Which governmental system better represents the electorate?

Getting your message out costs money.

Getting your message out is a freedom you are guaranteed.

How do you limit the money without limiting the freedom of political speech?

0 Replies

By doling out equal amounts to the candidates and allowing them full articulation of their message in that way. If they can't get their message across without corruption and venality, they don't deserve to be elected.

0 Replies

And what if I want to support one of those messages? Would you prohibit me from making my political voice heard as I choose?

Would you take money from Emily's List and divvy it up equally among candidates, including those who do not support the things that those who gave to Emily's List support?

0 Replies

Your political voice is heard in the voting booth, Scrat. Emily's list works just fine developing future candidates.

0 Replies

Tart - If you meant to answer my questions, you did not. You are free to choose not to do so, of course, but I suspect you avoid them because you are smart enough to recognize where they lead. I believe that what you advocate means the death of free speech. (I have come to realize that there are many today who do not really believe in free speech, preferring that only those with whom they agree have the right to speak their mind and be heard, but I don't think that you are one of these.)

If I want you to represent me, and I want to give you a dollar for your campaign expenses, that is my right. If the government bars me from giving you that dollar, they have taken away my right to freely express my political will--the core of free speech. I don't disagree that money from unscrupulous sources can corrupt politics, but you don't fix that problem by taking away free speech.

And on the flip side, I assume you would use tax dollars to fund campaigns. It is unconstitutional to take my tax dollars and use them to fund a political campaign that I do not support. (How would you like your tax dollars used to fund Bush's reelection campaign?) Always has been, and unless you think free speech is an anachronism, always will be.

Oh, and Emily's List spends MILLIONS funding real, existing campaigns, having given over $2M in 2000 and over $2M in the 2002 elections. Would it surprise you to know that Emily's List gave more to campaigns in 2002 than the NRA? Would you really endorse taking away the right of women to pool their resources and have a collective political voice to shape elections and policies?

0 Replies

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Scrat! Wow -- how unusual!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

nimh wrote:
Two additional alternatives get too little credit, I think. [..]

Second: in Russia, they have an additional option on the ballot. You can vote, if you want, Unity or Union of Rightists or Communist - but you can also vote "against all the above". [..]

n 1993 4,2% voted "against all". In 1995, 2,8% did so.

I just discovered that one American state actually has this option as well. The printed ballots in Nevada actually include the option to vote for "NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES". In 1996, 5,608 voters did so - 1,2% of the total number of votes. Quite a lot, actually, I think!

Source: http://www.ballot-access.org/1996/allvotes96.html

I read in the newspaper today that in last weekend's Russian elections - unsurprisingly, considering the extent they were "concerted" or even 'bogus' elections - not just was turnout down a further 6% to 56% - but some 2,8 million Russians used the option to vote "against everybody".

That's a baffling 4,6% or 4,8% (I don't remember which) of the voters - baffling if you realise these people took the voluntary step to go to the viting booth, just to cast a vote against everyone. Just to compare: the two main liberal/pro-Western/free-market parties, Yabloko and the SPS, polled respectively 4,3% and 3,9%.

0 Replies

a couple of things.
opposed to mandatory voting but election day should be a national holiday.

and i propose this comprimise...
1. use instant runoff voting for the presidental elections. the problem with our current system is that voting for a 3rd party, basically automatically throws away your vote. san francisco is using IRV for their 2004 city elections.

2. use the parliamentary system for the house, by state. it would still be a 2 party system in states with few seats but states like california could easily see a 3rd and even 4th party.

3. same system for the senate. but it would be a bit more interesting. people would be voting for both seats of each state at the same time. it would be difficult for a party to take both seats. in most states it would be 1 democrat and 1 republican.

0 Replies

Solutions?
I can't figure out a better solution for the Electoral College. Doing away with it doesn't seem like it would make anything better.

I feel that the House seats should be 4 yrs.Also the Senate.

"I don't disagree that money from unscrupulous sources can corrupt politics, but you don't fix that problem by taking away free speech." Scrat

Solution?

I feel that the lobbiest system should be abolished.

They now have the matching funds situation. I feel that this should be abolished. Campaigns of all parties funded by the Govt. Free TV. and Radio debate time.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Scrat! Wow -- how unusual!

I'm just puzzled as to what it is we disagree on in this case. (I assume you agree that free speech is important and not to be trifled with lightly.)

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

1. use instant runoff voting for the presidental elections. the problem with our current system is that voting for a 3rd party, basically automatically throws away your vote. san francisco is using IRV for their 2004 city elections.

I would support a ballot option for instant run-off voting, but assume that any voter would have the option of voting for a single candidate and not be forced to select a second--run-off--choice.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

How do you limit the money without limiting the freedom of political speech?

