy and a scaling-back of costly and dangerous foreign involvement..."
Audience: "Booooooooooo!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:12PM
The one that really stuck out for me, in a discussion of health care plans:
Moderator: But, Congressman [Ron Paul], are you saying the society should just let him die?
Crowd: Yeah! Woohoo! Let him die!
And Ron Paul ducked actually answering the question.
It's a bit different on the Democratic side of the aisle: Dennis Kucinich ran for president in 2008 on 2 policy ideas, namely ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which he was working with Ron Paul to try and do), and putting Bush, Cheney et al on trial for their crimes. The only question he was actually asked in a debate was whether he had seen a UFO.
And of course in the last general election both Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green) were effectively silenced.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:12PM
A lot of folks say "Left" when they mean "Democrat".
Democrats (with rare exceptions) are nowhere near Left.
It is more correct to call most of them Republican Lite.
In the 2014 midterm elections, the Blues couldn't (and didn't make the effort to) distinguish themselves from the Reds such that folks would bother to turn up and vote for them.
There's Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between The Reds & The Blues (But They Don't Want You To Know That) [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
For those who are very interested, this guy has more on "The Left". [dissidentvoice.org]
(I do wish he'd use paragraph breaks more often.)
Dennis Kucinich
Ah. A guy who actually *is* Left.
2008 primary candidates charted [politicalcompass.org]
N.B. Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney isn't shown.
Nader should have been a different color dot.
2012 general election candidates charted [politicalcompass.org]
Note how Obama's position(s) changed (more unregulated-laissez-faire-Capitalism friendly; more Authoritarian).
Note also how "Left" and "Right" are too limited in describing someone's stance.
debate
"(Possible) opportunity to repeat a canned talking point" would be more apt.
As you note, Kucinich didn't even get that, being cut off at the knees by the network/corporate shill moderating the event.
Since the Big 2 parties grabbed the debates away from the League of Women Voters, these things have become exclusionary.
While he was a presidential candidate, Nader was threatened with arrest for trying to ATTEND one.
(Obviously, he wasn't invited to participate.)
Since Reagan effectively removed all regulation of TeeVee (look up Mark Fowler), the usefulness of that as an information portal has been eradicated.
Until broadcast media is again required to actually serve as trustees of the public interest, nothing will change.
... and no, (paid) infomercials for gadgets at 4AM do NOT qualify as serving the public good.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:18PM
In Germany, the parties get compensated after the election, and the compensation is proportional to the number of votes they got. Unfortunately that's not accompanied with a rule that the parties may not accept money from donations.
Note that with the money based on the actual number of votes (and not just the percentage) the parties also have a vested interest to have a high participation rate (that is, it is more lucrative to mobilize the own voters than to demobilize the voters of the opponents).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:32PM
Indeed. I think both you and buswolley are not nearly cynical enough about how this will really work. By "levelling the playing field" you will inevitably raise the profile of all the political fringe groups in the country. While this may occasionally have desirable consequences of infusing the politics of this nation with new ideas, there will be unintended consequences. Imagine certain radical fringe groups in the country suddenly getting a political platform to spew their virulent ideologies. For example, are you guys really comfortable with the KKK and the Neo-nazis seeing a resurgence in this country? How would you propose stopping them from leaping on this bandwagon? Or is that just the price of opening wide the market place of ideas?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by arulatas on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:43PM
Just because you don't like what they are saying doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 2, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:22PM
I propose only one simple law - get the goddamn money out of politics.
Exactly. All candidates should have exactly the same resources. period.
Then the election is about who can campaign the best. Not necessarily who is the best for the job, but it's a damn sight better than what we have now (offices for the rich and their puppets).
While we're at it, we should force all media outlets to provide *free* and equal coverage of all candidates.
I'm not sure if the death sentence is severe enough. Anyone giving or accepting money should be skinned alive, covered in whatever some vicious insect or animal loves to eat the most and then fed to same.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:57PM
Giving every candidate equal money takes away democratic choice and free speech. The proposal on the table does not. Corporations and political groups are still allowed to spend as freely as they do under current law.The balance in power is shifted to the people however because they will be granted the capacity to collectively spend 3x what was spent in the previous presidential election. This forces politicians to respond to the will and promises of the people, and they better continue to do so after an election or they will not get that money.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:07PM
The balance in power is shifted to the people however because they will be granted the capacity to collectively spend 3x what was spent in the previous presidential election. This forces politicians to respond to the will and promises of the people, and they better continue to do so after an election or they will not get that money.
It's so cute that you believe that! How do you stand on Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:14PM
That is not an argument.and
and
I'm not convinced by skepticism which does not include reasoning.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:20PM
Giving every candidate equal money takes away democratic choice and free speech.
I disagree. Speech is speech. From my philosophical and ethical standpoint, Money is not speech regardless of the various court rulings which make our political system a sewer of filthy lucre.
The solution is not to add more incentive for legalized bribery. The solution is to make bribery illegal, IMHO.
And whether you agree or not, lobbying, campaign contributions, "soft money," PACs, etc., etc., etc. are bribery.
Publicly funded elections where the *message* of each candidate is heard equally is, in fact, quite democratic. It's one man, one vote. Not $X dollars, $Y votes.
Is that better?
So I ask you again:
The balance in power is shifted to the people however because they will be granted the capacity to collectively spend 3x what was spent in the previous presidential election. This forces politicians to respond to the will and promises of the people, and they better continue to do so after an election or they will not get that money.
It's so cute that you believe that! How do you stand on Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by number11 on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:31AM
If money == speech, I should be provided with unlimited money, just as I am provided with unlimited free speech.
Well, my speech isn't entirely free, as I can't slander anyone, or advocate for an organization the govt decrees is "terrorist" (the guys we support are "freedom fighters", our guys aren't "torturers"), or reveal "trade secrets", or violate "copyright". But if my net worth is high enough, that shouldn't matter.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:32PM
Money is not speech.
If money is speech, then any and all restrictions on what I spend that money on is a restriction of my free speech. Which means the War on Drugs is a violation of the First Amendment. Since no court has made this ruling, we can conclude that they're not telling the whole truth when they assert that money is speech.
Your right to free speech is your right to speak. That is all. You do not have a right to force others to listen. You do not have a right to be broadcast nationwide. You do not have a right to hire others to speak your words for you. You do not have a right to use your money to hire a hitman, purchase a sex slave, or buy a nuclear bomb. Money is not speech, it is a physical good.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:24PM
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think it's that simple. I can't spend any money at all promoting my own opinions and positions? I can't donate money to the EFF for them to raise awareness of important things?
It's easy to make these kinds of declarations; it's very difficult to actually implement them in a society that values free speech. I'm open to being convinced that such a law could work. (Well, obviously not the death sentence part, but I know you're being hyperbolic.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:00PM
I had the exact same thought. The reason PACs exist is so like minded people can pool their resources to raise awareness for their particular issues.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:03PM
Exactly. this is why the proposal I submitted to you all is different. It doesn't try to remove money from corporations or interest groups. It introduces money to people to change the balance of power, and it might pass because the media opinion makers) would make a killing off the increased spending.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:45AM
I had a similar thought on my way home last night about how money is spent in the US. Last year there was a Megaball or Powerball lottery jackpot of 640 million dollars or something stupid like that. It made me think, what if instead of giving the jackpot to the winning ticket holders, give an equal portion of it to every registered voter who has filed tax returns in 2014. Let's say there's 640 million dollars available, 380 million eligible recipients. Hell, let's make the math simpler, a one time tax rebate of 1 million dollars for every registered voter who has filed their taxes. Make them pay income/gambling taxes on the million received. It should be instant stimulus to main street as it would free a lot of consumer income/capital for immediate purchases as well as individual investment. You'll likely see inflation, but if this is a one time investment, inflation should be low as the money will mostly go towards servicing debt, capital purchases, and investments. Honestly, what is half a billion or even 10 billion dollars to the US government? And what is a million dollars for an individual?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:47PM
I can't spend any money at all promoting my own opinions and positions? I can't donate money to the EFF for them to raise awareness of important things?
Sure you can. You just couldn't promote it (nor can the EFF, the RIAA, or Google) by handing over a wad of cash to the scumbag du jour that happens to be flying the right team's colors.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:39PM
So, to be clear, you're totally fine with the Citizens United decision?
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:12PM
No, but that is because of my disagreement with the concept of corporate personhood, which is a separate issue.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:21PM
No, that's exactly the issue. The issue was a law that prohibited an "electioneering communication". The (correct, IMO) decision was that people acting collectively to exercise their first amendment rights do not lose their right simply by virtue of the collective. Heck, Citizens United itself was a non-profit. A 501(c)(4), exactly the same as, say, the ACLU. Your right to free speech through donating to a corporation (such as the EFF) *depends* on this concept.
(I would do well to note here that I think corporations in general have NOT been experiencing the flipside to this, in that we do not at all punish corporations in parity with our punishment of individuals, and that's a problem.)
So, going back to the original statement I replied to:
By this standard, donating money to any politically active corporation (EFF, ACLU, The Heritage Foundation) is an indirect donation of money for the benefiting politician. And, in my book, restricting that is an affront to my free speech.
Now we might think it's a reasonable tradeoff to limit speech in such a manner, but if we're going to do that, we need to reflect such a limit in the Constitution.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday December 10 2014, @07:49PM
A 501(c)(4), exactly the same as, say, the ACLU. Your right to free speech through donating to a corporation (such as the EFF) *depends* on this concept.
I disagree, and reject the concept of money \subset speech, regardless of whether the corporation is the EFF or the scumbags at CU. As such, I'll never consider the decision correct.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:29PM
How?
That doesn't look like a serious proposal. It might work in North Korea, though I doubt even they could enforce it.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:41PM
Mike Bloomberg heartily agrees with this proposal! So do Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman, etc.
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:03AM
Make it a death sentence of an imprisonment of at least 10 years for accepting money in any way, shape, or form; directly or indirectly; PAC or no PAC.
Congratulations, you just wrote the most retarded thing I have read in the last week and I read a lot of political web content... including user comments.
Never make a rule that can't possibly be enforced is always a rule that leads to chaos if violated. And you just proposed exactly that. So tell me how your world would handle the following list of things and then add a summary of why the despotic hellhole you propose to handle them is somehow freer and a better place to live:
1. I buy space on billboards promoting an issue I care about.
2. Now I decide that noting the positions of current candidates really helps others vote on the issue.
3. When I can't afford to buy more billboard space I begin collecting money from everyone I can attract to my cause who at least agrees that publicizing the positions of the candidates is helpful. (Even if we are on opposite sides of the actual issue, all agree that holding candidates to their previous voting records and stated positions is useful.)
4. I take it up a notch, limit to one side and decide that going from simple informational billboards to outright attacks on candidates with the 'wrong' positions is a good idea and endorsements of the 'right' candidates is a good use of my organization's money. Note that at this point there is zero difference in what I propose and what the NRA, Greenpeace or any other single issue organization's 'non-political' 'educational' PAC actually does. (The one that can't directly give to candidates... as opposed to the one that can but gets different tax treatment so is kept separated.)
5. I get a group of investors together and buy a newspaper or TV station/network and use that platform to push my worldview. Whether it explicitly endorses candidates or parties the bias is as obvious as the NYT or FNC.
So do you surrender or double down with some insanity about how every TV talking head and newspaper columnist and field reporter goes against the wall in your world?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:33AM
I like your thinking. But money is not the root cause, it's just the tool of power that stands out the most.
But ignoring that, let's say that money _is_ representation. The $100 needs to be able to be adjusted upwards against the cost-benefit calculated amounts corporate kingdoms will donate in toto. If the total expected donations of corporation is x, then given there are say 200 million voters (let's include non-registered: http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/), [statisticbrain.com] the individual donation amount, i should be 200 million * x. For 2012 pres election, x is 2.6 Billion. That's because 2.6 billion was spent on the election, and we want the collection corporations to get only 1 vote, right?
200 million * 2.6 billion is just too big of a number.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:08PM
I hereby declare my candidacy for office, and donate $100 to my own campaign to get it started.
Seriously, if you don't think this will devolve quickly into clever ways to get that money into the pocket of devious folks, you didn't pay attention to things like the analog TV transition voucher program.
The upsides might outweigh the downsides, but... I dunno. I've learned to be pretty cynical.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:33PM
You know what? I wouldn't mind a world where that was going on. Especially if a lot of those people actually tried to win a small local race. I want school board seats and city councils and alderman and state representatives to be competitive - a politician not on their toes is a problem - and I want ordinary citizens to be talking to each other about the government they're all affected by.
If they're not actually trying to win, I don't mind a little income redistribution. It's tiny in comparison to actual income redistribution programs like Social Security.
The real problem with this proposal is entirely different: Politicians pay more attention to a single $10m donor than they ever will to a million $100 donors, even though the $100 donors add up to more money.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:24PM
100 per citizen over 18 equals 3x the money spent in the last election. The 'deep' money is with the people. Yes scoring that big win with a group or rich donor still matters, and hey that's free speech, but politicians will get clobbered by a money bomb from the people the next election, and can't compete on rich corporate money alone.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:57PM
a politician not on [his] toes
If he's not looking after the interests of the local Big Dog, that doesn't matter.
The Big Dog simply threatens to give all of his contributions to one competitor.
The competitor then runs a smear campaign against the other candidate|incumbent.
You'd be amazed at how often that works.
pay more attention to a single $10[M] donor
PACs will need to be a major part of the proposal.
A signed contract with a candidate before the contribution is handed over too--kinda like what ALEC does, writing laws and having legislators introduce them.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:06PM
The proposal is modest in that it only goes to politicians on the ballot. That is a tough hurdle, but it does prevent fraud and makes it easier to implement. Also these are political donations and their are laws that prevent abuse of political donations.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by naubol on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:12PM
Getting on the ballot is already a very difficult problem. It is effectively like China saying to Hong Kong, "Yes we'll let you vote for who runs Hong Kong, but we'll choose the three people you can vote for."
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:18PM
Yes. This was the most conflicting problem to me in designing this proposal. However, in local elections it is not uncommon to have third part candidates on the ballot, and I believe that they would be able to build up from there. Also, and importantly, this is not really meant to be a pro-third party proposal:
A two party system in not completely untenable if politicians are responsive to the people. This is what the proposal addresses.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:29PM
So then not much changes except that there is more money in the system now. I still need some big financial backers to get me on the ballot, so that I can collect this $100 from the little guy. You would be incentivizing the "establishment" to make is harder to get on the ballot, so they can control where this new money is spent.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:36PM
First, it has to become law, and no way the current establishment is going to pass a law which explicitly hurts them. Nice thought though. The proposal is meant to be workable, not idealistic.
Second, things do change. There are local 3rd party candidates which make it on the primary ballot. They can build from there. Also, even in a two party system, when they have to vote your way or lose your money in the next primary, well things get better.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:20PM
You are creating a bit of a catch-22. To get on the ballot in some areas requires a considerable amount of money. For example, in Virginia, you need signatures from residents of all 99 counties to get on the ballot for state-wide office. So I will need some upfront funding, typically from a political party, to marshal volunteers, and raise awareness. Would I not be permitted to ask my neighbors for the $100 donation as seed money for my campaign?
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:29PM
It is difficult balance between preventing 3rd party candidates, preventing fraud, and not scaring the two major political parties from passing the proposal.
You are right that is will be a bit of a catch-22 though. I still think 3rd party candidates benefit, since they get on the ballot in local elections frequently and can build from there. Truly grassroots democracy. The second item is that the proposal is not explicitly anti two party in that even a two party system can do a lot better when politicians have to respond and pay attention to the people (and their money).
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:08PM
You hit on a point I was going to make. How would you prevent every Tom, Dick, and Harry, from declaring their candidacy for any office, then "hire" their friend as a campaign manager, with a $100 salary, who is also free to hire me for his own campaign?
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:21PM
Getting on the ballot typically requires some amount of effort.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by JohnnyComputer on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:01PM
A lot of people go into politics to enrich themselves, already. The question is not what prevents every Tom Dick and Harry from abusing the system, but how many Tom Dick and Harrys there are, and whether their doing what they do is a genuine problem, or one of those things you tolerate for the greater good.
At a guess, I'd suspect that the people who would do some convoluted scheme to score that $100, probably really need the money anyway. The very fact that a person gives money to themselves rather that to a genuinely attractive political candidate already speaks volumes about the quality of the candidates. As the quality of candidates improve, so will the rate of giving to legit candidates.
I rate this as a non-problem, or one that can be solved without too much trouble.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:21AM
To get a candidate or measure on the ballot typically requires a minimum number of people saying they support that something by signing on the dotted line. [google.com]
The smallest number I have ever seen is 1000 signatures.
(It's just shameful how uninformed people are about the political process.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:09PM
Trying to kludge in equality to a fundamentally unequal system(money in politics) is going to cost a fortune, and bypass bigger problems with our political process that won't antagonize the anti-economic-equality factions.
