Should we amend the Constitution to prevent the influence of big money in elections?

[OldGoat]

Isn't it funny he has no problem keeping people from voting but when you broach the subject of incentivizing people to vote he's fully against it.

Like I said a million times. The guy is a Fn gem.

The point is if you are too dumb to value your vote for what it is, you are too dumb to vote. We had a war for self representation where people died and lost everything. Now we have an ingrateful and frankly stupid subset of the nation that wouldn't vote unless they get paid? F that.

 

[Like A Bas]

Secede? Ah poor little Bas wants a monolithic nation of HIS point of view. You're probably a free speech advocate as well. To the point you disagree with what is being said.

I'd like the Confederate point of view to wither away and die, or export itself permanently, yes. Sooner the better. If you want to call what's left over as all being my point of view, that would make me rather schizophrenic.

Though it's telling that you view me so monolithically, as if I loom over you. I'll fold that up and put it in my pocket the next time I need a good laugh or run out of TP.

 

[OldGoat]

I'd like the Confederate point of view to wither away and die, or export itself permanently, yes. Sooner the better. If you want to call what's left over as all being my point of view, that would make me rather schizophrenic.

The fact that you call my POV confederate would put you in the too stupid to vote camp. I'm not asking for an iq test. Just 10 Obama bux.

 

[kpt018]

Yeah, bribing the ignorant, dumb, and lazy even more to vote will lead to a better system. I think we should do the opposite, charge people $10 to vote. If you can't afford that each election your inability to manage your life is so poor it ought to disqualify you from imposing your worldview on others.

Yeah, because only superior intellects like yourself should be allowed to vote

And a big LMAO to your criteria for being allowed to vote. But of course you support voter suppression.

 

[Snackbar]

The point is if you are too dumb to value your vote for what it is, you are too dumb to vote. We had a war for self representation where people died and lost everything. Now we have an ingrateful and frankly stupid subset of the nation that wouldn't vote unless they get paid? F that.

The problem is not the democrat voters, the problem is their elected officials.

I vote conservative because I see tangible gains when my elected official wins.

If Democrats want to see higher turn out from the young, the poor, and the minorities then follow through and tackle the issues of concern to these voters.

Its not a matter of stupidity or laziness, it is potential voters knowing that they are wasting their time.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Like I said Ur talking out Ur ass

Says the guy who throws out the econ 101 axiom that is only designed to simplify basic learning for the totally uninitiated. If you really don't know that businesses do things like donate to charity, give generous benefits, develop socially and environmentally responsible practices in spite of increased costs, and create products for reasons like vanity rather than profit I'd suggest doing some research. It happens out there in the real world. You should also be aware that not every business is going to fit your conception of the evil "big business" corporation.

Looking at your text-like post it's my guess you've never even sniffed a conversation revolving around business decisions. But if you've got some personal experience I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Like A Bas]

The fact that you call my POV confederate would put you in the too stupid to vote camp. I'm not asking for an iq test. Just 10 Obama bux.

What is an Obama Buck?

I haven't seen one of those. Although if you get your way, I think it's only fair we put his pretty face on the 10.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't know that $10 is going to change the economics of voting.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=576&type=educator

Although an informed citizenry is desirable from a social point of view, it's not clear that individuals will find it personally desirable to become politically informed. The reason has to do with cost. Obtaining detailed information about issues and candidates is a costly endeavor. Many issues are complicated, and a great deal of technical knowledge and information is necessary to make an informed judgment on them. To find out what candidates really believe (and how they will act on those beliefs if elected) requires a lot more than listening to their campaign slogans. It requires studying their past voting records, reading a great deal that has been written either by or about them, and asking them questions at public meetings. Taking the time and trouble to do these things is the cost that each eligible voter has to pay personally for the benefits of being politically informed.

 

[OldGoat]

Yeah, because only superior intellects like yourself should be allowed to vote

And a big LMAO to your criteria for being allowed to vote. But of course you support voter suppression.

We all value voter suppression to some degree. You make it sound like not having mr downs vote is a mortal sin. The truth is the left wants the vote of the lazy and uninformed in order to maintain power over the apparatus of the state. You, bas, jvs are all just useful idiots for the left.

 

[OldGoat]

What is an Obama Buck?

I haven't seen one of those. Although if you get your way, I think it's only fair we put his pretty face on the 10.

That's a fair trade! Sacawaje or however you spell that shouldn't be the only diversity in American currency.

 

[SpidermanISGOAT]

No.