The Supreme Court framed the question differently today in their decision on McCain-Feingold:

Quote:

The Supreme Court handed down today the most important ruling in a generation on the place of money in politics, upholding a law that bars national parties from raising huge amounts of unregulated "soft money" that many people say has corrupted the American political process.

A 5-to-4 majority upheld most provisions of the McCain-Feingold Law, finding that the law's ban on soft-money donations was not an unconstitutional curb on free speech, as its opponents have argued, but rather a legitimate response to perceptions that big money has stained the political system. (emphasis PDiddie's)

0 Replies

How wonderful that Supreme Court decisions are now being crafted to respond to public perceptions. Here I thought they were supposed to consider the law. Sad

The Supreme Court has no mandate to help the public feel better about reality (which seems to be their intention here). Their job is to decide whether or not the law passes Constitutional muster. Once again, it appears (based on PD's very limited citation) they screwed the pig.

0 Replies

Scrat

Quote:

How wonderful that Supreme Court decisions are now being crafted to respond to public perceptions. Here I thought they were supposed to consider the law.

That is not always true. There are times in their supposed interpreting of the law it is done based upon their political persuasion and yes public perceptions when they are mirrored by members of the court. . If the written constitution was the only basis it would be 9 to O. Not as many time happens 5 to 4. In areas where the constitution is unclear or where the is no clause to govern the USSC makes the law.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

If the written constitution was the only basis it would be 9 to O.

I disagree. Two judges might consider a passage of the Constitution and disagree on its intent. (Sadly one of the judges generally is looking for a way to get around that clear intent, but that's another discussion.)

au1929 wrote:

In areas where the constitution is unclear or where the is no clause to govern the USSC makes the law.

You are absolutely correct, and they are absolutely wrong to do so. COURTS SHOULD NEVER MAKE LAWS. That is not their role. If the Constitution gives no guidance on an issue that is what they should report. The fact that the Constitution doesn't speak to an issue doesn't mean the justices have carte blanche to effectively write new amendments to the Constitution (which is precisely what they are doing when they "make the law" as you write.), it means that the Constitution takes no position on the issue before them, and they who speak for that document should likewise take no position.

0 Replies

Scrat pops off this little rant about the Supreme Court every couple of weeks or so. It's a real cockleburr under his saddle.

I am of the mind that the law, like everything else in this forum and in life, can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

The Supreme Court isn't going to make everyone happy. Evidence:

Quote:

Just moments after former Vice President Al Gore endorsed former Vermont Governor Howard Dean for President in Harlem yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned his endorsement by a 5-4 margin.

The Court, finding the former Vice President's endorsement of Mr. Dean unconstitutional, transferred his endorsement to President George W. Bush instead.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, "There's really no explanation necessary - we're the Supreme Court, and if you don't like it, you can stick it where the moon don't shine."

USSC overturns Gore's endorsement of Dean :wink:

0 Replies

PD - In this specific silly little rant, I was responding to the notion that it's okay for the court to write laws. I think this decision was wrong, but certainly recognize that it's a matter of a difference of opinion as to the law. (Though they seem to be concerned about public opinion according to your citation, something I don't think belongs in their thinking.) But the as to this narrower issue to which I responded... Are you seriously going to claim the the courts are in fact supposed to make laws?

0 Replies

Money Talks?
Funding campaigns is considered speech?

0 Replies

Re: Money Talks?

pistoff wrote:

Funding campaigns is considered speech?

Yes, it is; by me, by lots of other people, and by the entire US Supreme Court, if that matters to you.

If I limit your ability to get your message out, I infringe on your right to free speech. If I limit your ability to help your candidate get his or her message out, I infringe on your right to free speech.

Even the 5 Supremes who ruled McCain-Feingold constitutional recognize this fact in their decision. The majority wrote, in part, that they believed the precedent set in Buckley V. Valeo applied here, and that the restriction McCain-Feingold places on free speech is "only a marginal restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication". Note that the justices called it "only a marginally restriction" as opposed to ruling that it did not restrict free speech at all. Essentially, they argued that they thought the amount to which it limits free speech is acceptable and within the standards set by the Buckley precedent. (I am inclined to disagree, but that's a different issue.)

Here's a link to the text of the decision. Please check my facts and get back to me if you disagree: MCCONNELL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N

0 Replies

Freedom of Speech
A quick word on that Supreme Court decision upholding parts of the campaign finance reform act. Do you know that if you and a group of your friends decide you want to pool your money and buy an ad on radio or television during the last weeks of a campaign to promote one candidate or another, you will not be permitted to do so? Face it ... you lost some of your freedom of speech yesterday. Do you care?

0 Replies

Which governmental system better represents the electorate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know