Things like:
1. Increasing the number of representatives in the house a lot(other options can fix the house)
2. Ending gerrymandering
3. Killing the electoral college
4. Reforming how laws and budgets are passed(there's a lot to do here)
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:32PM
Unfortunately, these things (except number 1) will not pass under a political system which has vested interests in keeping them the same. The proposal might change that calculus eventually, and also has a better chance of becoming law, in my opinion.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday December 09 2014, @09:30PM
True, the number hasn't increased since 1913. It would also help if we had some seats reserved for at-large districts, done in such a way that politically-minority voices get some representation. In many States, delegations are monolithic.
This would be tricky, since how would you redraw districts? Do you start with a circle in the most populous area? Then what?
For what purpose? To give even more power to Texas and California?
For a start, let each law explain its Constitutional basis and limit it to one subject area. Riders are a problem, and that allows things to be snuck through.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday December 09 2014, @09:33PM
This would be a thing of beauty if ever implemented.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:56PM
For what purpose? To give even more power to Texas and California?
You can keep the "weighting" (# of EC votes) and just remove the electors (or at least change the fact that there's no federal law that requires them to vote as originally pledged)
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:30PM
States don't vote. People do. Grow up, and stop demanding 4x the representation of other citizens in presidential elections.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:23PM
Except in our system, they sort of do vote. This wasn't just for Presidential elections but for the election of Federal Senators as well. Our republic is more complex than the simplistic one man one vote catchphrase.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:31PM
Which is dumb and needs to go away. Our system is hella broken. Making some peoples' votes worth more is bad for democracy.
Imagine how you'd feel about a "no tax for swing state residents, double tax for everyone elese" proposal.
Luckily that precise scenario is forbidden by the constitution, but a lot of similar nonsense isn't.
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:27AM
2. Ending gerrymandering
How? Drawing district lines is required and it IS going to be brought into the political process one way or the other. Several states have tried various schemes intended to eliminate or at least minimize the problem and all have failed. So nice sentiment but lets here your proposal to solve a problem many have tried and failed at, often making things even worse in the bargain.
3. Killing the electoral college
Oh yes, lets limit presidential campaigns to NY, CA and IL, that will totally make our system of government better. Oh, and make vote fraud at least tenfold more likely. Right now the big blue machines rarely need bother with it, they are already reliably blue and tend to be in blue states. But if the actual popular vote mattered they could instantly manufacture another ten million ballots and give em a few years to ramp up and it would be double or triple that.
By proposing this you already tell me you are either politically fresh (as in college student) or a hardened prog who knows why it is a bad idea. (Bad from an American point of view, good from the prog.)
4. Reforming how laws and budgets are passed(there's a lot to do here)
Oh yea, but somehow I suspect we disagree entirely on what. I'd end baseline budgeting and use a budget where each and every program begins at zero and no program can run more than a decade without a total re-authorization. All criminal type laws sunset every generation (twenty years) and regulations in five unless formally passed into law by Congress. Cut things down to size quick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:12PM
It ends up being a tax. For you and me 100 bucks nothing special. For some people 100 bucks is the difference between pay the landlord or the power company this month or the gas company.
If the federal gov issues the money they have to have income to offset it. In this case ~3.161 billion dollars. That means a tax is needed to pay it. Also to put it into perspective. In the last presidential election just the top two guys spent nearly 4 billion (about 2 billion each). That does not include everyone else. So offhand 100 is too small already.
New taxes are wildly unpopular.
Also short of a constitutional amendment to change the rules limits like these have already been shot down at the supreme court level.
Believe it or not this already exists. It is on your 1040 form. You can designate 3 dollars (dont remember the exact amount its not much pretty sure it is 3) on your 1040 form. They divert that amount from the general fund to the party of your choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:48PM
You might want to double-check your math. 100$ per voter is an order of magnitude more than you seem to think.
This being said, I also believe this is a stupid idea. People are already given an equal proportion of influence on the outcome of an election, it's called a vote. Now, if only they *would* vote (and do it with their head, not their guts).
As for the money, just get it out of the equation. make each campaign illegal to go above a given threshold (as we do in some part of Europe) and no PAC.
(Score: 2) by redneckmother on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:09PM
I have yet to vote FOR a candidate at the national or state level in the US. I am only afforded "choices" on the ballots, NONE of which I support. I end up voting AGAINST candidates, sometimes by a "write-in".
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:59PM
Right. When you don't have good influence on who is on the ballot, there is no real democratic process. The proposal is an investment in our democracy to empower the citizen to have more control over who gets on ballots.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:35AM
This is why you bother to join a Party. Odds are you can vote FOR a candidate in the primary. They won't actually win of course and you are generally morally obligated to vote for the nominee of the Party in the general election if you participated in the nominating process so there is that argument against it.
Yea, I hear ya though. I voted FOR Reagan the second time (was too young the first go) but have been doing the douche and turd choice ever since.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:51PM
DOH your right I am an idiot...
So ~31.61 billion dollars. So it would be enough money and then some. Still does not address where that money comes from. Even 3.1 was alot...
Not sure if doubling down on money is the proper way to do this. Right now our elected officials are held hostage with the threat of 'you will hurt the party' or 'you want money to get reelected right' so shut up and do as we tell you to do. From the 4 people running our congress/senate.
A better way to fix part of this issue may to be to go to secret ballot in both the houses. If you cant tell how they voted at all you can not double check your money is being well spent... Making contributions ineffective. The downside is I can not check on my representative to see if he is representing my interests. For example in the last election I voted against the people who had basically party line voted (against both parties).
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:40PM
It is an investment in democracy and free speech.
One more aircraft carrier or a government for and by the people? Your choice. It doesn't seem expensive given it is fundamental to the health of our country to have a government for and by the people.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:16PM
Does America produce a new ~$31bn warship every four years?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:43AM
It costs over $12B to build an aircraft carrier.
It takes another half a billion/yr to run it (and additional $1B for the air wing assigned to it).
USA has 19 of those.
...and each carrier requires a task force to surround it.
You do the math.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:32PM
Still am not convinced adding more money in will fix the issue. It smacks of 'we will get it right this time, we promise, we just need more money'.
One more aircraft carrier or a government for and by the people? Your choice.
That is a blackmail strawman sort of argument. Maybe I want both? If you think they would cancel a aircraft carrier for the possibility of 'whipping them into shape' I would never see that happening. There is too much pork in those sorts of projects. Becoming one of these people is ABOUT getting those pork projects sometimes...
There is also a fundamental problem with this that I originally pointed out. The supreme court has declared that money = speech. Short of a constitutional amendment that will not change. So it does not change the fact people can basically donate unlimited amounts of money anyway. If you do not remove that this would not work at all.
Then there is also this.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf [irs.gov]
There is already a section on every tax form to do this. It is to the right bellow the SSN. It is one of the first questions you fill out in the form. Looking at it they simplified it into a 'general fund'. You used to pick which party or designated. About 47% (probably higher due to filed jointly) of our population fills out this form (src http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Size-of-Adjusted-Gross-Income). [irs.gov] If they everyone just said 'yes' that would be ~435 million dollars (which is still not funded in any way as it is not tied to a particular tax).
Given there is a system in place that already does this and we can by simple observation see how well this system is working. A testable hypothesis.
(Score: 1) by JohnnyComputer on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:20PM
I hate the word 'stupid'.
The Supreme Court has already said money can't be taken out of the equation, here in the US. Second, there are already individual limits to giving to campaigns. But there are other avenues to giving money to proxies, and that is very hard to stop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:47PM
Then thou shall get what thou deserve: a plutocracy. There is no way out of that unless you (The People) make your representative overturn that decision.
By the way, just a wild guess, I suppose that SCOTUS took that decision based on the same premises that made them decide companies are people ? (that's an oversimplification, I know)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:12AM
Supreme Courts come and Supreme Courts go:
Dred Scott (1854)
"A black man has no rights that a white man is bound to respect."
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
"separate but equal"
Brown v Board (1954)
"separate is inherently unequal"
.
It is also possible to end-run SCOTUS by amending the Constitution:
Money is not speech; corporations are not people.
Step 1
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan [wolf-pac.com]
https://movetoamend.org/ [movetoamend.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:13PM
1. The media corporations cannot disregard the immense profits that would be had from the quadrupling of spending on elections by adding ~23 billion dollars? Why wouldn’t they herald it as American as apple pie? As a noble investment in democracy?
Wasn't the whole Red Scare basically trying to find people who had ties to the Communist Party(s)? You just know they'll nail to the wall anybody they can label "radical."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:43PM
I don't understand your argument. I was talking about the potential profits by media corporations will ensure their support by charter and law (maximize profits for the shareholder).
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:24PM
You mean "the media" as in the guys who'll be getting paid to make the ads? I wasn't quite sure where you were going with it, so I took it to mean "the big corporations who currently have a bunch of politicians in their pockets," who obviously wouldn't like a government more directly accountable to the people.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:40PM
Advertising agencies, Google, and the content distributors (e.g. CNN, politico.com, NBC) would make money a ton of money from this proposal. Therefore, it will be difficult for them to not support it, even if in the long run they lose political leverage from the law.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:38AM
Your assumption that TPTB in Lamestream Media will let *any* message appear is naive.
*Some* voices will be in favor of reining in the established power brokers e.g. Big Media and that can't be tolerated.
Your kumbaya hopes are a fantasy.
To make this scheme work will require a non-discrimination law that is strictly enforced.
I like the sound of that but I don't see a likely scenario where it would happen.
To make any change will require a President who starts enforcing The Fairness Doctrine again.
How someone like that gets into the Inner Circle today and gets elected to the Top Job, I would like to know.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:55AM
Hard to say Anon gewg_ Hard to say. Still, without a fantasy, how can things change?
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:28PM
The immense amounts of money floating around are, imho, what have already corrupted the system. Adding more hundreds of millions into the mix will not improve the situation.
Local government can be responsive to individuals and small groups. If you live in a small town, you can get the mayor's attention. If you live in a state with only a couple million inhabitants, a small group of like-minded people can have a real influence. In a country of 300 million people - it is no longer possible without immense quantities of money.
If you want people - individuals - to be able to influence the political process, the only viable solution is to devolve power as far down as you can get it. Restrict the federal government's powers to an absolute minimum - everything else is done at the state level. In the states, push as much power as possible down to the community level.
Of course, this won't happen, because no one is in a position to stop the continued concentration of power in D.C..
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:52PM
You can't take money out of politics. It just can't be done, and besides, its free speech according to the law of the land. If you can't take their money away, then add money to rebalance things out.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:29PM
2. Promise one of the following:
- legalize marijuana
- outlaw abortions
- lower taxes by 20 percent
- immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants
- bring in casino gambling
3. Sit back as buswolley's $100 giveaway money rolls in from voters who have nothing to lose
4. ??
5. Profit!
(Score: 2) by naubol on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:46PM
Some of these points represent tyranny by the majority and some are attempts at rebuffing that tyranny. My guess is that the latter would be less and less likely to find opposition in this system, whereas the former would still be contentious. IE, there will always be people pressing for legalization of abortion and for its criminalization, but it is hard to imagine people throwing so much money at keeping pot criminalized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:25PM
Agree that in addition to the usual scammers and con men, the main beneficiaries will be single issue parties, and parties that are more extreme than the two major parties.
So if you're philosophically in tune with one of those, chances are you favor this proposal.
(Score: 2) by elf on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:34PM
Lobbying has the same characteristics as bribery, you give someone money and they give you a vote for what you want in return. If you banned lobbying altogether then the politicians would have to vote on what they promised the people, other wise people would vote them out in the next election.
I don't live in the US so it might be different to what I perceive and its probably just as bad in the UK but on a much smaller scale (I have no idea though)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:07AM
What you described is political campaign contribution.
Here's what lobbying is:
$Guy has a great idea that will make $An_Entity very happy.
By getting this idea enacted into law, you will make $An_Entity happy.
This will help you, $Elected_Official, when you want to get reelected.
Now, if that entity is a supermajority of the electorate in the area $Elected_Official represents, logically, $Elected_Official would want to grab this with both hands.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.
To bring this to the current day:
If you are $Guy with the obviously great idea and you don't have a 6-figure check, you probably won't get your idea enacted and you probably won't even get to talk to $Elected_Official.
That last part was not -always- a part of the process.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by elf on Wednesday December 10 2014, @09:31AM
Thanks, the original idea of lobbying seems ok. Maybe they should make political contributions and lobbying mutually exclusive, ie if you make political contributions you or the entity you represent are not allowed in any way shape or form to be linked directly or indirectly with people that lobby.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:36PM
This should be for Congress, and every other government worker. The times of government porking needs to stop...
Make politicians stick to their campaign promises, or they lose (get fired) office.
Politicians get paid on a productivity basis, the same way auto mechanics used to get paid. If they work they get paid, if they don't do any work, they don't get a paycheck, if they pass the work for someone else to do they get nothing.
Ban corporate paybacks, kickbacks, funding of every kind, they're supposed to represent the people and not the deepest pockets.
Make it easier to get them out of office if they don't represent the people.
Vacations, and other perks are limited to their productivity, and are not funded by taxpayers for extravagant trips worldwide.
(Score: 2) by emg on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:41PM
What exactly counts as 'productivity' for a politician? Passing more laws? Funnelling more taxpayers' money back to their home state?
I think you'll find that many people would happily pay more if politicians would just goof off and play golf rather than pass laws that make their lives worse.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:38PM
Couldn't agree more in a lot of cases. Granted there are laws the need to be passed from time to time to deal with specific things but trying to solve small societal problems with national legislation doesn't seem to be it. One example that comes to mind is the lead in children's products ban that was passed several years ago. It isn't like kids were playing with lead soldiers or lead paint on everything but because some cheap crap from china had lead in it now we have a new federal law. One of the side effects of this law was on the atv and dirt bike industries as they use to make ones for children. The reason was the terminals on the lead acid batteries or in brake components or in the engines. If you child is chewing on a terminal of a lead acid battery you have bigger problem than the lead content of said terminal. For completeness I did some digging and it looks like an exemption was granted [startribune.com] after a court battle 3 years after the law went into effect. I would prefer substantially fewer laws but those that are needed actually be high quality that are well thought out with fewer "unintended" consequences.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2, Interesting) by WillAdams on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:41PM
The fundamental problem is one of engagement and participation and the media circus which drives a significant percentage of reasonable people out of politics.
My thoughts on this:
- all contributions to all PACS, parties, &c. are capped at $100, and must be made in the form of a hand-written personal check or USPS money order w/ a _non_ business address --- no more than one donation may be accepted in person per day, no more than one contribution per envelope (if nothing else, this would probably solve the USPS's financial problems)
- the time window for primaries is limited to a 100 day window each year (this will probably require a Constitutional amendment) --- no State may have its primary on the same day as any other, each year, States choose which day their Primary will be on, in order of percentage of voter participation plus half the percentage of voter registration (from highest to lowest) --- this would encourage states to both register voters and get them to the polls
- each State will issue a "license to complain (and make non-voters shut up when complaining)" to voters upon voting good until the next election/primary --- anyone of voting age who is caught complaining and is unable to produce such a license may be fined 25¢ by anyone (including children), if in a bar, they are instead required to stand the next round
- no exit polls
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:47PM
Exit polls can be annoying, especially if they're released before the ballots close in violation of the informal media protocol. But they're a valuable independent check on the official results. When there's a noticeable discrepancy between the two, someone has some explaining to do.
The anti-corruption advantage of having exit polls strongly outweighs the disadvantages of possibly influencing the minds of late voters IMO.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:41PM
Let's imagine this plan is implemented. Here is my campaign promise:
I will abolish the $100 political contribution fund and reduce everyone's income tax by $100.
Now please send me your $100 so I can make this happen.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:43PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/ [theonion.com]
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:51PM
That was the funniest thing I've read in a while!
And on-topic, too!
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:43PM
of course - you are assuming that there was a political will to resolve the abuse of money and power upon politics. Which - sadly - there isnt.
But even if there was - you would get more "bang for your buck" by eliminating Gerrymandering, and the Electoral College first. Then you would still need Constitutional amendments to enforce the spending levels, and the collection of (and transparency of collection) to deal with the spending and fundraising.
4 Billion dollars is a pretty tall order when Congress cant be bothered to fund VA Hospitals or NASA. (but hey, 4 Trillion on a plane noone wants? sure)
You might be better off eliminating all of the social services programs; and making it a minimum base income for people to live on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:55PM
Try 40 Billions (actually a bit less if you take into account that there are about 250M adults in the country).
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:50PM
Well yes and no. Its a bit of money :) But its not about the money its about the optics and how it influences power brokers. This proposal is designed to co-opt corporate media and advertisers to avid support through profit motive. That support is essential to getting it passed. It can be sold as an investment in free-speech and democracy. Politicians may also be interested as the money would go to the candidate without need for constant fundraising and dependence on corporate brokers.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:48PM
The two largest lobbies in DC are 1) Pharmaceuticals 2) Trial Lawyers.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:07PM
I've read it is Google nowadays and this propoal would pad their bottom line quite nicely.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @04:51PM
???
The lobbyists for the media and the military contractors are chump change?
(Score: 1) by neleai on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:00PM
Most countries in Europe do similar thing, pay each party fixed amount per voter to cover campaign cost.
Not that it helps, in our country a bussinessman created populistic party and doubled money he invested in campaign by getting 10% of votes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:09PM
Most countries in Europe do similar thing, pay each party fixed amount per voter to cover campaign cost.
That's what it was in Canada too, and then Conservatives scrapped it. They were getting more money from private sector anyway and getting money from votes to them means that votes actually counted, not just who won the election. It is also a way to squeeze the less "business friendly" parties.
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:07PM
I was one of the two co-founders of the Santa Cruz, California 1992 Presidential Inauguration campaign. Jerry won Santa Cruz County overwhelmingly.
I donated $100.00 to his campaign.
On another occasion I registered 160 new members of the California Green Party, thereby helping the party to get on the ballot. I was offered $1.00 per name - I could have walked away with $160.00 - but I did it as a volunteer, and refused the pay.
From time to time I write letters to legislators, governors, presidents and newspapers.
In the US, it's illegal for a candidate to accept donations from foreigners. But I don't know of any states, in which it is illegal for a candidate to accept a donation from a resident of some other state. This has the most impact on ballot initiatives; quite commonly vast sums of money come from out of state.
If you've never donated money, donate some to a candidate who does not usually get a lot of donations.
Alternatively, volunteer for the candidate's campaign. It's a lot of fun - and a good way to make new friends.
Jerry Brown is a great guy. I regard him as a very forward-thinking political thinker, however yes he is very scatterbrained.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:12PM
Garcia?
(Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:50PM
I am absolutely serious.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @04:55AM
Jerry Brown is a diva. I still remember his performance at the 1976 DNC when, after conceding defeat, he held onto the mic and wouldn't shut up. He was absolutely intoxicated with the thought that he was speaking to the entire nation, even though at that point, he had nothing left to say.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:29PM
Let's suppose every citizen is given $100 they can only donate to a candidate, one time. Let's say they all do that faithfully, without finding ways to game the award. The politicians, who are professional sociopaths and whores, say enough palliative things to attract those dollars, once. Secretly, though, they know they owe their careers to the deep money, so they serve them while only paying lip-service to us. Out of money after the initial award, we all throw our hands up into the air and say, "Well, we tried and that must be what the electorate really wants!" Embedded shills for TPTB confirm that sentiment, and the systemic dysfunction and universal frustration get to build for another 20 years without resolution. How long does that dynamic continue before the whole fails catastrophically?
We have laws on the books that have been systematically violated by our government and their enablers at the very top echelons of the wealth & power indices. But no part of our supposed "Checked & Balanced" system has called foul. That's because they have all been co-opted. That's not the stuff of baseless CT, it's all been confirmed by the most authoritative sources we have in our society. We have members of the SEC releasing recorded meetings between Wall Street banks and the SEC members meant to regulate them, colluding openly. We have insiders from the NSA revealing how that agency, and other 3-letter government agencies, have consistently and routinely violated our most sacred laws. We have authoritative reports that the CIA hacked the computers of the Senate oversight committee meant to investigate allegations of torture. We have expose after expose after expose showing how every aspect of our lives is gamed and controlled. And here we all sit, debating how to re-jigger the window-dressing on a fundamentally subverted system?
It's absurd. Friends, neighbors, countrymen, we have enough evidence, more than enough, actually, to indict and convict. What fails us now is the will to convict, and to execute the sentence: Washington D.C. delenda est. We are each of us, no matter how grand, too small to resist the imprecations and oppressions of that state; together, we can re-assert freedom. As it was in the beginning, so it is now: we will hang together, or we shall hang separately.
Let the sarcasm and GCHQ/NSA-sponsored social media team abuse commence. Let them throw out the canards, "Surprise! Governments are corrupt. Old news, nothing to see here!", or "Everyone does it," or "If he's so pure, why did he fail to pay that parking ticket in 1986?", or "Real men don't need no stinkin' laws." I submit it's up to you to accept those non-solutions, and with them the status quo, or not.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:10PM
The proposal is to spend 3x the money spend by other groups. Thus the deep money is on the side of the people, and this is why I didn't do a matched spending proposal because winning that one rich guys money is important.
The deep money is with the people this way and it would be powerful in bending their political calculations.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:34PM
I'm sorry, but this is a backwards solution. If you have not noticed, there is no problems for candidates to get money. The problem is completely the opposite - them spending money. Cap spending on campaigns. In Canada, campaign spending is regulated. A local (or national) campaign has some maximum budget that they can spend on campaign and it has to be spent locally. There is a scandal where Conservative party was shifting spending expenses from one riding into another.
Spending limits tend to at least keep airways in Canada free of nauseating political ads. For example, look here, limits of less than $20k for campaigning,
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=limits/limitnom&lang=e [elections.ca]
There are limits how much you can donate for specific causes by individuals,
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=lim&document=index&lang=e [elections.ca]
And there are limits on how much 3rd parties can spend on political ads too,
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=limits/limit_tp&lang=e [elections.ca]
You get money out of politics by law and strict regulations with real consequences. Not by dicking around grassroots - that's never been the issue anyway.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dean-del-mastro-emotional-in-defence-of-campaign-spending-1.1315875 [www.cbc.ca]
Del Mastro teared up in the House Thursday morning as he talked about the effect of the investigation on his family
...
Del Mastro also insisted a personal cheque he wrote to Holinshed Research Group for $21,000 — that allegedly exceeds the $2,100 legal limit for candidates' contributions — was only a "deposit cheque that was fully reimbursed by the [riding]association and the campaign."
But there is no sign of that reimbursement in the records filed with Elections Canada.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/RCMP+helps+investigate+allegations+against+Tory+election+campaign/7829093/story.html [ottawacitizen.com]
Elections Canada alleges that Del Mastro reported spending $1,575 on voter canvassing and get-out-the-vote activities by Holinshed Research Group, but actually paid them $21,000 by personal cheque.
In Canada, doing these things can cause serious problems, including losing your job as MP and even jail.
This is how you get money out of politics. By law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:26AM
Too bad you're so far down in the thread.
You should be at +5.
We had this in junior high school student body elections.
It was a good idea then.
It's still a good idea.
...but unregulated Capitalism and all its associated deviance is now the norm.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:36PM
This is the problem. It sounds as if you think they can just make money appear. They can't. They can take an average of $100 from every adult and then give every adult $100, but then they're really just forcing you to donate $100 you already have to someone. I don't want to give them any more money. I'd rather political ads go away entirely. Put everyone's position on every issue they care to address on a web site and let me read it. Even for government, that's a couple $million max.
If they just create money, it effectively devalues the money in circulation now and has the exact same effect as taking $100 from you.
The richest American will be providing his own $100 and the $100s that go to lots of other people who don't pay taxes. You aren't manufacturing money. You're just moving existing money around.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:52PM
That is debatable. Spending is not directly coupled to taxation, only inflation.
The point of the proposal is to combat the spending of the few (Ultra rich and corporations) by giving voters a chance to contribute to politicians of their choices. Getting money out of politics isn't going to happen and as long as the few can drive elections with their own money nothing will change. 100 is enough to outspend those groups by three times, which is by design.
Also, that 100 could go to the local mayor, or to the president, or 50/50., which can empower local politicians in a way which might give them a chance to influence elections at larger government institutions.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:25PM
It's not directly coupled to either, as the recent stimulus shows, but over the long run, it is expected to be. I don't care, though, whether you raise my taxes $100/year or my household spending goes up ~$2/week. You're not magically creating money to give to people. You're taking money from people, then giving it back, effectively making people donate money who don't want to. I offer as evidence the fact that they're not already donating money to show that they don't want to. I don't want to be compelled to give some politician $100.
You wanted holes poked. I don't care what the point of your proposal is, I care what the effect is. You naively think that people with money can influence elections, which they can and do by getting you to vote for the candidates they like. What makes you think they won't shift some of that money to persuading you to donate to the candidates they favor? You're trading one problem for an identical problem and quadrupling spending in the bargain. Giving people $100 isn't going to get them to think for themselves. It isn't going to get them to do the independent research that's NOT guided by current, entrenched interests to, to figure out where they should spend their $100.
I applaud you for trying to think of a solution, and for putting this one out there for people to shoot down, but shoot it down they should.
And what's the result of all this extra money going to be, anyway? More intelligent debate? No. There'll just be more and bigger ads. Probably not 4x as many, because all the new money will drive prices up, too, but there'll be more for sure. More of the thousands upon thousands of signs on the side of the road that tell me nothing more than "Vote for Candidate Name!" (why?).
Nooooooo thanks.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:15PM
Something had to be done and when it matters people do try to learn. The main problem with your argument is that it questions the use of a democratic republic...e.g. Why have elections when no one bothers to care.
You can argue that but to what end? A king? In the end, it really is money is power and for good or I'll empowering people is what I Carr about.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by JohnnyComputer on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:26PM
Over the long run might be a long time. Maybe in fairy land. US has run deficit nearly every year for ages, and taxes have not been going up.
