Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

Because it allows the wealthy to buy elections.--Percy

I don't like the idea either. But I might like some of the possible fixes even less. I cannot comment on a proposal that you haven't made. Do you have a proposal? I think the principle, when your own money is involved is much more fundamental than that. The issue is wrapped up in the 1st amendment in ways that are quite distinct from the principles in Citizen's United. When a candidate is attempting to get his own message out using his own resources, then limits directly dictate speech of the talking and written kind and not the fungible kind. After all, a candidate is just a citizen participating directly in the political process. Just what kind of limits should there be on that candidates actual speech? Would a solution be to make campaign advertising cheap or free? Can we do that without taking away someone else's property.By contrast, Citizens United is about people speaking political through the influence bought with their own money about the candidates. Related, yes, but distinct in a fundamental way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNukes asks: Certainly allotting free time for the major candidates would be nice. The TV will get their money back from the ratings.How to cull the 100's of silly candidates from the list? I suggest weekly or bi-weekly open primaries open to both parties and all across the country, at once. Then trim the survivors and kick out the losers. Work it down to a handful of 8 or so - these would be the major candidates. Then the debates begin with continuing weekly/bi-weekly primaries to continue to cull until there are 2 left standing for the November Voting Day (which should be moved to Veteran's Day holiday)....maybe not.

How does one go about buying an election?

Compared to the alternatives, CU was a blessing. I see it as kind of like "Its better to fight them over there than over here" kind of issue.There were senators(like Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings, Bob Kerry) who wanted to amend the constitution to limit "spending" (EVC might have fallen into that category) based on speech delivered during a government-set and totally arbitrary "campaign season" (or something like that).That was for all forms of media communication. And even if individuals were behind it all.Citizens United is a free-speech buffer-zone in my opinion. It enables the fight to be over corporations (and their rights) , and protects what little freedoms individuals have (even though donations to candidates are severely curtailed and limited).Count me as 100% supportive of Citizens United. It takes the fight deeper into the field of play that leads to a more secure environment for free-speech. I'm not even sure my view on/about the actual issue of corporate spending. But free speech for individuals is under assault. (and I think our 1st amendment is so watered down from what it should be, that it is never safe to backtrack further and further)

Let's suppose that the alternatives actually were worse for the democratic process. That doesn't mean Citizens United is in any way an organization that an intelligent and rational Homo sapiens should stand behind.Citizens United's approach is a repression of free speech of the people. Its philosophy is one that diverts political power into the hands of the .1%. So political elections can now be bought in the United States.Which is also known as oligarchy.And I'm not sure that's a kind of political environment you actually want to be in.But yeah. The United States political process is basically oligarchic in nature, thanks to the valiant efforts of Citizens United et al. Umm, not really. No. It's not. What makes you think that individual free speech has becoming increasingly more curtailed?

quote:

---

But free speech for individuals is under assault.

---

I completely disagree.It's never been better for free speech. I mean, you're in America or England or wherever and I can immediately read what you wrote down while I'm in South Africa. You can phone me and directly talk to me. With video chat and all that, too. Free speech and the future of free speech has never been better. Governments can try to curtail it, but their devices are easily circumvented by people with IQ's of more than 10.Individual freedoms have never been better in the history of the world. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I thought that *was* a proposal. Maybe you're asking if I have a proposal that takes into account the concerns you listed later in your post? If so, no, I don't.Maybe it's less a proposal and more a goal. Maybe I should say that our goal should be to make it impossible or at least much more difficult for the very rich to pervert the political process. Right now they're running roughshod over the whole thing. Not that they haven't in the past, but it's worse now, and it goes beyond politics. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Supreme Court position that money is speech, special laws that free the rich from significant taxation, they all help grant the rich advantages beyond the hoi polloi that they shouldn't have and that they certainly don't need given they already have money.--Percy

Seriously? Maybe this isn't the thread for you.--Percy

Yeah, I think you guys are full of shit. Money can't buy elections.Do you have any evidence that it can? Really? Is it really so complicated that you are unable to explain it? Or is this just smoke and mirrors?Has there ever been a point in time in this country where politics wasn't run by wealthy people?It certainly costs a lot of money to play politics, but election are not something that you can buy.

Cook County. Then and Now.

Money is necessary to print yard signs, leaflets, media advertising in print, TV/radio, internet and social media. The more one has to spend the more they can buy. In local contests one wealthy individual can overwhelm other candidates by spending far greater than the opponents. Advertising works in capturing the attention of the public and in influencing public opinion. In overwhelming your opponents by saturating the Ad market with your product (you), you are said to be "buying" your election.In this presidential campaign, on a national scale, the impact of an individual's own wealth, or even the wealth of a number of wealthy contributors, does not have the direct impact it does on smaller regional/local races, because there are so may wealthy contributors on every side. While a few multi-millionaire backers can help quick-start a national campaign in the early processes, at this point in the presidential campaign season these fall to the wayside overtaken by the big PAC and Super-PAC money which are funded by thousands of wealthy individuals and corporations acting in concert.For every $ million The Donald loans his own campaign there are dozens of PACS willing and able to give 10x that to his opponents.As of the April 20 FEC-required filings by candidates and the PACs that support them the money breakdown is such: sourceI don't think we need be concerned about someone buying a presidential bid. There is too much competing money on all sides. Even down ballot, on the state level races, there are plenty of people with plenty of money willing to fund each side, though here, a major disparity in funding can occur in few instances and can be effective.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : new graphic

Crook County is the worst, and probably a big influence on why I don't like the Democrats.Your first link seems to be about cheating by rigging the votes, not buying them.And the second one was what I was wondering if people were talking about. Where you buy an election but straight-up paying people to go vote for you. But can that actually work? If you give me $50 to go vote for you, when I get in there I can still vote for whoever I want and there's no way for you to tell.Is that really what people mean by "buying an election"? Paying people to vote for you?

As is so often the case it is not one simple answer. It can be by getting someone to rig an election, actually paying people to vote a certain way, paying for advertising to propagandize, paying a programmer to hack voting machines, paying someone to actually steal votes, pressuring employees to vote a certain way ...

Well, that kind of gives the lie to where you just a few messages ago claimed, "I'm not being flippant, I'm just completely ignorant of political processes." Suddenly you're absolutely certain of your knowledge of the election process.But then you can't even be consistent, as here you state the opposite belief that the wealthy can control politics: It was obvious before that you were just being a nuisance and wasting people's time, and this just makes it more obvious. Wasn't it you who recently said you thought web anonymity important so that you could be a dick without people knowing who you were? Ah, yes, here it is, Message 27.--Percy