by Kolokol888 » Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:46 am
by Disbanded » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:42 am
by Kolokol888 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:23 pm
by Atanamis » Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:50 pm
by Kolokol888 » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:34 pm
by Atanamis » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:51 am
by Disbanded » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:21 am
Kolokol888 wrote:Well I see how that would be the obvious reaction, but a little shortsightet IMHO.
1. divide and conquer is a strategy thats as old as time itself and since the political system has already divided themselves it is too easy for 'the money' to conqur them one by one.
To suggest corporate interests could buy the parties is simply not true. Unions can't even do that and they are more powerfull than Exxon.
I believe your not giving unions or even oil companies enough credit sir. If you remember Obama's talk about not wanting to pass the pipeline deal until after the election cycle. It wasn't that he didn't want to pass it, he didn't want to pass it until after the election cycle. Why? Because he needs the votes of the environmentalists who tend to vote Democratic.
2. it's easy to just say no private money but please remember those 'public campaign funds' are paid for by the taxpayers. Well its easy to do that here in Denmark, but in America... I have to say thats a pipe-dream
It's actually not a pipe dream because funding them publicly would greatly reduce the amount of money going into campaigns. Election campaigns would only be months instead of years and it would be a drop in the hat for costs. Besides, although I have no proof of this, I am sure all the money that goes into privately funding a campaign is a giant tax right off anyway so in a way it is publicly funded but in a way that hurts more.
3. Its not about the money but rather about the parties ability to actually realise their campaign promises and subsequently the voters ability to hold them accountable.
It should never be about a party realizing it's goals but rather representatives acting in the best interest of the people they represent. That is the larger issue at hand IMO.
by Kolokol888 » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:08 am
by Atanamis » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:21 am
You are correct. But if I can't influence the party at all, I can't gradually start a movement. The only way to change the direction of the ship is to work on the party mechanisms over time. If I can get a reformist candidate in place though, being in office gives them a platform. They can endorse other candidates to run against the establishment and the voting public can create a change in the party or indeed a new party altogether over time. Neither approach is very quick and I honestly do understand the benefits of a strong party system, but I'm still not totally convinced to change my preference. (Which yes, means maybe you can do it.) After first researching strong party systems a number of years ago I immediately concluded they were the solution, but have drifted back to thinking there are a lot of advantages to picking out people rather than platforms as well. A person you can hope will be flexible enough in their decisions to adjust to changes, something a platform has a hard time doing. Choosing a person means you trust their judgement, not just their stated positions. Of course, choosing a platform means if the candidate doesn't do what they say the party can remove them. It should provide more reliability in what a person will do in office. And if change is needed, one hopes the party will do so quickly enough. It is an interesting dilemma.Kolokol888 wrote:To achieve change you need more than just to win an election - you need to have the votes in congress aswell and have the beaureacracy comply as well
by Kolokol888 » Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:00 am
by hondo69 » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:22 am
by reliables » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:59 pm