(Score: 1) by JohnnyComputer on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:28PM
Its like, basically, "I don't want government to spend money. Whahhhhh" on the most fundamental processes of a democratic society. Its as simple as that. Fools like this don't want to spend more money.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:39PM
I think it's pretty clear that I haven't captured the subtly and nuance of this particular plan, for that reason I was wondering if anybody remembers what I'm talking about and could shine a little more light on it. Assuming it works (hence the need for more subtlety and nuance) the idea is that the demonstration could, with a lot less money than being proposed in this article, have a chilling effect on lobbying efforts.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:44PM
You know what I'm waiting for? Sooner or later, one of those Gangster rapper types - maybe that Jay-Zed or Kanye or someone like that - is going to want to get in on this "politics" scam and run for office, either for the publicity, or just for the craic.
All of a sudden, about forty million impoverished young americans and middle-class teenage wiggers who hitherto never bothered to vote are going to get up and go to the ballot boxes, and completely disrupt everything everybody thought they knew about american elections.
I'm certain the powers that be would find some way to maintain the status quo, but as a thought experiment it would be really interesting to imagine what someone like that would actually do if they somehow attained office. While a rap star would obviously lack the requisite experience, knowledge and connections for high political office, would they make an effort to use the power responsibly? Most of them seem to be cynical, arrogant and self-centred, but how much of that is just an image they maintain? Would the weight of responsibility bring out a better side of them? Would naive and crude attempts at benevolent stewardship be ultimately more or less harmful than the cynical, self-serving manipulations of the political elite? At the very least, it might be enough to bring a fresh perspective and analysis to US politics, and shake both the voters and votees out of the current deplorable situation.
Cue quotes from "idiocracy".
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:47PM
This is an occasional annoyance. Really it is a bug in firefox, but I've given up on reporting bugs to the Mozilla people:
http://soylentnews.otg/ [soylentnews.otg]
it doesn't resolve, so firefox tries http://www.soylentnews.otg/ [soylentnews.otg] Lucky I don't get a pornsite, as I'm in a cafe.
Oh I typed the TLD wrong, so I fix it:
http://www.soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]
Only to get "It Works!"
Really what you should do is to redirect http://www.soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] to http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]
I expect lots of potential new members go away empty-handed because they show up wanting something green, tasty and made out of people, but only find "It works!"
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:35PM
http://soylentnews.otg/ [soylentnews.otg]
i dont think we have a .OTG address. but i'll note the later case to people in charge
(Score: 1) by FanOfAllThingsGood on Tuesday December 09 2014, @05:48PM
It should be a tax deduction, and it should be $50.
We choose which candidate it should go to, if none is chosen it is simply deleted. It is not cumulative.
Something like $40 for a Representative and $10 for a Senator to spread it more evenly. The idea is to not make it more profitable in either.
On top of that I would like to see all in Congress removed from post due to not doing their job and making it impossible to get anything done while maintaining integrity. The system needs to have a clean start, which means the whole support system behind them needs to go as well.
To start there should be a group of 51 people who will first study the constitution and get tested on it. 80% accuracy is needed. If failed they can retake the test 3 times, then they will be replaced. It is imperative that the test actually tests understanding, not a rote "I remember the words that I need to put here" to pass kind of test. It must also separate vital vs informative datum so that proper importance is placed on each question. In other words knowing what year is seldom vital whereas the exact steps to impeach someone is.
Part of their studies should be governments of the past, both US and foreign to observe how they operated successfully and not successfully to not repeat passed failures but to be able to repeat successful actions.
This group will now establish what does Congress need to do. What is their goal, purpose and product they produce?
Once established an independent body of constitutional lawyers and scholars will bring up anything not covered and they go back to create a new solution and then verify it with the same body again. In other words the independent body does not come up with solutions.
Then lay out a simple method of how Congress should work towards accomplishing it's product so that the new body of Congress walks in after having passed the same test in turn, and they can be fully aware of not only the constitution but how to do their jobs.
Once the new body is ready they take over the job of the old Congress they start at the top and work down so that the "change of guards" is done as smoothly as possible. Each committee replacement is of course fully documented and any mistake can be avoided in subsequent replacements.
With the job clearly defined and their product fully known their production is then measured. Each Congress member must be held accountable for voting on issues as their constitution asks. This is a public accountable job.
The members of Congress prior to the change are not allowed to run for office for 10 years.
A Congress member must also be able to demonstrate common sense, an ability to observe what is really going on, so that we know they duplicate the situations before they attempt to solve them. Many things are "solved" without proper data about the situation is available, thus staffers must also be able to duplicate well and be similarly educated. Each person will do and internship before getting a permanent job. This should probably apply to each subsequent generation of Congress.
A separate group will monitor the progress and success of the new government and present their observations to the people with the purpose of keeping people involved and aware, but to also give Congress a chance to take note and make adjustments.
Each Congress member will have their stand on each issue be publicly known and if they change their view, with everything fully documented, it will be reported as such to the people.
Certain committees deal with national security and other sensitive subjects, their progress and activities will have an appropriate time delay before their activities are made public. At the same time they will be even more accountable for taking destructive actions. A separate body voted on for their impartiality will act as an oversight with full rights to remove and prosecute as needed.
The end should be a government by and for the people, without favoritism, without actions that destroy more than it helps.
Any law enacted must pass the 200 year rule of not creating a more destructive effect than positive for 200 years. Laws should be worded exactly with their intentions clearly stated. Any use of the law that goes against the intention will not have any legal support. This will require a re-evaluation of laws. Starting with surveying attorneys for laws they see being abused, a new legal body will start reevaluating those laws for correction to be past up on for approval. Since this will take a very long time the outcome of each batch of surveys will be processed automatically as they pass a certain percentage (to be evaluated) in such a way that the most outrageous abuse is curbed first.
Further, members are only funded by the $50 tax deduction, no fundraising is allowed. Their job is to solve problems not raise money for themselves. Insider trading is no longer allowed. Congress sets a good example for the people, not take advantage of the system to their own personal gain. A member is a person who want to help. They see solutions when others cannot even confront the problem. They work hard for the common good.
Any law they enact they sign off on and are later responsible for the effect it creates. This means more care will be put in what they pass.
The new Congress do not have the authority to write laws about themselves. It must be passed by a public referendum. This will stop them abusing the system.
Oversight must be done not as a veiled threat or by impeding members work, but by simply tracking actions in such a way that it is known, and if wrongdoing is seen or suspected, it will be passed on to a legal body for review and possible actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:00PM
In Oregon, every resident is eligible for a $50 ($100 for married couples) political tax credit. You can donate to any campaign or ballot measure and just check the box on your tax form at the end of the year and it credits you $50 or $100.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:07PM
Any law like this must be air tight.
Who is eligible to receive the money to be spent? Felons? Citizens? Citizens who have voted?
What is the system for delivering the money to the eligible citizens?
Who is eligible to receive the money? Possibilities, congressional campaigns, presidential campaigns, state congressional campaigns, mayors, etc?
Is this money only ever given during the 4 year presidential cycle? Where in the cycle is it handed out? (this is critical!)
How does the average yearly disbursement match the average yearly spending on *all* US political campaigns.
Does the disbursement track with inflation?
What laws will govern the spending of this money? Will it become a criminal act to buy expensive dresses with the money even if those dresses are only ever worn on the campaign trail?
How much accounting can we reasonably expect from political campaigns and how much will be expected in order to avoid corruption charges, prosecution, etc?
Can any citizen eligible to run for some specific office register themselves with the appropriate authority in order to start soliciting political funds?
Where does the money come from? If it is a line item budget on the white house budget, then it can be screwed with further by congress. Maybe the correct answer is to pass a constitutional amendment that says 1% of all collected taxes must be diverted to this purpose and another 0.5% must be diverted towards administration, prosecution, etc.
Given all the administration and enforcement costs, what will be the total outlay per political dollar to run this system?
We cannot expect the same level of involvement from citizens, so the amount we can disburse for each involved citizen should probably be more like the expected probable outcome of involvement to reach 4 billion disbursed.
Criticisms
The laws for determining who can receive the money and in what amounts will create havoc with free speech law. Laws will be enacted which seek to capture the system by limiting who can receive the money, how much, and under what conditions. There are other regulatory capture laws.
Involving the states in the same system via federal money creates multiple problems. Can citizens of any state donate to candidates in other states? Now we have the same situation we have with the Mormons outspending Californians on a California ballot measure (prop 8), even though the Mormons were largely not citizens of California.
Not involving the states creates a fundamentally awful problem, namely that it would then cause the capitalist aristocracy to seek power via the state even more than they do now, which will create yet further division, erode national identity, and propel us yet further down the evolutionary chain towards tribal identities.
Support:
I find it a very compelling idea. I think it could use some iteration. Utilizing the current campaign finance laws, maybe a system of ID's for accounts could be tracked that you could put on a tax return in order to apportion up to X dollars of your taxes on those ids.
Let X = (rf-c)/(n*p)
Let r = the projected total revenue by all federal sources
Let f = a percentage of the revenue that will go towards disbursement (ie 1/200 maybe)
let c = the projected total cost to administer the disbursement
Let n = the projected number of people who would participate
let p = the percentage of participation (ie do they only alot 80% of X).
People filling jointly can allocate 2*X.
This money can be allocated even if no taxes are collected. (IE, minimum wage worker who pays no income tax but still pays payroll tax)
This doesn't affect the quantity of money returned to the citizen.
For 2012, with 2.8 trillion collected (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3822) and only 122 million Americans filing tax returns, assuming 100% alottment with 50% participation (61 million), and a factor of 0.05%, that would allow each American to disburse $2,295 dollars, which actually sounds about right.
In addition to that, I would also suggest that caps on each type of disbursement should be effected into law. Like 30% can go to Presidential campaigns, 50% can go to federal congressional campaigns but only a sixth for each senator and congressman. The other 20% has to go locally to the state also split up by representatives. In every case I would also make it a requirement that the tax payer maintain one zip code+4 digits and based on this number they are only allowed to funnel funds to individuals who will run for those campaigns or for political organizations who can only spend money on people who would represent that digit. IE, an organization that can affect who is governor can collect from everyone in a state, but now they are limited by whatever percentage can go to them from each citizen on the tax return.
But now we have a chicken and egg problem where the knowledge of these organizations is required before one can write them in on the tax returns. I would not allow these organizations to put themselves on the tax return because that is the same problem as the voting ballot. You have to spend money in order to get money.
As an alternative idea, why don't we just force every election at every level to be write in only? Can't remember who is running for governor? Then you don't get to vote for that position! Or you vote for someone who won't matter. It is a nice practical test. Maybe?
Unfortunately, I still think there would be a lot of ways to hack the system and it also forces political contests to be a big issue in January - March.
(Score: 1) by JohnnyComputer on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:31PM
Very useful discussion. Not to detract.
As for write-ins, I think the Joe Smith's of the world will do better than the name-which-no-one-can-remember.
Of course, there are a lot of Joe Smiths. Which one did we elect???
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:34PM
Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful comments. I am not familiar with how to derive actual policy, but I will address some of your ideas with how I envisioned the proposal being carried out.
Who is eligible to receive the money to be spent? Felons? Citizens? Citizens who have voted?
Eligible voters, no felons. The point of the proposal was to have it turned into law and hangups on these issues should be avoided and amended later as seen fit.
What is the system for delivering the money to the eligible citizens?
This is a detail that must be figured out, of course. I imagined that voters would receive a pre-paid Visa type card which is only authorized to transfer money to accounts enumerated on an list of candidate accounts which are currently being used to collect campaign donations. I believe these donation accounts are already regulated by law.
Who is eligible to receive the money? Possibilities, congressional campaigns, presidential campaigns, state congressional campaigns, mayors, etc?
This can be technical subject. I do not think an election to a local water district board would be acceptable. I imagined municipal, state, and federal government.
Is this money only ever given during the 4 year presidential cycle? Where in the cycle is it handed out? (this is critical!)
The difficulty of including municipal elections is that these do not occur at the regular intervals found in state and federal elections. I envisioned it distributed every 2-year cycle.
How does the average yearly disbursement match the average yearly spending on *all* US political campaigns. Does the disbursement track with inflation?
I chose the following formula.: 3 * total spent on the previous matching election cycle (matching the cycle, all groups spending all elections, excluding that spent by this proposal). 3 x was chosen to get a number close to $100 per citizen > 18 years, for optics, and because 3 x that spending it a goodly amount.
What laws will govern the spending of this money? Will it become a criminal act to buy expensive dresses with the money even if those dresses are only ever worn on the campaign trail? How much accounting can we reasonably expect from political campaigns and how much will be expected in order to avoid corruption charges, prosecution, etc?
I imagined that current campaign spending rules would apply. I also realize those rules might change. Campaigns already do accounting for their spending of donation money. More donation money might require more over sight to ensure that players within the campaigns are not enriching themselves. Detail, but does not stop the show.
Where does the money come from? If it is a line item budget on the white house budget, then it can be screwed with further by congress. Maybe the correct answer is to pass a constitutional amendment that says 1% of all collected taxes must be diverted to this purpose and another 0.5% must be diverted towards administration, prosecution, etc. Given all the administration and enforcement costs, what will be the total outlay per political dollar to run this system?
Good questions. Don't have an answer. Get it passed now.
Criticisms The laws for determining who can receive the money and in what amounts will create havoc with free speech law. Laws will be enacted which seek to capture the system by limiting who can receive the money, how much, and under what conditions. There are other regulatory capture laws.
Yeah probably. However those can and will be looked at in court. Who knows where that will lead?
Involving the states in the same system via federal money creates multiple problems. Can citizens of any state donate to candidates in other states? Now we have the same situation we have with the Mormons outspending Californians on a California ballot measure (prop 8), even though the Mormons were largely not citizens of California. Not involving the states creates a fundamentally awful problem, namely that it would then cause the capitalist aristocracy to seek power via the state even more than they do now, which will create yet further division, erode national identity, and propel us yet further down the evolutionary chain towards tribal identities.
These are good points. I believe that currently politicians can accept donations from anyone anywhere in the the U.S. ??? If corporations can do this, why not citizens? Now, I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that limits it to your district.
Support:I find it a very compelling idea.
Thank you.
Utilizing the current campaign finance laws, maybe a system of ID's for accounts could be tracked that you could put on a tax return in order to apportion up to X dollars of your taxes on those ids.
My idea is that those existing IDs would be used in direct transfers to prevent fraud. I am unsure of whether I'd like introducing it into tax code as this may make the transaction less personal and less a direction of will. Personally, I'd add an optional tag which can be entered with this donation to state what the citizen wants (i.e. I'm giving you $100 for your support of privacy).
In addition to that, I would also suggest that caps on each type of disbursement should be effected into law. Like 30% can go to Presidential campaigns, 50% can go to federal congressional campaigns but only a sixth for each senator and congressman. The other 20% has to go locally to the state also split up by representatives. In every case I would also make it a requirement that the tax payer maintain one zip code+4 digits and based on this number they are only allowed to funnel funds to individuals who will run for those campaigns or for political organizations who can only spend money on people who would represent that digit. IE, an organization that can affect who is governor can collect from everyone in a state, but now they are limited by whatever percentage can go to them from each citizen on the tax return.
Maybe limits, maybe not. There is a certain power in individuals deciding to give all their donation to their house representative candidate, or state representative candidate, or even to their mayoral candidate. If a local politician can convince people to donate to his cause, it could empower grass root candidates to make have leverage in other levels of government. Also, note that the proposal indicated candidates, not interest groups.
..write-ins only ... lol. Yeah, but that won't pass....and of course not being able to spell well shouldn't prevent you from voting.
Thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:40AM
Why not?
There used to be a concept: He's done his time.
Of course, there also used to be the concept of rehabilitation (not just warehousing bodies who got caught up in the Failed War on (Some) Drugs).
Unforgiving people like you, who who want folks who have made a mistake to carry that scarlet letter for their whole lives and never be granted the fundamental right to be a full member of society, is one giant reason we have such a fucked up society.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:07AM
That is unfair. I'd rather have no crime be able to take away the right to vote or freedom of speech. But there are pragmatics. If a law is to be passed, then it has to avoid hot button labels. If this was an issue preventing passage of this law, I'd not stake my last stand on it.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:25PM
The only thing worse than the typical backward, uninformed, superstitious, anti-intellectual and anti-science US citizens controling our nation is the oligarchs, politicians and anyone else likely to ever have control. So sure.. I guess it's the lesser evil. "Re?"empower the citizens.
Note - non US citizens don't be smug. I didn't say anyone else was any better. This is pretty much my opinion of humanity these days.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:10PM
And in what days was humanity better?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:58PM
The day before the commenter became acquainted with humanity, obviously...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:02AM
in what days was humanity better?
After the enactment of the G.I. Bill, the levels of education went up sharply.
One might assume that critical thinking skills became more widespread at that time.
(Compare that to the job-training "education" and the levels of life-long student debt that is prevalent now.)
During the Space Race, accomplishments in math|science were valued.
After Sputnik, USA got on the ball and pushed STEM scholarship.
Now, a lot of that ended up going into weapons, so...
At the turn of the century, I worked with a Physics PhD who had grown up under the Soviet system.
