Our two party system and the fact that the media will not put candidates from other parties in the debates. There is no reason we should not have the Presidential debates with 4 or 5 of the candidates that are actually on the ballot, regardless of who we generally support or think will finish in the top 2.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
Our two party system and the fact that the media will not put candidates from other parties in the debates. There is no reason we should not have the Presidential debates with 4 or 5 of the candidates that are actually on the ballot, regardless of who we generally support or think will finish in the top 2.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
I still think the government should never supply someone with money to run.
We're slowly getting there (R18+ games probably will come into play this year), once the wowsers start decreasing in importance electorally I think we'll get a bit more socially liberated (censorship decreasing, gay marriage, etc).
Some data. Both charts offer up a nice illustration of the before and after Citizien's United SCOTUS ruling.
HuffPo/First Read did an analysis on 'independent' (super PAC and other groups) spending through December for the past three election cycles.
The Citizen's United ruling impact is pretty clear.
TPM looked at an FEC report totaling spending during midterm elections.
The 2010 figure is going to be tiny compared to 2012.
HuffPo/First Read did an analysis on 'independent' (super PAC and other groups) spending through December for the past three election cycles.
The Citizen's United ruling impact is pretty clear.
TPM looked at an FEC report totaling spending during midterm elections.
The 2010 figure is going to be tiny compared to 2012.
Limit it to people who can collect a certain number of signatures.
You cross _____ number of signatures, you get public campaign money. No other money can be used to campaign.
That would be the perfect system, IMO.
That's why people that want to run for office go out and get signatures.
People should not get campaign contributions because it makes the system inherently unbalanced and favorable to that of the wealthy. The position of the president is designed to be that of the voice expressed by the populous, not the voice of the aristocracy.
Who do you think politician is going respect the wishes of - the person/company that gave them $100,000 and promises to do the same next time they run for office, or the person that gave them $5? I think we all know the answer to this.
rohlfinator
Member
What about:
Put a somewhat small maximum limit on campaign contributions (say, $100), but make any spending up to that full amount claimable as a tax credit if it's donated to an eligible candidate. That way financing is 100% publicly financed, but ultimately citizens make the choice of who they are going to support with their dollars.
Put a somewhat small maximum limit on campaign contributions (say, $100), but make any spending up to that full amount claimable as a tax credit if it's donated to an eligible candidate. That way financing is 100% publicly financed, but ultimately citizens make the choice of who they are going to support with their dollars.
empty vessel
Member
Yep. The best first step.
NullPointer
Member
I've often wondered this myself. I'd opt for a max of $1 per voter, but I've got some wiggle room.
Obviously the smaller the amount the better for the system. I don't know why we need it in there at all though. Voting with your dollar sounds great and all, until you realize that the inner city mother of 2 can't vote because she has to decide if she is going to give her kids lunch or pay for the lunch of a politician that will represent her interests.
A27_StarWolf: I'm still not convinced you know what the government is.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
I just don't think you should take the right for someone to give a candidate money. I like a candidate and I want them to do well? The government shouldn't be able to tell me no, not now, not ever.
empty vessel
Member
The government can fund all campaigns. That isn't a problem. The only thing that we need to decide, as a citizenry, is what substantive criteria qualifies one for funding (i.e., being "in the race"). And that, it seems to me, is a democratic decision.
Politicians do not need private financing at all, nor is it a constitutional violation of anybody's rights to democratically decide who gets pubic financing. Money is not speech. Money is distribution of speech.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Some data. Both charts offer up a nice illustration of the before and after Citizien's United SCOTUS ruling.
HuffPo/First Read did an analysis on 'independent' (super PAC and other groups) spending through December for the past three election cycles.
The Citizen's United ruling impact is pretty clear.
TPM looked at an FEC report totaling spending during midterm elections.
The 2010 figure is going to be tiny compared to 2012.
This is going to be horrendous.
Is it fair to you that the person with more money has the chance to impact the results of the election in their favour than someone with less means?
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
Obama needs to be re-elected (and hell, another Democrat after him) just so we don't end up with another Roberts court.
Why does it have to be money? Why isn't volunteering or explaining their virtues to people you know enough? In that kind of system they wouldn't need your money. They only need money now because the other guy has a shit load, so they do too to compete.
If we had that system, your precious Huntsman could have actually competed with Romney.
Frank the Great
Banned
if you like a candidate you help them by voting for them or volunteering for their campaign. if there was publicly funded elections there wouldn't be a need to give the candidate money to help them.
money in politics is the most obvious form of corruption, i cannot believe that people support it. it is corruption by definition. boggles the mind. it's like on GAF when a defense force pops up for everything
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Except it means I'd potential have to have my taxes fund a bunch of idiots, forget that.
It's only corruption when it doesn't support your cause. Corporations BOOO, Unions Yea!!! is an example here on GAF. Of course the reverse is true too.
empty vessel
Member
Not in a democracy, no. If that is true, it means it is not a democracy.
If you like a candidate you can volunteer for their campaign.
