some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

[c1ue]

Re: Real Electoral reform

There are 435 representatives, so each one is 1/4% of the vote in a nationwide election. If libertarians get 5% of the vote, they would get 20 seats.

If we keep state level elections, California has about 40 reps. So each seat would be 2.5% of the California vote. In fact, states could elect representatives this way, if they wanted to.

This is certainly feasible, but of course you get the other side of the problem: who exactly is 'your' representative? How would this representative know anything about your specific local situation? Why would any given representative spend time with one person as opposed to another - especially if the 5% of voters is literally scattered across the entire United States?

Let's not forget that Europe is far more dense, as well as the population stable, than the United States.

The whole point is to get away from districts. Right now you have to win 51% in a district to get into the house. Only demublicans can do this. It's a virtual monopoly on state power. Only votes for demublicans are "not wasted" so people are not motivated to make real choices.

While the dynamic is true, how much of this is due to the influence of money? The national committees as well as the specific spending on candidates, IMO, is more of what skews results than any generalized Republican/Democrat split.

Europe's record:
Health care is much more cost effective than ours. Prescription drugs 1/10 the price of ours.
Food purity: better than ours (according to my wife).

Wars: bosnia et. al. are much smaller than Vietnam. So they've had much less military adventurism.

Their response to terrorism is also much more responsible than ours.
Military spending is much smaller than ours.
Foreign entanglements ("Israel obsession") much smaller than US.

Crime rate and incarceration rate are much lower than in the USA.

Every single item above can be equally ascribed to Asian Communist, Middle Eastern oligarchies, Central and South American democracies, and so on and so forth.

Even within the US itself - a mere 2 generations ago we had the Pecora commission, formation of Social Security, and so forth.

The US has had, for that matter, a 2 party system for literally centuries. Why have these problems only arisen now if the structural effects are so bad?

I'm not saying a change is without merit.

I'm merely noting that it is difficult to ascribe the present US situation to some long standing flaw in the system which can be fixed with a structural change, when neither the structural change can be conclusively shown to be better nor is it clear why the US having such problems due to said structural issues just now.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Real Electoral reform--why such problems now

I'm merely noting that it is difficult to ascribe the present US situation to some long standing flaw in the system which can be fixed with a structural change, when neither the structural change can be conclusively shown to be better nor is it clear why the US having such problems due to said structural issues just now.

There is no real competition or choice at the ballot box. That is why problems are not being solved, and that is what needs to be changed.
It has been better in the past (more goal oriented, less partisan), even though the system was the same.

I think the special interests have figured out how to game the system, and infiltrated both parties to such a degree, that the electoral system is highly dysfunctional. A multi-party system would go a long way to giving real choice at the ballot box.

Since both money and information are highly fungible, controlling campaign contributions will be quite difficult. How is it done in other countries?

However, rather than lowering the ceiling, public financing could raise the floor, and give the "non-FIRE" candidates a fighting chance.

As for face time, or personal pull, in some sense the pull I have is just my vote,
so what matters is just the number of voters behind each congressman, which is not changed. Of course, if they are elected nationally, my pull is dispersed among all of them. But I'd rather have candidates I agree with than candidates I have "pull" with.

[c1ue]

Re: Real Electoral reform--why such problems now

There is no real competition or choice at the ballot box. That is why problems are not being solved, and that is what needs to be changed.
It has been better in the past (more goal oriented, less partisan), even though the system was the same.

I think the special interests have figured out how to game the system, and infiltrated both parties to such a degree, that the electoral system is highly dysfunctional. A multi-party system would go a long way to giving real choice at the ballot box.

Since both money and information are highly fungible, controlling campaign contributions will be quite difficult. How is it done in other countries?

I don't think there is any gaming going on whatsoever. Between Citizens United and PACs, the bribe money is quite explicit.

The difference between today and the past was two-fold: that the link between campaign financing and electability was much weaker, and the use of campaign financing to gain economic advantage is much more explicit.

I suspect one big difference between the US and other nations lies in the media: most other nations have much of their television and radio programming under some form of government control or supervision.