Before that system crumbled, he had to be a member of the military to get a decent job doing science, so the same sort of thing applied to both sides of the divide.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday December 10 2014, @10:41AM
You realise that humanity is a lot bigger than the population of two countries, don't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11 2014, @05:18AM
I'm just describing the situations of which I am aware.
Improvements in *some* part of the system *should* raise the median value for the whole.
Perhaps interaction with a larger number of better-educated people makes even more people better informed and more open-minded.
(The Peace Corps comes quickly to mind.)
I hope my noting more-available education as a Good Thing(tm) doesn't make me look weird or anything.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:12AM
Sorry, what I meant is that these days that's my opinion of humanity. Not that it's my opinion of just "humanity these days".
With exceptions... but they are too much of a minority to have any power.
(Score: 1) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Tuesday December 09 2014, @06:35PM
You're assuming that people will then be more rational about who to give their $100 to, then they are with their vote? Why?
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:00PM
That part of the idea is actually quite clever: people will think for a while if they suddenly have received $ 100 (unless they're rich maybe). This equates $ 100 to the value of their vote. That implies that their vote is also worth $100. Better think a little bit who you give that $100 vote to, then!
In other countries, the people pay tax for the government to distribute money to all the political parties above the voting threshold.
(Score: 1) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:46PM
The stupid people I know, don't think that way. I don't know anyone who would vote differently based on this premise.
If anything, it would kick of a pre campaign of candidates spending money obtained from other sources to then advertise for those tax funded $100's. Its hard for me to imagine an outcome other than those politicians that have a lot of money even more money. Although, once people have given money to candidates, they'll probably feel attached to the candidate and follow up that donation with a vote. So I don't think the use of those $100's will be very effective either. Are you spending that $100 to get people who spent their $100 to someone else? that's a high barrier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:37PM
The political parties in power with/without the majority support, and/or the corporations/the Rich that bolster them would take issue with this approach.
Remember they like the current systems as it benefits them the most. All they need is a good smear campaign against this idea. Don't expect those in power to relinquish it easily, you'll have a nasty media fight on your hands.
Liking it to communism would be a start, no one likes communists. Similar to how any conversation about wealth inequality has been relabeled to Class Warfare.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:49PM
Sure. Nothing is easy, but lets see how far a smear campaign gets when every content provider out there forsees substantially greater profit out of supporting the proposal. That is a strength of the proposal. Google, CNN, politico, they all would profit immensely from a law like this. I can't imagine them ignoring it. I can imagine them complaining that it is too timid behind doors.
subicular junctures
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:39PM
The majority of the 1% would need to back it, not just a few powerful tech corporations. That means Rupert Murdoch would need to endorse it too.
I don't see that happening, since what is being proposed is a redistribution of power from the few to the many, (from the wealthy to the poor).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @06:55PM
Possibly, but CEOs have a way of doing what helps them improve the bottom line, no matter what.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:11AM
I do.
Now, they have to be *actual* Communists.
Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and their like don't cut it.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @05:34PM
OP to the My 2 Cents comment,
Last year I moved to Germany, I figured a Socialist government was the best I could get these days.
So far I'm liking it, everything except the weather of course!
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday December 09 2014, @07:57PM
Good for you, but you weren't the first (and won't be the last) person to think up this kind of idea. Where would you get the money? How do you choose "registered candidates"? How do you stop everyone just giving all $100 to their preferred political party (the Republocrats)?
Also, subject line may be relevant.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @08:46PM
You don't. And they will give it to the main parties. But it can make the main parties more responsive to the people. Have you seen how happy people are with congress?
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 09 2014, @11:19PM
n=100
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:43AM
The very narrow range of voting options and high level of corruption is not caused by campaign donations or PACs, it's caused by having one of the worst conceivable vote-counting systems: First Past The Post.
This is a system that promotes having the smallest number of parties possible. Since people who think they live in a democracy wouldn't stand for having only one party, they get two, and that's it. This puts a lot of people off voting, and makes the game all about getting a slight edge over one other party, leading to as much polarisation and over-generalisation about each party as their enemies (the other party) can manage.
Most people probably equate democracy with whatever voting system their own country currently has, which is natural. However it can be instructive to try this little experiment: Pick five countries that aren't your own, and which seem to you to have (relatively) sensible politics, low levels of corruption, high levels of prosperity, etc, and find out how their politicians are elected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_country [wikipedia.org]
Also have a look at who else uses first past the post voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Past_the_Post_electoral_system#List_of_the_countries_currently_following_FPTP_system.5B15.5D [wikipedia.org]
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2014, @03:32AM
Good stuff. Too bad you're so far down in the thread.
In addition, by now a Canadian should have added that hand-counting paper ballots removes all the hocus-pocus associated with machines.
[The status quo] promotes having the smallest number of parties possible
In California they've gamed the system even farther.
We now have a top-two system in primary elections.
In the general election, you chose between the 2 folks who got the most votes back in June.
In most races, there isn't even a line where you can write in a name.
Very undemocratic.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by jmorris on Wednesday December 10 2014, @12:48AM
Can somebody explain exactly what problem this proposal is trying to solve? We aren't supposed to be a democracy and the more we have drifted toward that known failed model and away from the Republic we were entrusted with the worse things have become. This proposal seems rooted in that dumb idea with a side order of income redistribution.
Yes wealthy people have a greater ability to influence opinion and elections. Since they are responsible for the paying for the vast majority of what our government does it doesn't quite seem so unfair. And for all their vast wealth they either haven't wanted to or proven unable to change that fact, so perhaps the influence of their wealth isn't quite as all powerful as some like to fear monger about. Worth a thought, at a minimum.
There is already plenty of money sloshing around in politics, adding another few tens of billions will only serve to make TV a bit more unwatchable in campaign season. If you really give a darn about public affairs you are already giving at least a hundred per cycle to organizations or directly to candidates and if you don't (and most don't) it is just another free government money bonanza that is explicitly designed to hoover taxpayer money to politics. Yoo Hoo? This is good why?
Can I propose we go the other way? No Representation Without Taxation.
(Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:22AM
Make political office perfectly random. Jane home maker, head of state. Joe six pack, Senator. Yada..yada.. Make it a two year stint and guarantee return to work. No more aholes in power. Boom.. done.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:30AM
Thank you for transferring power to the the permanent class of paid staff. Boom. Done.
subicular junctures
(Score: 1) by jimbrooking on Wednesday December 10 2014, @01:57AM
Those who must enact laws to implement ANY change in electoral procedures are exactly the ones most vested in the system continuing to function as it is at the moment. It's hard to imagine any scenario that would suddenly change a super-majority of our elected officials into campaign reformers. Pitchforks and torches maybe, but the police have shown their effectiveness at quelling "disorder", and the military is backing up the police.
And in case you haven't noticed, the Koch brothers and their ilk have discovered that it's cheaper to buy states than the federal government (Hello, North Carolina, Wisconsin, et al.), and in the bought and paid for states they control, they promptly redistrict (gerrymander) to ensure even more power in their hands, and enact restrictive voter-ID laws that would embarrass the apartheid pols of the early 20th-century Solid South.
So who to you complain to? If you are waving a check for, say, $25,000 or more, a staffer might take your call. Add a zero if you want to talk to the actual elected official. The US is a corporatocracy. Get used to it.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday December 10 2014, @02:38AM
I'm not sure that political parties will be against a law that is likely to funnel a lot of money to them.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 11 2014, @02:44PM
This proposal sounds good on paper, but in reality it would likely only make the problem worse.
When you talk to most Americans about third parties, they assume you're making a joke. Most people look at third parties as though they don't even exist. Which means if you give every American $100 to donate to their favorite candidates, you'll get somewhere around $14 billion going to the Dems, $14 billion to the GOP, and if you're lucky you might get $2 billion spread across all the various others.
Also consider that there's 300 million people in the US, so you're talking about somewhere over $30 billion. That's nearly double the budget of NASA. And where does it go? Directly into the pockets of the mainstream politicians and media companies. I'm sure they'd love it.
Meanwhile mainsteam media is going to latch on to their existing partnerships with those in power trying to grab these dollars, and they're even more likely to ignore third party candidates because maybe you'll get a few million, but you'll lose a billion from the big boys in the process. So the third parties will still get no media attention, so the majority of the population won't know they exist, so they won't give them any money...
The problem today isn't that the little guys don't get enough money. The problem is that the big guys get too much. Money is very loud. It drowns out good ideas, it drowns out debate, it drowns out real governance with the MBA playbook. You're proposing we save a man from drowing by adding more water to the pool because it will lower the percentage of the water in his lungs. We don't need a firehose, we need a goddamn pump. Hell, I'd settle for a bucket.