You could advance the same argument in a trade situation, but what, then, is anti-trust legislation for? How exactly do we avoid a situation where a cabal of professional politicians have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo where they personally profit *and *they make the rules of the ‘game’?
Not that that’s necessarily what’s happening, but can we demonstrate it’s *not *happening?
Checks, balances, and strong social institutions.
Well thank the lord for that. Can we have some too?
Money does talk in politics; as I recall, politicians with great dependability vote in the interests of whomever paid them the most in campaign money.
No, we vote for people who say they’ll do what we want, and then they do something else. It doesn’t matter what the majority wants; they’ll be ignored.
It’s always amusing to me that the people with the whackiest fringe political beliefs complain that politicians ignore the majority and always vote for the moneybags who purchase them like the rest of us by Chinese-made tee shirts from WalMart.
Ignoring the fact that the reason their pet philosophies aren’t enacted into law is that no one except them and the 4 other people down at the Maoist International Movement headquarters wants them enacted. Everyone else likes the status quo.
If you want to change who people vote for, why not try changing people’s minds rather than complaining that the system is rigged against you? The system IS rigged against you, because it’s rigged in favor of the plurality, that’s what we call democracy.
And complaining that the rest of the candidates are undermining Dennis Kucinich’s once-lonely antiwar position seems silly. Don’t you want all the candidates to be anti-war? If Hillary positions herself as antiwar because the antiwar position makes her more popular, how exactly can you imagine this is a defect in the democratic system?
In 1996 President Clinton won the election with less than 25% of eligible voters voting for him. Yes he did get the most votes and a great many more than his nearest rival, but you can’t tell me that changing the rules of the competition will not improve the chances of so-called fringe candidates both to get their voices heard and to get themselves elected, and you definitely cannot tell me that the powers that be are not perfectly happy keeping them out.
As for so-called studies showing that money cannot buy the presidecy it should be apprent that neither of the Democratic front runners is a believer in them, not proof positive I grant you but a good indicator that money is the most important factor. Further if both candidates raise $100 million for example and one loses is that proof that money did not buythe election? I say that it is proof that it did.
Also, I am not saying that Kucinich is a dream candidate, though I would hazard a guess that his opinions have more validity than yours. I am saying that if you want to continue to have meaningless elections, which I believe we now have, then continue with the status quo, allowing corporate lobbyists, corporate donations and private financing of elections along with a decreasing number of different media voices.
You can’t have a system where all candidates have an equal chance, because not all candidates are equal. Some support unpopular policies. Some are personally unlikeable. Some are poor leaders. Some have no prior experience. Some have no support base. Some say horrifying things in public. And so on.
Kucinich is a fringe candidate because few people support him. Few people support him because he’s a fringe candidate. You can’t get there from here. You can’t be popular unless lots of people know about you and support you. People won’t support you unless they think you can win, they won’t support you unless they think you’ll be a good officeholder. The people with lots of support get more support, the people that make good candidates get more support, the people who espouse popular positions get more support. Only one person can win, that’s what the election is about. So what’s so unfair about it, aside from the fact that the person you personally support isn’t supported by anyone else? Why not try to change their minds rather than complaining that it’s unfair?
No, they don’t. For example, most people oppose the war; but there’s no serious attempt to end it by the politicians. The desires of the majority are ignored most of the time, much less the desires of even large minorities. What matters is money and connections, not votes.
No doubt. Nonetheless, we can also say that these institutions most often give money to those politicians they think will win and whose policies they agree with. And past that, Capaign Finance Reform has so far failed abyssmally to have any impact. You can’t take the money out of the equation (i.e., free democracy) without destroying the equation, which no one sane wants to do.
Personally, I favor totally unlimited donations by individuals. Accepting money from someone else to donate and giving money for someone else to donate should be a major felony. No corporation or nonprofit could donate. The Office of Congressional Bribery (no joke) would list official listed bribes for politicians and originator. Any legislator who meets the criteria for the bribe takes the money; if no one does the money reverts to the govenrment. And then the legislators have to explain to the voters why they took 1 million and change for raising taxes.
Anyone indulging in selfish earmarks should be shot. 
When you figure out which ones yield optimal outcomes, let me know. 
Complete nonsense. Kucinich, like every other person on earth, is as capable of being as full of crap as the next person. Just because he gives speeches to hundreds of people and appears on some TV debates doesn’t mean that his opinions are more valid than anyone else’s. The validity of his opinions is based solely on their merits, of which I believe there are few.
I haven’t seen a single poll that shows that the views of the American people aren’t being generally reflected by the votes in Congress. Very few Americans support totally cutting off funds for the war, for example, and I’d say that view has about as much support in Congress as it does in the public. I think most people hate the war but have no clue on how to end it, and surprise surprise, the same seems to be true of their representatives.
