The Destruction of Democracy

[Concerned Plebe]

Starting in the 1890's any semblence of fair representation of the voter in politics has been laughable. The state tells us that our vehicle for participating in the electoral system has been our vote, however as it stands the common mans vote does not mean nearly as much as the rich mans wallet.

Again and again the Supreme upholds the unspecified rights of the upper 5% of the American population to engage in shady backroom deals and buy access to the congress and the White House that the other 95% of the population could only dream of.

Of course lip service is paid to the "American People" but in the end unless that citizen is a member of an organization engaged in a bundling operation that sent a few million dollars of "personal contributions" to one of our unscrupulous legislators, then they are denied the same influence that the above mentioned patroni enjoy. This inside access based on your social class is a perversion of what this country is based on and gives Harry Reid and John Boehner something to laugh about over expensive scotch and Cuban cigars.

The American people realize their lack of influence considering 46% of them do not bother to show up to the polls anymore, and the 2008 elections were hailed as one of the highest turnouts in recent history. The vote, one of the fundamental rights given to American Citizens is less important than not getting called for jury duty.

This drive to render the American people impotent needs to be stopped in order for the United States to again be an example for democracy, freedom, and equality.

 

[Toronado3800]

Practically we could ban political ads but that infringes on free speech....I'm up for any suggestions.

 

[Concerned Plebe]

True, Bruce Ackerman suggested a system known as Voting with Dollars. The gist of it is that every voter gets a 50 dollar card to contribute to whichever candidate they choose. Thus the focus of politicians goes from fund raising events and pandering wall street to actually responding to constituents concerns and holding more public forum events to listen to the majority of the people that they represent.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

When was the United States a Democracy? That's right, never.

 

[FreedomAli]

Corporations are private tyrannies as demonstrated by HBGary. In fact, since the corporation engaged in illegal conspiracies, why did the DOJ not investigate this? DOH! They were in on it. What is a government called when there is a partnership between corporations and government?

Benito Mussolini Quotes

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
-Benito Mussolini

 

[FreedomAli]

When was the United States a Democracy? That's right, never.

Right! So, why are we fighting to create it in other lands?

 

[American Horse]

True, Bruce Ackerman suggested a system known as Voting with Dollars. The gist of it is that every voter gets a 50 dollar card to contribute to whichever candidate they choose. Thus the focus of politicians goes from fund raising events and pandering wall street to actually responding to constituents concerns and holding more public forum events to listen to the majority of the people that they represent.

where's the correlation between winning an election and personal wealth? Recall the recent California governor race and Meg Whitman versus Brown? If the public doesn't like the message no amount of high priced air time will win a high office. More important is how the media treats one candidate versus another.

 

[Concerned Plebe]

Republic, democracy, the ideal that our system was based off of is what matters. That ideal is the right for our countries citizens to be able to have equal influence over who gets elected to a public office that represents their concerns. As it stands only the upper socio economic class really has any kind of influence over public policy. We are not even really a republic anymore but a plutocracy.

Technically your vote is worth as much as Jaime Dimon, but let me know what happens next time you try and schedule a meeting with your Senator.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

When was the United States a Democracy? That's right, never.

Right! So, why are we fighting to create it in other lands?

They CALL it "democracy" clearly doesn't mean it is. "Nation Building" was always a dumb policy.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That ideal is the right for our countries citizens to be able to have equal influence over who gets elected to a public office that represents their concerns

Where's that spelled out, the "equal influence" part? It's not. We have the electoral college, designed to keep the highly populated urban areas from overwhelming the sparsely populated ones. We have congressional districts for the same reason. But there is NOTHING spelling out "equal influence."

Your entire premise is flawed, and silly on its face.

 

[Concerned Plebe]

"where's the correlation between winning an election and personal wealth? Recall the recent California governor race and Meg Whitman versus Brown? If the public doesn't like the message no amount of high priced air time will win a high office. More important is how the media treats one candidate versus another."

Indeed, however a) Brown still spent 24million on his campaign which he had to wheel and deal to get at some level and b) The underlying message does not have to do with whoever spends more wins but giving the American citizens an actual stake in the election process. C) The majority of the senate makes over 7 figures.

