Role of money in public elections

Quote from skiman : You know, this isn't exactly news to me. We are not a pure democracy, but we are certainly democratic. And of course what I said is "The point of any democratic government is to allow a competition of ideas rather than of bank accounts." And yes, that includes even our constitutional republic.

Do you think really stupid ideas should be competing on the same plain as other ideas?

Typically this is where the money comes into play. While certainly you have big businesses favoring big business ideas and protections, you also don't see ton's of money going to support crazy ideas.

Quote from Danman114 : Do you think really stupid ideas should be competing on the same plain as other ideas?

Absolutely. That's an inevitable consequence of free speech. I mean, if the ideas are actually stupid, they shouldn't be particularly competitive.

Quote from Danman114 : Typically this is where the money comes into play. While certainly you have big businesses favoring big business ideas and protections, you also don't see ton's of money going to support crazy ideas.

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I don't think anyone is afraid of the specter of the domination of public discourse by the wealthy insane.

The concern is that with unlimited media influence, the notion of truth itself is for sale. Plutocracy is anathema to equality and I don't much fancy the idea of serfdom.

Quote from skiman : Absolutely. That's an inevitable consequence of free speech. I mean, if the ideas are actually stupid, they shouldn't be particularly competitive.

But how can you determine what is still competitive and what isn't without looking to see how much people are willing to invest in it?

What's the difference between what one does with one's speech and what one does with the their physical property?

Quote from Danman114 : But how can you determine what is still competitive and what isn't without looking to see how much people are willing to invest in it?

Votes. Votes are the currency by which political ideas should be measured.

Votes are supposed to be earned and won by making the best argument to the voters, rather than by making the loudest argument.

Quote from skiman : Votes. Votes are the currency by which political ideas should be measured. Votes are supposed to be earned and won by making the best argument to the voters, rather than by making the loudest argument.

But if people can vote with their dollars then those with the most dollars (presumably the more able in our society by and large, but with exceptions) will get the most influence while those willing to spend the least (presumably because they have the worst ideas) will lose.

Do you think 'voting' would work in determining what technologies are the best?

Quote from Danman114 : But if people can vote with their dollars then those with the most dollars (presumably the more able in our society by and large, but with exceptions) will get the most influence while those willing to spend the least (presumably because they have the worst ideas) will lose.

I reject the premise that having money is strongly correlated with ability, and I certainly reject your proposed plutocracy.

Quote from Danman114 : Do you think 'voting' would work in determining what technologies are the best?

Like politics, marketing often does more for selling product than the quality of the product.

But even then, I think it's a mistake to compare the two markets. Products are consumed by the individual in proportion to appetite. I certainly don't want my government, which is supposed to represent my equal voice as a citizen, to be consumed by the wealthy in proportion to their appetite for power.

Quote from skiman : I reject the premise that having money is strongly correlated with ability, and I certainly reject your proposed plutocracy.

I don't advocate any sort of plutocracy, only that people be free to do with their property (in this case money) what they wish, just as you advocate people be free to do with their property (in that case speech) what they wish.

Do you think earned economic success is determined by luck then?

Quote from skiman : Like politics, marketing often does more for selling product than the quality of the product.

This is a common cop out. Crediting fancy marketing (as if only one company can have marketing, and all the other companies making competing products are forbidden from advertising) for a products success is often what companies and people who fail to satisfy the needs of consumers (the true aim) blame.

Quote from skiman : But even then, I think it's a mistake to compare the two markets. Products are consumed by the individual in proportion to appetite. I certainly don't want my government, which is supposed to represent my equal voice as a citizen, to be consumed by the wealthy in proportion to their appetite for power.

I'm not comparing voting for technology with voting for politicians, I'm comparing voting for technology to voting for ideas. You seem to think keeping money out of politics will put every idea on a level playing field, and I'm trying to convince you that this is a bad idea because not every idea should be on a level playing field. Certainly this doesn't mean every idea with money behind it is good (most of it is self interested), but the ideas with zero money behind them are probably better off that way.

Quote from Danman114 : I don't advocate any sort of plutocracy, only that people be free to do with their property (in this case money) what they wish, just as you advocate people be free to do with their property (in that case speech) what they wish. Do you think earned economic success is determined by luck then?

No, making money is indicative of desire and some capability to make money, which is not in any way related to the ability to govern.

And, in case you're not aware, there are many, many, capable people for whom making money is not a priority. For many of us, business is just dead boring.

Quote from Danman114 : This is a common cop out. Crediting fancy marketing (as if only one company can have marketing, and all the other companies making competing products are forbidden from advertising) for a products success is often what companies and people who fail to satisfy the needs of consumers (the true aim) blame.

If by "cop out" you mean absolute freaking reality.

No one suggested that only one company can have marketing. This is your own little straw man. Any company can have marketing, but the competition in the marketplace often becomes not which product is best, but which marketing department is best.

Quote from Danman114 : I'm not comparing voting for technology with voting for politicians, I'm comparing voting for technology to voting for ideas. You seem to think keeping money out of politics will put every idea on a level playing field, and I'm trying to convince you that this is a bad idea because not every idea should be on a level playing field. Certainly this doesn't mean every idea with money behind it is good (most of it is self interested), but the ideas with zero money behind them are probably better off that way.

If you're not voting for politician based on their ideas, what the heck are you using to make your decisions?

Quote from skiman : No, making money is indicative of desire and some capability to make money, which is not in any way related to the ability to govern. And, in case you're not aware, there are many, many, capable people for whom making money is not a priority. For many of us, business is just dead boring.

no one said it was directly related to the ability to govern, just that they were more capable. I don't know a single other measure of a person's ability in a general sense, do you?

Quote from skiman : If by "cop out" you mean absolute freaking reality. No one suggested that only one company can have marketing. This is your own little straw man. Any company can have marketing, but the competition in the marketplace often becomes not which product is best, but which marketing department is best.

Name a couple products that succeed because of marketing and not because they better satisfy a customers needs and wants.

Marketing is but a small part of the equation, and in the end, if two products are going against each other, and both market their products, the one that succeeds in satisfying the customers wants will more likely succeed than not.

Quote from skiman : If you're not voting for politician based on their ideas, what the heck are you using to make your decisions?

Well, I vote based on their stances. But that is irrelevant to how much money they receive from one source or another (which is what we are discussing).

I don't see why I should have the ability to tell you or your employer what they can't do with their property in regards to supporting an idea or a politician.

The Democrats had no serious problems with Barack Obama raising millions of dollars from Wall Street. He got roughly 69 million votes.

But pay no attention to the above.

Quote from skiman : And, in case you're not aware, there are many, many, capable people for whom making money is not a priority. For many of us, business is just dead boring.

Yes, I saw the OWS coverage. Business is so boring such people would rather just stand around and beg for a government handout.

Quote from rrc06 : It will never happen in the current as politicians realize the power of what going outside of that system can bring. Case in point, Obama in 2008 Obama Reneges on Public Financing [washingtonpost.com] Obama Forgoes Public Funds in First for Major Candidate [nytimes.com]

The current bizarre system is what led to Super PACs. They should simply get rid of all these nonsensical laws and let candidates raise the necessary funds. At least with the "I'm * and I approve this message" the public knows whos funding the ads and can make its own decision.

In my opinion as about as much as fame should. These days (and quite possibly for a long time) the sheeple (as I've been hearing them referred to as) seem to just vote for the person they "know" which usually means the person who spends the most and gets their face out there the most. Fame is a similar bitch. Take Jesse the Body or Arnie. I'm pretty sure if they weren't ever public figures they wouldn't have ever won.

Granted, you have to be likable but as long as you're middle of the road he/she who spends the most and gets their face out there the most will generally end up winning.

Short of giving everyone an equal sum of $$ though I don't see how you'd ever regulate it.

Quote from Danman114 : I don't advocate any sort of plutocracy, only that people be free to do with their property (in this case money) what they wish, just as you advocate people be free to do with their property (in that case speech) what they wish.

The issue with your proposition here, of course, is that everyone has an equal ability to voice their opinions on an equal playing field if, say, gathered together in a crowd. However, not everyone is on an equal playing field monetarily. Your proposal here - that there is merit to financial investing in political ideas - necessarily gives the wealthier supporters a louder voice. In that case, it doesn't matter how valid the idea is - if the voters aren't hearing but one voice because that one voice is getting overfunded by special interests, is that fair? Does that best serve our democracy?

Take, for example, the NC governor's race. Perdue is dropping out, and we have the Republican, McCrory (McRory?) and some Democrat running. I say "some Democrat," because the ONLY voice in the governor's race that I've heard to date is Pat McCrory's. His ads are great, by the way, exceptionally non-partisan for my target market (although I've heard some of his ads on other stations and online that are far more anti-Democratic/anti-Obama, so he's covering his bases). I don't know anything about the man politically, and didn't even know what party he represented until very recently. However, because of finances, he's the only candidate here that I'm aware of right now, until I do my own research.

I'm actually leaning towards voting for McCrory because I really respect what Charlotte has become (he's been mayor there for a while). However, does it best serve my state that his is the only voice I hear? Should his ideas not be challenged? Should alternatives not be proposed?