Actually I don’t think I am insane and I actually think that taking private money out of presidential elections makes more sense than the death penalty for self-serving earmarks, but that is not the issue. Just talking about campaign finance reform helps equalize the playing field, actual reform would be a godsend. You say institutions give money to those they agree with and I say those candidates shape their policies in many case to gain the political money necessary for re-election. We can never know which way it is, but if we take private money off the table we don’t have to worry about it. One thing we do know, when an institution gives money to both sides, as often happens, the idea that it is supporting a candidate as opposed to buying influence becomes laughable.
As I said he is not my dream candidate but as a six-term Congressman from one of the most politically savvy states in the Union, as a former mayor of one of the country’s largest cities, who in both capacities was excoriated by one and all for opinions that he held which were not supported either by the general population or the MSM, but which were ultimately proved right I must say his track record is remarkable. About yours I know nothing, but I stand by my statement. When someone makes forward looking statements, particularly someone who is running for political office it is customary to look and see how often he has been right in the past. Dennis has frequently been right even when standing completely alone. You are correct in stating that apppearing on television does not prevent the spaker from being full of crap (think - “read my lips, no new taxes” or “Poland is not under Soviet influence”), but the record of his successes and experiences certainly makes it more likely that his opinions have merit than that they don’t. Again about your opinions I know only what you write here and I stand by my statement.
As far as no polls showing that the viewpoint of Americans is not reflected in Congressional voting try this one:
A CBS News poll from Sept. 2007 on the question of whether you approve or disapprove of the way Democrats in Congress are handling the situation with Iraq 57% disapprove with 12% unsure. In the same poll 67% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation with 7% unsure.
You may be correct about cutting off funds for the war as I did not find a poll where the question was asked but a Pew poll condcted in October asked respondents whether the U.S. should keep troop in Iraq until the situation has stabilized or should they be brought home as soon as possible the vote was 54 to 42% with 4% unsure to bring the troops home ASAP. Congress clarly is not doing that even though most all political analysts interpeted the Democratic takeover of Congress as a mandate to end the war.
While most Americans may have no idea how to end the war they have elected their Congresspersons to find a way. Dennis Kucinich (and Ron Paul) promises to do that and I think he deserves to be heard.
I disagree. The tail doesn’t wag the dog. The reason people get told lies is because they vote for lies. The reason people get fed bullshit is because they vote for bullshit. The reason people are given simple answers and soundbites and empty promises is because they vote for the candidates who give them these. As I said above, there’s a difference between what people say they want and what they really want.
I’ll certainly agree there are voting procedures that should be changed in this country and the electoral college is one of them. But these are minor side-issues that have no effect on the big issue. If the majority of people vote in favor of something, then that’s democracy. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the majority or think they’re idiots or even if they really are idiots - there’s no way you can fix this “problem” and still be a democracy.
Politics is different than business. In politics there’s only one goal and only one person gets it. How can two people agree to collude together on that basis?
Money whispers in politics while votes are shouting at the top of their lungs. Politicians aren’t motivated by money - if they were they’d go into business where there’s a lot more money and it’s easier to get. Politicians are in it for the power. Money to them is just a tool that’s useful in acquiring more of the power that they really want. Any politician who has to make a choice between doing something that will lose him money and doing something that will lose him votes, will always throw away the money without a second look.
You (Ravenman) are correct in saying the majority do not want to cut of funds According to a CNN poll 60% oppose this and though 66% oppose the war a majority believe it can still be won.
BUT, 57% want the allocation of additional funds for the war to be tied to troop withdrawals and 61% would favor allocating more money only if tied to benchmarks. This obviously has not been done.
Votes are about who gets elected; not what those politicians do once they get elected. Once they are in office, votes mean nothing; they’ll legislate the way the people with money tell them to vote. Or just let the lobbyists write the laws themselves.
Other than a second term President, every politician is looking ahead to his or her next election. Usually before they even get sworn in.
And in order to get re-elected, they want money for campaigns; and to get that money they write laws as they are told to write them. America is much more of a plutocracy than it is a democracy; the majority of it’s democracy is a facade. Your vote doesn’t quite mean nothing yet; just close to nothing.
Der Trihs, you have an … unconventional … view of politics. And I’m sure your opinions on the political views of those who share your political views are accurate. But most people are conventional (by definition) and their political views are conventional. And I think you are unable to form an accurate opinion on conventional political views because they are so dissimilar to your own views.
Or perhaps you are simply unwilling to believe just how badly corrupted by money and detached from the public will American politics has become. I certainly don’t see any reason to believe you that politicians are interested in doing what the people want. Not what I want, but the people in general.