Seriously, GOP? Really?

[C0ckney]

I'm very much sure that I do not regard this as the lesser of two evils. It is an attempt to turn a multi-party system into one that banishes a significant portion of the electorate from prospects of influence in government. One could say it has all the markings of a single-party system where one party has two arms, and those outside never get a significant say.

It is much more vile and pernicious than attempting to influence who should be a candidate in a single constituency, or hand-full, for any given party.

yes indeed. tactical voting is one of the many reasons why we need a system of proportional representation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not sure thats true. Would Romney have been able to counter the surge from a sequence of other candidates without the huge money attack ads? Gingrich pretty much had him on the ropes until those TV campaigns.

You do realize that Romney is ridiculous rich, right? He could have done the same if he wanted to use his own money.

[Dinner]

I doubt it. He has something like $240 million but he's expected to spend around $1 billion in the main campaign not even counting what all those ads in the primaries cost.

[OzzyKP]

On the other hand, the total amount of money which must be spent to have a successful campaign will increase enormously.

Obviously this greatly increases the power that wealth provides in our democracy.

Campaign finance laws

JM

Honestly the only thing that would reduce the cost of campaigns is smaller districts (which won't happen). When you have 30,000 people in a district it is quite possible to do "retail politics" and go knock on doors and shake hands and talk to voters face to face. When you have 650,000 people in your Congressional district, or millions for a statewide office, or over a hundred million for president (tens of millions in swing states) it is impossible to reach them all cheaply. You have to reach them. Most voters won't know who you are or what you stand for. So how do you get your message out? You put ads on tv. You hire huge staffs. You send mailers out to all registered voters. You phone bank. All of this costs money. Lots of money. This country is huuuge with tons of people (third biggest country in the world by population). The only thing making campaigns expensive is our high population. Local campaigns, obviously, are a lot cheaper since there are less people to reach. Whatever reforms we pass it aren't going to change that reality.

[Jon Miller]

The amount spent on elections has not increased at the rate that population increased.

Try again.

JM

[Dr Strangelove]

I beleive that Super Tuesday is going to be a lot more important to the Republican Party this year than it has been in a long time.

[Felch]

The amount spent on elections has not increased at the rate that population increased.

Try again.

JM

WTF? How does that disprove Ozzy's thesis? Over time different technologies have changed the cost of running a campaign, so there are confounding variables when comparing campaigns in different years. But when you look at campaigns of different scales at the same time you see that Ozzy is right. Local campaigns can be run at much lower cost than national campaigns, and state wide races in Wyoming are a hell of a lot cheaper than in California. Population is a huge factor in the cost of campaigns.

[kentonio]

How is it a fair system when one candidate can spent 100 times the amount that another can and flood the airwaves with attack ads simply because large corporations back their campaign? Is this even vaguely democractic?

[Felch]

How fair is a system where people are told what they're allowed to say and when? How fair is a system where people are forced to pay for political ads that they disagree with? How fair is a system that restricts the rights of people to freely organize and spread their political views? Is that vaguely democratic?

[kentonio]

Yep. Its certainly more democratic than allowing unlimited financing to ensure that only those who sell their souls to big business can be elected to the highest office in the land.

[The Mad Monk]

I beleive that Super Tuesday is going to be a lot more important to the Republican Party this year than it has been in a long time.

I think that's good thing.

[giblets]

WTF? How does that disprove Ozzy's thesis? Over time different technologies have changed the cost of running a campaign, so there are confounding variables when comparing campaigns in different years. But when you look at campaigns of different scales at the same time you see that Ozzy is right. Local campaigns can be run at much lower cost than national campaigns, and state wide races in Wyoming are a hell of a lot cheaper than in California. Population is a huge factor in the cost of campaigns.

How has technological change made campaigning more expensive? My intuition is that the internet would allow campaigns to reach people with less cost.

[giblets]

We should put a tax on campaign donations. If we want the less wealthy to have a voice, we could even make the first $5000 in campaign donations an individual makes tax-exempt. The tax revenues would go towards paying down the national debt politicians have accumulated through their stupid campaign promises.

[Aeson]

How has technological change made campaigning more expensive?

He's not saying it has.

[notyoueither]

Me too actually, now you come to mention it..



How can you stop people voting for whoever they want tho? Obviously in a two party system like the US its just not an issue, but as soon as you have a three or more party system this is surely just inevitable? I also don't really see it as vile or penicious, if you are really ideologically opposed to a party but yours has no chance of victory, why wouldn't you vote for a party who shares some of your beliefs instead?

To be honest I dislike it, but purely because it means the lower party will never gain the support it needs to challenge, but I don't have any issues with it on moral grounds. If the second party wins, then a majority of people must want something other than the first party are offering.

How can you balme people for participating in the democratic process of choosing candidates?

I see the difference in seriousness because we have both happening here in Canada.

A handfull of ridings may have outsiders try to effect nominations. That may effect the actual nominee in one or two ridings (out of over 300) for one or two candidates (out of over 900 between the three major parties).

Tactical voting can effect who forms government for the entire nation, and is an attempt to shut out a significant portion of the population from influence in government. You don't see a difference in consequence?

yes indeed. tactical voting is one of the many reasons why we need a system of proportional representation.

I have no problem with it. Initially rightish parties would be shut out of government. The public would be exposed to the reality of greater influence in government from leftish parties. New, better alternatives would develop on the right. The right would return to power and be better equipped to govern well from time to time.