Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

Regarding campaign finance -

I wonder if a solution could be made along the lines of "Each candidate gets exactly 50 TV slots, 1000 newspaper slots, 1000 radio slots, 1000 mailbox stuffers. Each candidate gets the same amount of money to produce said slots.  Disqualification results immediately from any spending more than the allotted amount by a) you, b) on your behalf, c) in your support, or d) against your opposition."  So you can't have ads by third parties recommending you either, because they would eat up your allocation.

I would also define any ad against your opponent as an ad for yourself, so you can't game the system that way.

This does have the amusing, and I left it in intentionally, loophole that you could have people outside your organization just flooding the media with ads about the opponent; if you do that you run the risk of disqualifying your own candidate.

[wierd]

You keep acting like your point is really complex and hard to grasp and that's why we're not getting it.

and you keep acting like the number of people who have an axe to grind is small.

This piece was printed before the BLM protests.
https://theconversation.com/is-the-united-states-on-the-brink-of-a-revolution-123244

Keep that in mind as you read it.

The indicators are there, as the article points out.  How the chips will fall, is still a mystery.  Pretending that an insufficient number of people are ready to draw blood, from all sides of the divide, is arrogant and foolish; You need to cough up some numbers.

[Dostoevsky]

Regarding campaign finance -

I wonder if a solution could be made along the lines of "Each candidate gets exactly 50 TV slots, 1000 newspaper slots, 1000 radio slots, 1000 mailbox stuffers. Each candidate gets the same amount of money to produce said slots.  Disqualification results immediately from any spending more than the allotted amount by a) you, b) on your behalf, c) in your support, or d) against your opposition."  So you can't have ads by third parties recommending you either, because they would eat up your allocation.

I would also define any ad against your opponent as an ad for yourself, so you can't game the system that way.

This does have the amusing, and I left it in intentionally, loophole that you could have people outside your organization just flooding the media with ads about the opponent; if you do that you run the risk of disqualifying your own candidate.

This leaves open the question of ads that don't mention a candidate, but simply say e.g. "vote for gun rights" without mentioning a candidate. Or simply show each candidate's position on a topic without clearly showing support for either one (but perhaps subtly pushing a direction, or picking a TV slot that gets a certain sort of audience).

[MrRoboto75]

Again, just about everyone has a strong political leaning of one sort or another in the US

The vast majority of americans don't even vote.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, but some of them strongly don't vote. You'll discover this ideology very quickly if you volunteer for a campaign.

[wierd]

I was one of the "Strongly did not vote" last election. 

I considered a Trump vs Clinton ballot the worst of all possible ballots of 2016, and still think that today.  Would clinton have been a ribald fascist like Trump? Probably not-- but would she have stirred up a hornets nest with North Korea and Russia, and further imperiled the situation in the middle east?  You bet your fucking ass.


I voted for Biden with the greatest distaste I can muster;  A space mutant is quantitatively better than an eldritch abomination.  Trump has demonstrated himself an Eldritch abomination.  That does not mean I endorse space mutants for the presidency.

[MrRoboto75]

I endorse space mutants for the presidency.

[wierd]

Out of context thread material right there!

[feelotraveller]

The problem is the normalisation of violence as a political tactic.

Although it is not clear if it would be classed as violence pure and simple the (at least) intimidation of the biden bus in texas a couple of days back seems like a good example.  Although the FBI are currently investigating the incident, which has been claimed to have involved the side-swiping of a biden campaign vehicle (not the bus) by a trump convoy vehicle, I can't imagine that going far if trump is returned.  And the MAGA goon made the whole incident out to be a very good thing indeed.

Imagine if a campaign team* decides that this, or even more clearly violent acts are appropriate tactics.  That sets a standard for the future, regardless of the apathy of many americans.

Couple of links in case someone missed it:
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/01/930083915/trump-speaks-fondly-of-supporters-protecting-biden-bus-in-texas
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/fbi-investigating-after-pro-trump-convoy-surrounds-biden-campaign-bus-in-texas


* I would think they collectively qualify as having strong political allegiances.

[da_nang]

Regarding campaign finance -

I wonder if a solution could be made along the lines of "Each candidate gets exactly 50 TV slots, 1000 newspaper slots, 1000 radio slots, 1000 mailbox stuffers. Each candidate gets the same amount of money to produce said slots.  Disqualification results immediately from any spending more than the allotted amount by a) you, b) on your behalf, c) in your support, or d) against your opposition."  So you can't have ads by third parties recommending you either, because they would eat up your allocation.

I would also define any ad against your opponent as an ad for yourself, so you can't game the system that way.

This does have the amusing, and I left it in intentionally, loophole that you could have people outside your organization just flooding the media with ads about the opponent; if you do that you run the risk of disqualifying your own candidate.

What if you setup a fake supporter for your opposition who'll overspend on the opposition's behalf or in support of the opposition?

[wierd]

I believe that is just a surreptitious form of D), no?

[da_nang]

I believe that is just a surreptitious form of D), no?

I believe D would be for attack ads.

Supportive ads would fall under B or C. You'd have to prove the support is fake and done in co-operation, by hire, or by order, with the other party.

[wierd]

Conspiracies always come to light.  As such, you cannot undertake the proposition without being discovered, at least eventually.  Setting up an entire proxy organization requires lots of conspirators, dooming the conspiracy to a short life.

[Maximum Spin]

So, as a random independent not connected to either party, I can waste the money of any candidate I like and potentially get that candidate disqualified just by buying ads.

[JoshuaFH]

I just got done voting. I was prepared to spend all day in line surrounded by political zealots, but keeping in my town's tradition of being a peaceful and uninteresting place, it was very civil and uncrowded.

Honest to god my first time voting ever, as 4 years ago I was so sick as to be bedridden on election day; extremely rare for me, as I've been very healthy and rarely sick my entire life. Turns out it was a bad omen for the next 4 years. I'm glad I got to vote today, though I was extremely nervous throughout the entire thing, and honestly surprised at how simple it was.

The only thing I was really concerned about was the Presidential vote, though my ballot had all my local positions to vote on and then some. I know they're probably important, but just keeping up with national politics is time consuming and emotionally exhausting; how am I supposed to stay up-to-date on the politics of all these lesser losers? I just voted straight democrat, and I hope that's good enough to keep the country from exploding, though that might be asking too much still, it might explode all the same.