30 Jan 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyAnd these greedy capitalist corporations, do make that kind of investment, why? For the same reason the local merchant in little Italy paid off the mob.
Yep. It's not Joe Blow American's campaign contribution that is corrupt.
Think of it this way. If you had $100 to donate to candidates you believed would take the country in the direction you want to see it go, would you donate $50 of it to John Boehner, and $50 of it to Nancy Pelosi?
Hell no you wouldn't, but that's essentially what many corporatio ...[text shortened]... you and I can't afford, and they receive it because they paid for it. That is corruption.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderIn the last 11 years, four new parties have entered the Dutch national parliament. One of them got 26 seats out of 150 but has since disbanded. Another disbanded; one now has 24 seats, the other has 2. Public funding ensures easy access for new parties, for which there is apparently great demand. Unfortunately they are being excluded in the US political system, which very poorly represents its citizens. This lack of accountability is costing the US taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars a year and is costing the lives of thousands of Americans, if not more (for one thing, I'm sure you'll agree the US would have universal health care by now if it had a multi-party system and caps on campaign donations).
In general, I'm satisfied with the access the system gives to "new" political parties in my State. If you get over a certain amount of votes in the Governor's election, you're automatically on the ballot in following elections. I see no compelling need to throw money at political parties which are unable to convince people to support them.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree with neither assertion at the end. The Netherlands is not the US; if there was "great demand" for new parties here they'd be formed and get votes.
In the last 11 years, four new parties have entered the Dutch national parliament. One of them got 26 seats out of 150 but has since disbanded. Another disbanded; one now has 24 seats, the other has 2. Public funding ensures easy access for new parties, for which there is apparently great demand. Unfortunately they are being excluded in the US political ...[text shortened]... e universal health care by now if it had a multi-party system and caps on campaign donations).
30 Jan 12
1 edit
It would be nice to have public funding and only public funding for campaigns. Democracy isn't perfect. It subjects every important issue to nasty infighting between parties. It makes it almost impossible to have a real and honest conversation with voters about important issues. It encourages elected officials to outright lie to voters and attack each other's character. And then of course the undo influence of money.
In a perfect world I would prefer there were no political parties. Just a bunch of individuals giving their honest assessments without regard for their "team" winning.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with you, and that the assertions are unfounded. Not only that, but is it really beneficial to have government supporting every quack who decides to form a political party? Seems like just another way to spend money wastefully.
I agree with neither assertion at the end. The Netherlands is not the US; if there was "great demand" for new parties here they'd be formed and get votes.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper(Shrug) There are States with ballots with no political parties I believe (Louisiana is one I think). Maybe you should move there.
It would be nice to have public funding and only public funding for campaigns. Democracy isn't perfect. It subjects every important issue to nasty infighting between parties. It makes it almost impossible to have a real and honest conversation with voters about important issues. It encourages elected officials to outright lie to voters and attack e ...[text shortened]... unch of individuals giving their honest assessments without regard for their "team" winning.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWould you support returning to when there was no Presidential ticket, but the top electoral vote getter was President, and the second was VP even if of a different party?
It would be nice to have public funding and only public funding for campaigns. Democracy isn't perfect. It subjects every important issue to nasty infighting between parties. It makes it almost impossible to have a real and honest conversation with voters about important issues. It encourages elected officials to outright lie to voters and attack e ...[text shortened]... unch of individuals giving their honest assessments without regard for their "team" winning.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by normbenignThere should obviously be some safeguard against abuse. This isn't very hard to do.
I agree with you, and that the assertions are unfounded. Not only that, but is it really beneficial to have government supporting every quack who decides to form a political party? Seems like just another way to spend money wastefully.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI do think that having voting machines that make party voting possible is bad. It relieves the voter of the necessity to even know the names of the candidates running in his preferred party.
(Shrug) There are States with ballots with no political parties I believe (Louisiana is one I think). Maybe you should move there.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn most US States, you can get on the Presidential ballot, or Statewide ballot by submitting a required number of signatures, or by gaining a percentage of the vote in a previous election. This hardly makes these extra parties factors in most national or State elections, or in government altogether.
There should obviously be some safeguard against abuse. This isn't very hard to do.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI really don't care what you think, but I am being neither. You have been shown on previous occasions to have little knowledge of the political dynamics in the US. This discussion is just another example.
I'm not sure if you're being dishonest or naive.
Interestingly the Dutch system requires individual contributions to a political party BEFORE it can be eligible for public funding:
In order to be eligible for a grant, a political party must have at least
1,000 members on the reference date (1 January of a particular year).
Qualifying members are those who have the right to attend and vote at
meetings and who pay an annual contribution of € 12 or more (section 2,
subsection 3, WSPP). This means that political parties that do not admit
members are not eligible for a grant under current legislation.
Naturally that would be "corruption" as defined by the OP.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is specifically the safeguard against abuse. Getting 1,000 members is not hard but it requires more than sitting in the yard with a beer. The minimum amount is designed to make sure that people actually pay a significant amount (if you can call €12 significant), i.e. to make sure parties do not artificially get members who don't really care.
I really don't care what you think, but I am being neither. You have been shown on previous occasions to have little knowledge of the political dynamics in the US. This discussion is just another example.
Interestingly the Dutch system requires individual contributions to a political party BEFORE it can be eligible for public fund ...[text shortened]... legislation.
Naturally that would be "corruption" as defined by the OP.
Interestingly, the Racist Party has opted not to apply for state subsidies because it does not want to allow members into its party (it's led by an autocrat).
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell if the members really care they can pony up more than 12 Euros to get their Party's message out. Why should the public have to subsidize them?
This is specifically the safeguard against abuse. Getting 1,000 members is not hard but it requires more than sitting in the yard with a beer. The minimum amount is designed to make sure that people actually pay a significant amount (if you can call €12 significant), i.e. to make sure parties do not artificially get members who don't really care.
Int ...[text shortened]... subsidies because it does not want to allow members into its party (it's led by an autocrat).
From your last paragraph, it seems that a new party was able to form and win representation without government subsidies. That makes them superfluous as well as wasteful.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause this results in better governance and is worth the investment.
Well if the members really care they can pony up more than 12 Euros to get their Party's message out. Why should the public have to subsidize them?
From your last paragraph, it seems that a new party was able to form and win representation without government subsidies. That makes them superfluous as well as wasteful.
I don't think the Racist Party should be an example for the other parties. The other parties don't want to give up their independence and it would be bad for the efficiency of government if they were forced to.