 

[Concerned Plebe]

"Where's that spelled out, the "equal influence" part? It's not. We have the electoral college, designed to keep the highly populated urban areas from overwhelming the sparsely populated ones. We have congressional districts for the same reason. But there is NOTHING spelling out "equal influence."

Your entire premise is flawed, and silly on its face."

Hahaha, well as it turns out the constitution is designed to curb public influence over the government. That is why only a third of the senate is elected every 2 years so there can be no populace take over, when it was first written senators were not even directly elected but that changed. The electoral college is another controlling mechanism and I personally do not see why a person living in delaware should have more influence over an election than I should.
As for where is it spelled out, well the Revolutionary War was fought over, among many things, unequal representation in the British parliament.

So if my premise is silly then I suppose you believe that corporations and highly organized minority movements should have more influence on capital hill then we do?


P.S. Within our congressional districts our representatives should represent our interests, thus we should have equal influence over their policy decisions as wall street when they get to the Ways and Means comittee.

 

[FreedomAli]

Democracy is mob rule. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper. Jackasses voting for jackals. What matters is a constitution that protects liberty and limits government power. And this limit of power only occurs to the extent the people are willing to oppose government, violently if need be. You should read Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy-the God that Failed".

 

[American Horse]

"where's the correlation between winning an election and personal wealth? Recall the recent California governor race and Meg Whitman versus Brown? If the public doesn't like the message no amount of high priced air time will win a high office. More important is how the media treats one candidate versus another."

Indeed, however a) Brown still spent 24million on his campaign which he had to wheel and deal to get at some level and b) The underlying message does not have to do with whoever spends more wins but giving the American citizens an actual stake in the election process. C) The majority of the senate makes over 7 figures.

And that odious affair has pertained since the 17th amendment; prior to that the choice of US Senators were made locally by legislators with very little espensive campaigning. Those appointments were far more transparent, and new legislators meant new electors to take a new look at the Senator to be sure he was working for the state vis-a-vis the union which is his or her primary duty in the federal republic which we have. Today US Senate seats are the most costly, next to the president's. They are able to hold office for much longer than before the 17th Amend which has enabled longevity in office and accrual of wealth.

 

[B. Kidd]

True, Bruce Ackerman suggested a system known as Voting with Dollars. The gist of it is that every voter gets a 50 dollar card to contribute to whichever candidate they choose. Thus the focus of politicians goes from fund raising events and pandering wall street to actually responding to constituents concerns and holding more public forum events to listen to the majority of the people that they represent.

where's the correlation between winning an election and personal wealth? Recall the recent California governor race and Meg Whitman versus Brown? If the public doesn't like the message no amount of high priced air time will win a high office. More important is how the media treats one candidate versus another.

That was Kalifornia.
Please use a supporting example that somewhat resembles the real world (like Bloomberg).

 

[American Horse]

True, Bruce Ackerman suggested a system known as Voting with Dollars. The gist of it is that every voter gets a 50 dollar card to contribute to whichever candidate they choose. Thus the focus of politicians goes from fund raising events and pandering wall street to actually responding to constituents concerns and holding more public forum events to listen to the majority of the people that they represent.

where's the correlation between winning an election and personal wealth? Recall the recent California governor race and Meg Whitman versus Brown? If the public doesn't like the message no amount of high priced air time will win a high office. More important is how the media treats one candidate versus another.

That was Kalifornia.
Please use a supporting example that somewhat resembles the real world (like Bloomberg).

I did consider Bloomberg, but with the peculiar nature of NY politics (HRC/Robert Kennedy) I discount it.

A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. He left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and ran for his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate. He was frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election, which fueled further speculation when he left the Republican Party There was also speculation that he would run as a vice-presidential candidate.
[...]
In the general election, Bloomberg received Giuliani's endorsement. He also had a huge spending advantage. Although New York City's campaign finance law restricts the amount of contributions which a candidate can accept, Bloomberg chose not to use public campaign funds and therefore his campaign was not subject to these restrictions. He spent $73 million of his own money on his campaign, outspending [Mark J] Green by five to one. One of the major themes of his campaign was that, with the city's economy suffering from the effects of the World Trade Center attacks, it needed a mayor with business experience.

Michael Bloomberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mark J. Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do the Wealthy Win Elections? - The Wealth Report - WSJ