Publicly financed elections.

[Brian37]

And here, I thought I would never meet someone on the internet who never heard of internet petitions being a thing. Or, the fact that the White House famously operates one.



That's just how people show off what team they root for. Yard signs don't sway elections.

Now, if you go and get these materials to print large quantities of yard signs so you can distribute them to others, or to place large quantities around town, that's a problem, if you're using unlimited amounts of private money. That's no more a restriction of free speech than laws against public urination.


No, your ludicrous example has proven me wrong. Let's sell votes!

Yard signs are speech and your argument basically comes down to you want to be able to control peoples speech based on your own ideas of what you think should be permissible and what shouldn't.

Typical liberal elitism.

Since when is thinking and being pragmatic "elitism". "Elitism" is when you hold all the money and think by virtue of that you know what is best for everyone else.

Do not mistake the political free market and losing with "elitism". Either people are allowed to compete for laws and economic policies or they are not. "Elitism" is merely your childish way of saying "I don't like it when other people vote".

If we are a diverse society, then economic views should reflect that diversity and not simply benefit the rich.

[Ryantology]

Yard signs are speech and your argument basically comes down to you want to be able to control peoples speech based on your own ideas of what you think should be permissible and what shouldn't.

Typical liberal elitism.

I don't live in this weird alternate universe of yours in which the United States Constitution specified that money = speech, so that's just your latest dishonest assertion.

If speech is money, how much are your lies worth?

[Heywood]

I don't live in this weird alternate universe of yours in which the United States Constitution specified that money = speech, so that's just your latest dishonest assertion.

If speech is money, how much are your lies worth?

Money facilitates the exercise of your first amendment rights. If money isn't effectively speech as you suggest, then the government could do away with freedom of the press by making it illegal to use money to buy a printing press.

I know you realize that money is necessary for campaigns to spread their messages as evidenced by your position that it should be the government who provides that money. Vocal cords aren't speech either but they are necessary to speak. Who ever controls the vocal cords....controls the speech. Who ever controls the money controls the speech. Wanting publicly financed campaigns is tantamount to wanting the government to control the messages in those campaigns.

[Chas]

I don't live in this weird alternate universe of yours in which the United States Constitution specified that money = speech, so that's just your latest dishonest assertion.

If speech is money, how much are your lies worth?

Money facilitates the exercise of your first amendment rights. If money isn't effectively speech as you suggest, then the government could do away with freedom of the press by making it illegal to use money to buy a printing press.

I know you realize that money is necessary for campaigns to spread their messages as evidenced by your position that it should be the government who provides that money. Vocal cords aren't speech either but they are necessary to speak. Who ever controls the vocal cords....controls the speech. Who ever controls the money controls the speech. Wanting publicly financed campaigns is tantamount to wanting the government to control the messages in those campaigns.

Nope. It levels the playing field for all, therefore the fairest, most equitable solution.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm unsure of the soundness of such a revision. Any system can be gamed. The point about transparency is pretty strong, though.


The last thirty years have seen inequitable rises; while the pie is growing, some shares are growing faster than others, as well.

While their slice might be proportionally smaller today than it was 30 years ago(in terms on income which is not a good measure) it is still a larger slice than it was 30 years ago. What would the poor rather have? Half a 6 inch pizza or one quarter a 24 inch pizza?

If you looked at the consumption pie instead of the income pie, I imagine the the poor's slice is growing proportionally faster than the rich's. I'm not sure how you would go about measuring this. Perhaps go and measure the amount that rich people throw away versus the amount that poor people throw away. The rich probably still throw more stuff away but the amount that poor people throw away is likely catching up.

MPC for poorer people is always higher than MPC for richer people. Measuring wealth in terms of MPC makes no sense in this instance because the poor will always have an MPC > MPW until their income (specifically income vis direct costs) rises to a bracket where they reach equilibrium or indeed the opposite is true (as it is for the comparatively rich).

It's in measuring a rate of increased MPW relative to MPC across income brackets that you determine wealth in this model, btw, however those income brackets are determined (indeed this is the key element and also the most subjective one). I would theorise, based on a context here in the UK where despite large levels of economic growth there has been little increase in social mobility and in fact a backwards trend in earnings, that the MPC for the poor has stayed more or less exactly the same but their ability to save [invest] (MPW) has dropped dramatically (low interest coupled with low credit creation and higher MPW in richer brackets).

[Heywood]

Nope. It levels the playing field for all, therefore the fairest, most equitable solution.

Negative Chas,

Publicly financed campaigns favor incumbents because it restricts the ability of the challenger to overcome the incumbents name recognition advantage.

[Cato]

The problem isn't the money spent in elections; it's the apathetic and ignorant electorate. If people can be swayed by the typical political advertisement, no amount of funding limitation can solve the problem. I'm more concerened with the way money influences votes after the election.

I honestly don't think spending a shit load of money during an election makes a big difference. Heywood, would you vote for a pro-choice candidate if he/she outspent a pro-life candidate 10 to 1? Similarly, I would find it impossible to vote for someone that denied evolution. There's also no way in hell today that an openly avowed atheist would get elected to national office no matter how much money was spent.

[Chas]

Nope. It levels the playing field for all, therefore the fairest, most equitable solution.

Negative Chas,

Publicly financed campaigns favor incumbents because it restricts the ability of the challenger to overcome the incumbents name recognition advantage.

"Name recognition" is probably over-rated. All names will be out there equally in an equal-money campaign.

[Heywood]

Negative Chas,

Publicly financed campaigns favor incumbents because it restricts the ability of the challenger to overcome the incumbents name recognition advantage.

"Name recognition" is probably over-rated. All names will be out there equally in an equal-money campaign.

Negative Chas....name recognition is huge. If the republicans hold a senate seat the democrats can pour a tremendous amount of money on an unknown to chip away at the republicans name recognition advantage. However if campaigns are financed by the government only it entrenches the incumbent.

Suppose I am an incumbent and my challengers and I only get to spend $500,000 to get our messages out to the voters per election. In 2010 I spend $500,000 and my challenger Clyde spends $500,000. I win the election. In 2012 I spend another $500,000 and my challenger Rupert spends $500,000. I win again. Going into 2014 I already have spent $1,000,000 dollars getting my message out to the voters. When I run against Matilda, $1,500,000 will have been spent over 6 years on spreading my message while only $500,000 will be spent over 2 years spreading Matilda's message.

Publicly financed elections do not level the playing field.

[Heywood]

The problem isn't the money spent in elections; it's the apathetic and ignorant electorate. If people can be swayed by the typical political advertisement, no amount of funding limitation can solve the problem. I'm more concerened with the way money influences votes after the election.

I honestly don't think spending a shit load of money during an election makes a big difference. Heywood, would you vote for a pro-choice candidate if he/she outspent a pro-life candidate 10 to 1? Similarly, I would find it impossible to vote for someone that denied evolution. There's also no way in hell today that an openly avowed atheist would get elected to national office no matter how much money was spent.

Money isn't literally speech but it is effectively speech. A flag isn't speech...it is a flag. Fire isn't speech it is fire. But flag burning is speech. The flag and the fire are things which are used to convey a message. Using Ryantology's thinking flag burning should not necessarily be protected because flags and fire are not literally speech. His thinking is ludicrous of course.

Your thinking is actually a bit more reasoned. Your basically saying that campaign donations amount to a bribe. The problem I have with your thinking is this. You assume that all corporate and or wealthy donors are donating with the intention of inducing a particular vote. And you are assuming that all candidates accept campaign donations from wealthy donors/corporations/ labor unions/ etc as payments for voting in a particular way. I don't believe this to be true