Because other wise then the opinion of the average American might actually mean something. I frankly don't want that. It is best when our politicians can 8/10 be bought out by mega rich shadow bankers/donors to support an agenda that they might not have normally supported.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you would like to see the political future of your nation decided by people who only showed up because 10 bucks was on the table?

First of all, the issue is reducing the influence of big money. If you *like* big money influencing policy, that's an entirely different discussion. Let's first acknowledge the obvious truth that greatly increasing election turnout (especially non-presidential election turnout) would, in fact, reduce the influence of big money. Then we can move on.

The parties need to show voters that their vote actually led to positive changes that were promised throughout elections, instead of the lip service, "same as the old boss" garbage we get now.

For the most part, it's just people who don't understand or follow what's going on who think that elections don't matter.

The public education system needs to actually teach high school kids bipartisan democracy in detail.

Or just throw ten bucks at everyone and have P Diddy and Brad Pitt tell us to rock the vote.

The precise means of achieving much higher turnout isn't as important as the goal. You can impose a fine for not voting if you'd prefer. And, yes, of course education is good. I don't think you'll find anyone outside of some religious nuts arguing that more education isn't good.

We all value voter suppression to some degree. You make it sound like not having mr downs vote is a mortal sin. The truth is the left wants the vote of the lazy and uninformed in order to maintain power over the apparatus of the state. You, bas, jvs are all just useful idiots for the left.

We don't all value voter suppression, and the left has been constantly fighting for improved public education against Southerners who don't think fancy book larnin' (in their dialect) is worth the cost.

 

[Happiness]

Offering $10 to voters (money that would in large be spent back into the economy) is bribing people to vote but offering billions in tax cuts to incentive people to vote and give you money to run your campaign is just good ol fashion politics. What we never want is those who feel as if thier voice is meaningless to have to be paid to vote. Its all so transparent.

 

[Snackbar]

First of all, the issue is reducing the influence of big money. If you *like* big money influencing policy, that's an entirely different discussion. Let's first acknowledge the obvious truth that greatly increasing election turnout (especially non-presidential election turnout) would, in fact, reduce the influence of big money. Then we can move on.

I disagree. Higher voter turn out would just lead to more big money coming from a more diverse list of big sources.

For the most part, it's just people who don't understand or follow what's going on who think that elections don't matter.

Really?? How is that whole Change thing working out for you these days?

We don't all value voter suppression, and the left has been constantly fighting for improved public education against Southerners who don't think fancy book larnin' (in their dialect) is worth the cost.

Love them or hate them you have to admit, Republicans know how to reward their base. People who vote Republican do so because they benefit directly from the vote.

Imagine if Democrats got 1/10th in return from their elected officials that Republicans do.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I disagree. Higher voter turn out would just lead to more big money coming from a more diverse list of big sources.

If there were any merit to this thinking he would have already supplied some stats and graphs. Not only is it silly to pay people to vote, there's no evidence supporting the assertion that it would negate the influence of money.

At least when it comes to one major Democratic initiative (gay marriage) the higher voter turnout worked against them. Gay marriage doesn't seem to play as well with minorities as it does white folk.

 

[kpt018]

We all value voter suppression to some degree. You make it sound like not having mr downs vote is a mortal sin. The truth is the left wants the vote of the lazy and uninformed in order to maintain power over the apparatus of the state. You, bas, jvs are all just useful idiots for the left.

WTF?! Uh, no, we don't all value voter suppression. Do you even listen to yourself? You value voter suppression so that the right can gain power to serve the will of the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else. I thought you were trolling before but you're just a tool.

 

[djacobox372]

The only reason big money has any say is because the average american is too damn cheap to give to politics.

If each person gave $5 with their vote, there would be no need for big $$.

 

[kpt018]

I disagree. Higher voter turn out would just lead to more big money coming from a more diverse list of big sources.



Really?? How is that whole Change thing working out for you these days?





Love them or hate them you have to admit, Republicans know how to reward their base. People who vote Republican do so because they benefit directly from the vote.

Imagine if Democrats got 1/10th in return from their elected officials that Republicans do.

LOL! The Koch brothers types certainly benefit but they make up a small fraction of a percent. The other 49.9% or so who vote republican do so against their own economic interests. The educated ones do it out of ideology. The uneducated voters do it out of affinities and disaffinities.

 

[kpt018]

The only reason big money has any say is because the average american is too damn cheap to give to politics.

If each person gave $5 with their vote, there would be no need for big $$.

Or if they all simply voted and paid just a little bit of attention to what's going on. If Democrat voters turned out in high numbers consistently the Republican party as it is would be totally fucked.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Yes