Party contributions and corruption

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because this results in better governance and is worth the investment.

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.

The other parties don't want to give up their independence by NOT taking government subsidies?

Humpty Dumpty has nothing on you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The other parties don't want to give up their independence by NOT taking government subsidies?

Humpty Dumpty has nothing on you.

The government subsidies don't come with some kind of policy requirement apart from having members who get some influence over the party. Do you think it's bad to have members of a political party having a say about the course of the party?

Private donations, which would be required without the state subsidies, can and do come with policy requirements as is obviously the case in the US, where big money has dictated you can choose between two almost identical parties. Taxation without representation.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The government subsidies don't come with some kind of policy requirement apart from having members who get some influence over the party. Do you think it's bad to have members of a political party having a say about the course of the party?

Private donations, which would be required without the state subsidies, can and do come with policy requirement ...[text shortened]... dictated you can choose between two almost identical parties. Taxation without representation.

If there are no government subsidies, the members have total say over what their party can and should do. If by "policy requirements" you mean the party has to support those measures its members support I'm quite simply at a loss to figure out how this is an "undemocratic" "BAD" thing.

"Big money" has dictated no such thing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If there are no government subsidies, the members have total say over what their party can and should do. If by "policy requirements" you mean the party has to support those measures its members support I'm quite simply at a loss to figure out how this is an "undemocratic" "BAD" thing.

"Big money" has dictated no such thing.

The problem is that in the US system, more money = more influence. I've explained this to you before and I think you do get it, but you are too afraid to denounce your Founding Fathers fetishism. There are support groups for this. You can do it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The problem is that in the US system, more money = more influence. I've explained this to you before and I think you do get it, but you are too afraid to denounce your Founding Fathers fetishism. There are support groups for this. You can do it.

And I've explained the reality in the US that there are many parties to chose from in virtually every election. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the present party system so blaming it on them is rather absurd. Your comments are some type of irrational Ad Hominem argument which has little to do with the actual substance of the discussion. Try sticking to the subject.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And I've explained the reality in the US that there are many parties to chose from in virtually every election. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the present party system so blaming it on them is rather absurd. Your comments are some type of irrational Ad Hominem argument which has little to do with the actual substance of the discussion. Try sticking to the subject.

Yes, and all of them apart from two are de facto excluded from the political system. When is the last time a new party emerged and had a major impact on the political spectrum? 1856? And your explanation for this is "The US is not the Netherlands"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, and all of them apart from two are de facto excluded from the political system. When is the last time a new party emerged and had a major impact on the political spectrum? 1856? And your explanation for this is "The US is not the Netherlands"?

The Progressives and the Socialists had a major impact on the political spectrum in the early 1900s (shifting the Democrats to the left). The various States Rights parties had a major impact on the political spectrum in the 1950s and 1960s (shifting the Republicans to the right).

If third parties are "de facto" excluded, it is because people don't vote for them in sufficient numbers. Tossing government money at that "problem" is neither proper or nor particulary "democratic".

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Progressives and the Socialists had a major impact on the political spectrum in the early 1900s (shifting the Democrats to the left). The various States Rights parties had a major impact on the political spectrum in the 1950s and 1960s (shifting the Republicans to the right).

If third parties are "de facto" excluded, it is because peo ...[text shortened]... ing government money at that "problem" is neither proper or nor particulary "democratic".

Actually, it solves the problem (if you also abolish FPTP). And you'd be able to vote a Green candidate into office.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually, it solves the problem (if you also abolish FPTP). And you'd be able to vote a Green candidate into office.

Whatever you say, KN.🙄

Actual changes in the way candidates were elected would probably have a significant impact, but you don't need to throw public money to political parties to accomplish that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Whatever you say, KN.🙄

Actual changes in the way candidates were elected would probably have a significant impact, but you don't need to throw public money to political parties to accomplish that.

Admittedly changing the electoral system would probably have a larger impact. Then again, look at Italy if you want to see what big money + multi-party democracy does. It isn't much better than big money + two-party system.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Progressives and the Socialists had a major impact on the political spectrum in the early 1900s (shifting the Democrats to the left). The various States Rights parties had a major impact on the political spectrum in the 1950s and 1960s (shifting the Republicans to the right).

If third parties are "de facto" excluded, it is because peo ...[text shortened]... ing government money at that "problem" is neither proper or nor particulary "democratic".

The Progressives and Socialist and add the Communist parties got virtually their entire agenda adopted during the 20th century without actually electing anyone to office. Ron Paul's run the last few cycles probably will not win him office, but he has converted millions of followers to libertarian thinking, more so than when he ran for President as a libertarian.

Probably the two most influential third party candidates were Theodore Roosevelt, Bull Moose, and Ross Perot, don't remember his party. Both resulted in the election of the candidate they least resembled. Some have made the claim that Al Gore would have been President minus the run of the Ralph Nader, and that GHW would have retained the Presidency but for Perot. I have my doubts in both cases.

In any case, additional parties can run, but I can see no reason to throw money at them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Admittedly changing the electoral system would probably have a larger impact. Then again, look at Italy if you want to see what big money + multi-party democracy does. It isn't much better than big money + two-party system.

What would significantly impact the amount of money spent on politics is facing Constitutional limitations of government and abiding by them.

People will not try to buy what isn't for sale.

Originally posted by normbenign
The Progressives and Socialist and add the Communist parties got virtually their entire agenda adopted during the 20th century without actually electing anyone to office. Ron Paul's run the last few cycles probably will not win him office, but he has converted millions of followers to libertarian thinking, more so than when he ran for President as a libe ...[text shortened]... s.

In any case, additional parties can run, but I can see no reason to throw money at them.

I forgot the United States turned Communist. Thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I forgot the United States turned Communist. Thanks for the correction.

NO. But the communist party had significant influence without ever electing anyone to office, at least under their banner. Just reinforcing your point that parties other than the big two have influence without government subsidies.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So anything you do that might influence an election is "corruption"? Can I talk to other people and say "You should vote for Candidate X" or is that "corrupting" the process as well?

I don't know. One of the biggest failings of politics, is that a large percentage of the electorate never even bothers to find out much about the people they are voting for and end up voting at random, or based on tradition or on who they last saw on tv.

The ruling party or any party shouldn't be allowed to fund its campaign from the government. But I thought that was your "solution"?
No, my suggested solution was equal funding for all parties by the government.