Frank the Great
Banned
also i think this IS a bipartisan issue and most lay people are in favor of reducing government corruption. the only problem is that the fuckwads we need to pass a constitutional amendment are already bought and paid for so we have no chance of doing anything about it.
empty vessel
Member
Giving money to a candidate is not speech. It is giving them power. And the government (i.e., the rest of your society) telling you no is just a condition for being part of the society. If you don't like it, the society will not stop you from leaving.
But we do give you speech. By all means, speak!
That's an interesting perspective.
I'm not sure I agree 100%, but I have not thought about this issue from that angle.
Frank the Great
Banned
1. it's corruption either way, what a bullshit strawman. who is advocating for union donations? get a grip.
2. you really don't think reducing government corruption is a valid way to use public funds? if reducing corruption isn't a valuable goal then what the fuck is? this goes to the core of democracy.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
Well if you want to undermine the First Amendment, yeah you need to dick with the Constitution. Same thing that happened in Hungry over the last year.
Taxes do not fund the government.
You already do. It's called matching funds, and it's the reason why Cain only "suspended" his campaign.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
It's not a strawman when it's true.
If it means a Rick Perry or a Ron Paul could touch my money...hell no. It's like willingly giving money to support Rick Ross...just wrong.
If you choose to contribute to it.
Bill Maher is the nicest commentator in politics.
Didn't everyone pretty much agree that Bush won cause Karl Rove scared the Evangelicals about the gays coming to steal their husbands?
Didn't everyone pretty much agree that Bush won cause Karl Rove scared the Evangelicals about the gays coming to steal their husbands?
Frank the Great
Banned
nvm
empty vessel
Member
No need ever to agree 100%, but thinking is always good!
rohlfinator
Member
Well, that's what the refundable tax credit would be intended to alleviate. I know that wouldn't fix it for everyone (a lot of people won't be able to afford giving up $X now and wait for a tax credit later) but it'd still be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Maybe instead of a tax credit, just add a field to the income tax form: "Here's the list of eligible candidates. Check which ones you want to direct your government-allotted $100 toward."
I agree on a philosophical level, but I'm trying to think of a solution that would be able to get reasonable bi-partisan support. You could hand out $100 grand to anyone who gets 10,000 signatures, but as soon as you get a joke candidate like Christine O'Donnell or that Democratic guy who lived in his mom's basement, a bunch of conservatives would flip their shit about how these parasites are leeching off the taxpayer cheese and we'd be back to square one a year later. edit: see, Manos already proved my point.
That's a really dumb analogy. Corporate employees can still donate just like union members can donate. Nobody gives a shit about that. Nobody should either.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
Sounds about right.
That's why we have limits on how much someone can contribute. I have no problem with the rich being able to give more.
I still think the government shouldn't provide the money. How do they plan to get that money back?
Why should the taxpayer have to start paying for all candidates, including ones they don't approve of?
rohlfinator
Member
Because a functional democratic process is beneficial to everyone.
The Librarian
Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
But one is treated as better than the other more often than not by many, so no it isn't a dumb analogy.
Yeah, that would be better than what we have now.
But I wasn't suggesting the government give them a check for a bunch of money to run their campaign. Instead I was envisioning something much more monitored. Vouchers, credits, refunds, TV air time, a website, and the like.
Yes, it is, because no one is trying to ban corporate employees from donating. It's just a stupid distraction from the real issue.
But that would translate to more influence over our government.
Why do you think it's a good thing?
Don't you think it's eroding the very philosophical ideal behind one man, one vote?
NullPointer
Member
People with more money are objectively better than people with less.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
No, it isn't
rohlfinator
Member
Yeah, and I'd get behind that stuff as well. But I think even with that system, you'd eventually have someone run for office just as a joke. (Or resembling a joke closely enough that the rabble-rabble-taxpayer-dollars folks would get up in arms.)
Letting citizens choose where the money is allocated means that the joke candidates at least have to convince a substantial number of supporters in order to get their free funding.
Yes, it is.
Also, besides that:
You know how many conservatives like you loathe unions and their donating? Your point is so god damn stupid and inane it hurts my brain.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
flair for the dramatic much?
Look, I don't think we should discriminate against poor people, or the middle class. However when you can give a max donation of, what, 2,500 dollars? Sure that's money, but that's only one voter, you've got to use that money to get other voters.
Besides money, of that scale, I don't think matters much as we think it does.
A poor/middle class voter could easily do more for a campaign by going to help out, and spreading the word.
Two different, yet effective methods of helping.
It's not fair to say that someone who is rich, or richer, shouldn't be able to give money to a candidate, and I think people should be able to donate.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
Money out of politics is different than money needed to run a campaign, make ads, go places, buy food, get the fuel.
And that's why the government would pay for those things to candidates meeting the basic requirements for running. Then everyone is on equal footing, and ideas instead of money are used to make the decisions that affect the lives of US citizens.
Wow, there really is no better example of all that's wrong with Republican ideology than this one (okay, fine maybe there's more but this one's a contender fo sho):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ition-for-dumbest-state government?via=blog_1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ition-for-dumbest-state government?via=blog_1
- Status