Fair enough, but they're still not good examples.
Over here you need a certain number of signatures to even run in elections? Isn't it the same in USA? Anyway, if you can actually run in elections, you're real enough.
Yes, but that's not exactly a great metric. In most states, you need to get about 10000 signatures; in small states like Rhode Island all you have to do is file within a certain time period. That's to get on each state ballot mind you, because federal elections are still state functions. So do you give money to each candidate in each state? Then you could get an election like 1860, where you have a President that large parts of the country didn't even see on the ballot. Specifically, you'd see presidential candidates spending their limited campaign cash only in the populous states, and the rest of the country left out in the cold. It could still work for congressional candidates I guess.
There's also the important knee-jerk response. Do you have any idea how much money it costs to put all those ads on TV? Even if the government were dolling out specific amounts to the "real" candidates and advertisers had to offer flat rates regardless of affiliation (as they already have to do, it's worth mentioning), it would still require millions of dollars if you expect an entire field of signature gatherers to even get their names out to people. It could possibly work if the entire campaign process, from advertising to spending and so forth, was an equitably regulated government function, but otherwise it's hard to say how any number of candidates could ever run under such a system, let alone fairly.
However, that brings up the real political reason America will never have government funded elections. There's not a person in America who isn't disgusted with the amount of money spent on election campaigns as is, and the only reason it's palatable is that there's really no one to blame but the voters themselves, since it's all donated money being spent. Ergo, yeah it's ridiculous, but if you don't like the guy it's no skin off your back. Would equal funding of campaigns be even a drop in the bucket compared to the national budget? No, but that's not the point. Forget socialism or unregulated spending or whatever. Just telling people that their tax dollars will now be used to advertise candidates they hate will make the country literally burst into flame. Myself included, if only because I can see what an easy avenue it would be to exclusionary corruption of handpicking who will have the money to campaign.
I must say, as someone outside of the US i find your primary election thingo most confusing and strange. Here, the party chooses a leader in a single vote. (admittedly, that's for a prime minister, not president) simple as that. None of this month long, money costing thing, just a simple 15 minute vote.
The primary/caucus system, as limited as it is, provides some semblance of determining who gets to run for offices by actual popular vote, instead just being appointed by the parties' internal leadership. That's how America used to do things, and it got more or less outlawed in many states, hence the primaries. There's politically practical reasons for this, namely by letting voters, specifically the most dedicated voters, elect the candidates you're likely to have a stronger turn-out in the general election because your party's supporters actually care about who their voting for, instead of it just being some flunky who knows how to work the partyhall.
There was a lot of noise made in the 2008 presidential primaries, about the weird and arcane processes the two main parties used to select their national candidates (much of which is likely to be changed by 2012), and that if it were left up to chairmanships instead of voting, the election would have been Hillary Clinton versus Mitt Romney instead. Whether that's true or you think it would be good or ill, it would definitely make for a very different electoral atmosphere.
If they do work, then why is it fair that the party that happens to have the supporters with the highest income is more advantaged? Isn't an election about determining who has the most support by people going out there and voting, not by determining who has the richest supporters?
Just keep reading until it sinks in. Yes, elections are about people voting, but you need lots of ad money to get more people to vote for you. Statistically speaking, to he with the greater campaign treasury goes the election.
Now then, I'd like to point out a little phenomenon that proves I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and that's not even really a conspiracy. When people talk about corporate campaign cash, it's often presented as the big evil business barging into fresh-faced Congressman Smith's office and cramming money down his throat until he votes like they want. Or at least, that the idealist you elected only gets burned out after years of struggling for relevancy. Turns out, no. It's a great inductive causality that a representative democracy is essentially government by egomaniacs, because you have to full of yourself to think you're the best qualified person in your district/state/country to hold the office in the first place.
Among the many responses, the
Citizens United vs. FEC decision elicited an open letter to Congress, using very pointed and forceful language to decry the amount of time and effort spent drumming up campaign donations. It wasn't sent by any voter's circuit or political rally, it was sent by the directors of over forty corporations, from Hugh Hefner to Ben & Jerry themselves. Their message-
"Dammit, we're not giving you any more money. Now go back to work you bums."Yes, whatever convinced the Supreme Court in its decision, there was no small number of congressmen hoping for this outcome. On the one hand, it's depressing because now you can bet that any meaningful new campaign finance legislation is likely already dead. On the other hand, it's finally reach the point that a significant number of large American businesses are
themselves fed up with incessant demands by representatives to be wined and dined for their votes. Puts things in a very interesting perspective.
Author
Topic: U.S. Supreme Court - Party Like It's 1899 (Read 6792 times)