I've never seen TV ads for candidates in Japan or Russia, for example. Perhaps the Europeans who frequent iTulip can comment on whether/how often TV ads for candidates in Europe are seen.

Contrast that with the US where TV ads for political issues/candidates/causes are nearly nonstop - only reducing in frequency 'out' of season.

As for public financing - frankly I don't see this as being much better. Public financing just pushes the power of the purse onto certain bureaucrats, not something I see as being of any benefit.

There are all sorts of ways by which a politician with a message can get his platform communicated; my view is still to get all money out of politics.

No donations of any kind for any reason accepted - only people's time.

[lektrode]

Re: Real Electoral reform--why such problems now

...
....
..
There are all sorts of ways by which a politician with a message can get his platform communicated; my view is still to get all money out of politics.

No donations of any kind for any reason accepted - only people's time.

+1

and FREE air time on the broadcast networks, as a PUBLIC SERVICE, for candidates to communicate their PLAN, with equal time for rebuttal and debate

and furthermore: ABSOLUTE LIMIT ON THE DURATION OF THE CAMPAIGN to 3 months before the elections - BANNING any stumping/grandstanding by the incumbents when congress is in session - along with moving the elections, if nec - but absolutely limiting to a 3month period to maybe... oh i dunno.. to during the summer months when little legislative activity is occurring - and/or delay congress' return/reconvening from summer 'recess' until after the first tues in november - other than that, END IMMED THE 2YEAR ELECTION/CAMPAIGN CYCLE that is causing NOTHING BUT PROBLEMS and distractions for both the politcal class as well as the electorate - so they can focus on what they are supposed to be doing in the beltway (vs the essentially endless campaign that most seem to be on, most of the time)

again, this is part of the 'magic of NH' in that the leg sesh is 30 days and then they go home and back to work for a living, like THE REST OF US - since they only get paid 100bux/year and dont have any time to screw around with lobbying etc.

[flintlock]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

Same thing has occurred across the board in Western Militaries.......VERY top heavy in comparison with 20/30/50/60 years ago when looking at "tooth" to "tail" ratios.

That's very interesting. Didn't realize they had gotten so top heavy, but I did figure the "teeth" have shrunk in relation to the tail.

[flintlock]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

Instead of layoffs, what if they reduced salaries?

In the face of decreasing revenue, it just seems one of the few logical alternatives.

Oh they have done that too. My wife had her salary cut and was glad to do it. Beats no job.

A local community college just announced today cutting over 200 jobs of un-tenured employees. According to the news, an investigation is on the way as to how they got so far in debt. I think a lot has to do with our culture of debt that makes those in charge look for ways to burn money in the good times instead of saving a little for a rainy day. Even so called "conservative" Republicans today are fiscally reckless compared to just a few decades ago. Debt has been twisted into something good regardless of the risks. Especially when done in the name of education. We lost the ability to discern between Wants and Needs.

[lektrode]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

.... a lot has to do with our culture of debt that makes those in charge look for ways to burn money in the good times instead of saving a little for a rainy day. Even so called "conservative" Republicans today are fiscally reckless compared to just a few decades ago. Debt has been twisted into something good regardless of the risks. Especially when done in the name of education. We lost the ability to discern between Wants and Needs.

+1
and whats happening in NH these daze illustrates it perfectly, where there's a battle going on tween the recent arrivals (mostly from just south of the southern border) comparing the 'backward/antiquated' methods that have kept the state/municpalities solvent for CENTURIES (with no sales and no income tax) and other places - that have both sales/income taxes, endless fees, huge deficits funding an apparently bottomless, dysfunctional and top heavy buracracy that still cant seem to do any better of a job than NH does in handling the simplest of functions - complete with legislatures that not only pay themselves handsomely, but flatly refuse to acknowledge how they got themselves into the sitch in the first place - never mind any real attempt to do anything about it? (cept rally the troops (public sector unions and out-of-state superpacs) to scream for even higher taxes ???

this is what the battle in WI, NJ and several others is all about - and THEN there's CA, IL, NY, MI etc

so far, NH (read: The Residents/taxpayers) is still winning (even tho they had to knuckle under and pass a 'state' property tax to fund school construction out in the less populous, less property-rich towns/counties, that the newer arrivals have moved into - after selling their expensive houses in high-tax locales and moving out into the country and then bitching about poor schools and wondren why they to take their own trash to the dump! ;)

[Polish_Silver]

Can laws define illegal campaigning?

my view is still to get all money out of politics.

BANNING any stumping/grandstanding by the incumbents when congress is in session

To have legal force, the activity must have a clear definition. If a politician gives a speech, is that stumping? I don't see how you can distinguish between "stumping" and a congressman saying a single word in public.

If GE buys NBC, and runs a bunch of solar friendly news stories, is that political?

The supreme court ruling, which every one hated, was based on two ideas:

1) There is no legal criterion to distinguish a campaign add from a news story.
2) There is no legal way to distinguish a media corporation from any other corporation.

(2) might be argued, for example, if the ownership had activities other than just running a TV station. (GE, Microsoft, Fox movies) We could also turn the clock back and require that all radio/tv broadcasters be locally owned, and limit the time spent on nationally syndicated programming.

(1) I think is correct. The newspaper accepts money for ads, and prints news to attract readers. But that is because there is no restriction on ads. If we restricted ads, individuals or groups would just acquire newspapers and run "news stories" friendly to thier ideas. I don't see how to prevent that
without eliminating the practice of "free speech". Freedoms like this have many negative aspects--not all abuses can be made illegal.

[c1ue]

Re: Can laws define illegal campaigning?

To have legal force, the activity must have a clear definition. If a politician gives a speech, is that stumping? I don't see how you can distinguish between "stumping" and a congressman saying a single word in public.

If GE buys NBC, and runs a bunch of solar friendly news stories, is that political?

The supreme court ruling, which every one hated, was based on two ideas:

1) There is no legal criterion to distinguish a campaign add from a news story.
2) There is no legal way to distinguish a media corporation from any other corporation.

(2) might be argued, for example, if the ownership had activities other than just running a TV station. (GE, Microsoft, Fox movies) We could also turn the clock back and require that all radio/tv broadcasters be locally owned, and limit the time spent on nationally syndicated programming.

(1) I think is correct. The newspaper accepts money for ads, and prints news to attract readers. But that is because there is no restriction on ads. If we restricted ads, individuals or groups would just acquire newspapers and run "news stories" friendly to thier ideas. I don't see how to prevent that
without eliminating the practice of "free speech". Freedoms like this have many negative aspects--not all abuses can be made illegal.

I had considered all of your points above before.

However, my conclusion is this: ultimately it is unnecessary to have some ironclad restriction against any form of subtle advertising.

To focus on whether a given commentator is really speaking to his 'speaking fee' or bribe or whatever as opposed to personal opinion - I don't have any problem with presuming innocence.

If, on the other hand, concrete proof can be provided, then there should be severe penalties - but the enforcement will be up to the law and to those harmed by said behavior, much as enforcement in most civil matters is prompted by fact based complaints.

The vast, overwhelming portion of spending on political advertisements, however, is not in the least bit subtle.

I'd also note that you are confusing corporate spending to promote a specific economic niche with corporate spending to promote a specific political agenda.

I don't care if GE spends ads touting solar power. Yes, in some sense the astroturfing has an effect, but this is frankly insignificant compared to the outright purchase of political action via campaign donations.

In my view, what needs to be done is to remove the 1st order effects of barrages of TV, radio, and billboard political ads. Once that is accomplished, it can then be assessed as to whether more subtle means must be legislated against.

Lastly I would note that free speech is a misnomer. To proclaim television ads or radio ads as free speech is a complete load of crock, because said ads are not freely expressed opinions of an individual. These ads are also not truly expressions of individual opinions so much as efforts to change other's opinions - and there is absolutely nothing enshrined concerning protection of the right to propagandize.

Furthermore there is no constitutional amendment protecting corporate free speech.

I reject the argument that corporations are people and have the same rights as people because for one thing, corporations don't die nor are they subject to the same criminal penalties as people.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Can laws define illegal campaigning?

The vast, overwhelming portion of spending on political advertisements, however, is not in the least bit subtle.

I'd also note that you are confusing corporate spending to promote a specific economic niche with corporate spending to promote a specific political agenda.

The political ads are not subtle because there is no advantage for them to be subtle. If direct ads were restricted, they would suddenly become subtle, and you would face the very difficult challenge of distinguishing between "ad" and "slanted news".

And what kind of "proof" could distinguish between these two explanations for the words spoken?
At that point, you are not prosecuting based on facts, but on inferred motivations.

GE's political agenda is to promote the economic activities it can profit from. It doesn't care which party or politician is in, as long as they support it's business activities.

What about the national association of realtor ads explaining how many jobs are created when Home is purchased, and what a great investment buying a house is? Then they go on to say that "home ownership is in danger", etc.

As for Russia, the media is mostly state controlled, so the news is the ad.

Japan is an interesting question.

[c1ue]

Re: Can laws define illegal campaigning?

The political ads are not subtle because there is no advantage for them to be subtle. If direct ads were restricted, they would suddenly become subtle, and you would face the very difficult challenge of distinguishing between "ad" and "slanted news".

I'm afraid I disagree.

Prior to the advent of mass television, radio, and billboard advertising in politics, all of the 'subtle' means you noted above existed and in fact were used.

Programs on these various media were never 'free' in that sense - there have always been sponsors and benefactors and management preference.

Yet it is only after the secular changes into mass barrages of media advertisements that the bankster (and other lobbying groups) campaign donations really came into their own.

I don't personally see any merit in your attempt to conflate the scalpel of 'subtle' political positioning which has always been there vs. the hammer of today's reality. You're again trying to argue that there's no point in doing anything because there's no point and it is impossible to enforce, when in fact there is historical precedent as well as clear lines of delineation where such action is possible.

As for Japan and Russia - I only speak to those because those are the nations I have spent sufficient time to be able to say. Mega might comment on how common outright political ads are on BBC TV or radio, and others can comment on French, German, or other European nations. We know in China they don't bother either.

[Polish_Silver]

Changes I want.

I don't personally see any merit in your attempt to conflate the scalpel of 'subtle' political positioning which has always been there vs. the hammer of today's reality. You're again trying to argue that there's no point in doing anything because there's no point and it is impossible to enforce,

I support these changes:
1) public financing of campaigns, on a proportional basis.
2) recognized parties getting free TV And radio time, a system used in Germany for many years.
3) A proportional representation system.

By the way, there have been times when voting was not "secret" but was done by voice, or colored pieces of paper. Voters were heckled or jeered by opponents, so "hammer" is not a new thing. \Votes were not secret until 1888. The time period 1865-1888 was one of the most dynamic and innovative, because several parties had significant votes.


Other changes, which might work:
require disclosure of funding for ads/news articles.
But still, how do you distinguish between an article about Romney and an ad for him? Most people would be more persuaded by a favorable article, than a straightforward ad, but that is exactly what is hard to prohibit.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Changes I want.

transcript is worth a read...
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/98...-on-dark-money

BILL MOYERS: Do you think there's a connection between Citizens United and what happened in Wisconsin?

MONIKA BAUERLEIN: There's a direct connection. There is absolutely no doubt about it. When you look at the money that flowed into that campaign. That was made possible in part by Citizens United because Citizens United wiped out the clean elections laws in states like Wisconsin and wiped out a tradition of disclosure. People were able to play the game in a way that they would never have been able to had Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and the rest of the Citizens United majority not paved the way for them.

BILL MOYERS: You say something in your joint editorial, "The right recognizes something that few on the left recognize. That campaign finance law underlies all other substantive law." What does that mean?

CLARA JEFFERY: It doesn't matter whether your primary issue is Second Amendment issues or abortion rights or the environment. All of those policies are made by politicians that are now deeply and unhappily influenced by the kind of money that's sloshing through the system. So essentially you can create the regulatory landscape that you want if you can, essentially, buy elections.