There's a lot of good discussion in this forum, and I'm curious how politically active people here are.
Poll: How politically active are you?
- Thread starter Rekonn
- Start date
Economic contribution is counter-productive and should not be used as a measure of political involvement.
Instead, give me options for how many hours of research you put into voting, how many laws you've personally helped write, how many politicians you talk to in a week, how many positions with national political organizations you've held, how much campaigning you've done for causes or candidates, etc.
THOSE are the measure of how politically active someone is.
Instead, give me options for how many hours of research you put into voting, how many laws you've personally helped write, how many politicians you talk to in a week, how many positions with national political organizations you've held, how much campaigning you've done for causes or candidates, etc.
THOSE are the measure of how politically active someone is.
Generally write my Senator once a week. My rep about the same. Contribute a few thousand dollars a year to those I support on a federal level only (senate rep).
My vote is only a vote, I demand they represent my concerns and i do that with written word and money.
My vote is only a vote, I demand they represent my concerns and i do that with written word and money.
Why do you think contributing money is counter-productive? Wouldn't you want to help those that best represent your views get elected?
If you read regularly to educate yourself, then I think the first option is for you. If you debate regularly to try to convince others to see a certain point of view on issues, then I think that would fit under the time contribution option I just added.
I participate in this little online forum called atp&n. I always sway people with piercing observations. Problem is that things change daily and it can get exhausting.
I contribute half of my salary to politicians via corporations that make the wonderful products I purchase. Unless one has control of 100mil+ with which you can demand results from the campaign, you're pissing your money away.
I contribute half of my salary to politicians via corporations that make the wonderful products I purchase. Unless one has control of 100mil+ with which you can demand results from the campaign, you're pissing your money away.
Nah, I'm too cynical about the whole shebang. No one's interested in real debate; it's all proving a point or sticking someone.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
I missed a special election vote for a mayor in 1982, that was the only time i missed voting in an election since 1974. I rarely donate money to politicians, but do donate occasionally to causes i support.
Fuck no, because there is NO ONE who represents my views. The ENTIRE system is corrupted. Parties are inherently destructive to democracy, and less than 5+ parties makes meaningful government impossible.
Money is the total corruption of the system. Because private campaigning is allowed, because politics is a paid career option, because special interests are allowed to give money and gifts, etc. Our entire nation is fucked seven ways from Tuesday because some ignorant asshat had the bright idea of interweaving politics with money. There should be a wall between the two that makes the great wall of china look like a lego diorama.
I live in CA, and sometimes submit an email via senator Boxer or Feinstein's website. I get a form letter back sometime later that is just a copy/paste depending on the subject (topic selected from drop down) and has almost nothing to do with what I wrote. When you write your Senator, do you get a real response? Do you do something different than I do?
You give them a good chunk of your wages, wow, my suspicions on kickback have been justified on you.
The system is rigged for the rich to have disproprtionate influenc, by making money the 'mother's milk of politics' as Jesse Unruh said, because the can and do donate more.
So, the system results in a small group who provide the money having a dominant influence, the opposite of democracy.
This is why I've quoted a saying, "Politicians have to LOOK good for voters, and DO good for donors."
It's not that the politicians are total sellouts in most cases, but more that the ones whose views just happen to align with the donors get elected.
You have three main choices:
- Don't donate, and get lip service ("Thank you for your letter, Mr. Citizen.")
- Donate, and if the public more broadly did this they could turn it around. They won't.
- Fix the system to block money - which comes from a few - from dominating who gets elected.
Sorry, but a well-funded toad tends to get elected over a poorly funded prince. That's the effect of the powerful advertising industry - which makes billions from political ads.
Campaign finance reform wants to change the rules that got the people in office elected. Think it might be an uphill battle?
But until it's passed, the system is changed, you as a citizen can and should donate, because if more citizens did, the government would serve them, not the narror interests.
The citizen who holds their nose up and says they won't donate is doing just what the special interests want them to do - leave the narror interests with the influence.
Look at Bernie Sanders, a politician who refuses corporate donations, for an example of what a politician can do when freed of the need for corporate money.
A couple people have brought up the need for finance reform, but doesn't that law already exist? (McCain/Feingold) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that limit an individual contribution to $2400 per primary and $2400 per general election? What more should be done?
For those that think elections should only be funded through public financing - would your ideal reform prevent a candidate from refusing the public money and raising funds on his/her own?
For those that think elections should only be funded through public financing - would your ideal reform prevent a candidate from refusing the public money and raising funds on his/her own?
The PACs make McCain/Feingold not even exist.
Giving PACs the same right as individuals is before the Supreme Court now.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Yes. The elections should be TIGHTLY controlled as a public function, and NOT a popularity contest or marketing campaign. It should be COMPLETELY restricted to factual debate and ideological comparisons. The ONLY 'campaigning' should be equal, and public.
Freshgeardude
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 4,506
- 0
- 76
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter