If You Don't Like Politics Ignore The Next Paragraph, And Skip To The Last

 

 

 

The title may be slightly missleading, but what I want to discuss is American Presidential Campaign finance. With the expected declaration of the Primary candidacy very soon (in fact, the reticence to annonce the racer competitors is a stark difference from the last elections. It seams they have learnt from Harold "I have a scream" Dean, and also with the presidential "war chest" reaching over $210million in the last Election campaign, should it be the right of American companies to donate millions of dollars to aid the presidentail candidates, or should the elections be state funded, or donations and air time limited?

 

 

 

Do you think that American Presidential elections should have limits on the funding?

No. Do you?

Well, in true democratic countries (read= Scandinavia), the presidential candidates get equal funding from their parties and if necessary, from the state. Also, any interviews or debates will be only aired on official state-owned channels prime-time, with equal opportunity for both candidates to express themselves.

 

 

 

The american system is ridiculous and will ensure no independent politician will ever make it to the presidential "throne" unless he is a billionaire.

 

 

 

Also, you'll continuously see ads by the other candidate that bash the other and try to convince you about his badness. This is in my opinion bad taste but what are you going to do, the masses do vote based on what they hear every day, repeated and repeated as fact...

Well, in true democratic countries (read= Scandinavia), the presidential candidates get equal funding from their parties and if necessary, from the state. Also, any interviews or debates will be only aired on official state-owned channels prime-time, with equal opportunity for both candidates to express themselves.

 

 

 

The american system is ridiculous and will ensure no independent politician will ever make it to the presidential "throne" unless he is a billionaire.

 

 

 

Also, you'll continuously see ads by the other candidate that bash the other and try to convince you about his badness. This is in my opinion bad taste but what are you going to do, the masses do vote based on what they hear every day, repeated and repeated as fact...

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of your points (especially the negative advertising) but I don't know why you consider these qualities to have to do with a true Democracy. What does state regulated funding have to do with the principles of democracy? Maybe you know something I don't...

Well, in true democratic countries (read= Scandinavia), the presidential candidates get equal funding from their parties and if necessary, from the state. Also, any interviews or debates will be only aired on official state-owned channels prime-time, with equal opportunity for both candidates to express themselves.

 

 

 

The american system is ridiculous and will ensure no independent politician will ever make it to the presidential "throne" unless he is a billionaire.

 

 

 

Also, you'll continuously see ads by the other candidate that bash the other and try to convince you about his badness. This is in my opinion bad taste but what are you going to do, the masses do vote based on what they hear every day, repeated and repeated as fact...

 

 

 

Yea, I agree. I agree that the goverments of Scandinavian countries know what they're doing for the most part. We should use them as a role model, if we weren't so ignorant. They are the best countries to live in in the entire world after all.

 

 

 

And America is very biased when it comes to political campaigns. They will listen to someone who bashes the other canidate over a person who doesn't. Or at least, that's what I've experienced.

Well, in true democratic countries (read= Scandinavia), the presidential candidates get equal funding from their parties and if necessary, from the state. Also, any interviews or debates will be only aired on official state-owned channels prime-time, with equal opportunity for both candidates to express themselves.

 

 

 

The american system is ridiculous and will ensure no independent politician will ever make it to the presidential "throne" unless he is a billionaire.

 

 

 

Also, you'll continuously see ads by the other candidate that bash the other and try to convince you about his badness. This is in my opinion bad taste but what are you going to do, the masses do vote based on what they hear every day, repeated and repeated as fact...

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of your points (especially the negative advertising) but I don't know why you consider these qualities to have to do with a true Democracy. What does state regulated funding have to do with the principles of democracy? Maybe you know something I don't...

 

 

 

The core principle of democracy is the people's ability to decide about their own lives and to choose their own leaders from amongst themselves.

 

 

 

What the United States has already turned into, is Plutocracy, i.e. rule by wealth.

 

 

 

It is safe to say that without something groundbreaking event, it is now literally impossible to be elected president in the United States unless you come from a social background of enormous wealth or power connections, gaining multi-million dollar donations from corporations that want to further their agenda through you, ...

 

 

 

And obviously, since the two major parties compete for power, small players like Ralph Nader don't stand a real chance. The people HAVE to choose one candidate over the another, one millionaire over another. While it is in theory democracy, the truly merited and politically aware people of America will never stand a chance of being elected as president no matter how much better they could do the job.

 

 

 

Then, for example let's look at the current president of Finland. She is an ordinary woman with no significant family background who even worked in a gay rights group before getting into politics. She rose from an ordinary citizen to be the president by the power of the people.

 

 

 

It almost sounds like an utopia in America, doesn't it? But countries like this do exist. It's just that in america everything is so polluted by money it is IMPOSSIBLE to advance to such high positions without cold hard cash.

 

 

 

That moment, it stops being a democracy. And as you know it, the chances are zero that you or I, as citizens, ever could hold the position of president in America, no matter how hard we studied or worked in the field. In a democracy, all people have equal chances in politics before the people, should they be chosen to represent them. In america however, your opinion cannot be voiced if you are not extremely wealthy.

stuff

 

 

 

I would agree the US isn't a true democracy (never thought it was) but I don't think it's entirely ruled by the wealthy. I think that, at the present state, to become President you have to be ridiculously wealthy, but I don't think that to have significant influence in politics you do. I concede the point that it's almost impossible to not come from a wealthy family and become President, but luckily, our government isn't entirely run by the President.

 

 

 

I do agree that we aren't a true democracy over here. It's a shame that our presidency is so controlled by the wealthy - when did that start?

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: FuBai...still curious to hear your opinion...?

It isn't so much a money problem as it is just a straight-up lying and decieving problem. The older I get, the more lies I hear from people running for office. I don't understand why they can't just say what they'll do and then do it...So few of them do...Most do just the opposite they say they'll do.

 

 

 

Though I feel that them using money to slander their opponent is rather...Childish...

Well, in true democratic countries (read= Scandinavia), the presidential candidates get equal funding from their parties and if necessary, from the state. Also, any interviews or debates will be only aired on official state-owned channels prime-time, with equal opportunity for both candidates to express themselves.

 

 

 

The american system is ridiculous and will ensure no independent politician will ever make it to the presidential "throne" unless he is a billionaire.

 

 

 

Also, you'll continuously see ads by the other candidate that bash the other and try to convince you about his badness. This is in my opinion bad taste but what are you going to do, the masses do vote based on what they hear every day, repeated and repeated as fact...

 

 

 

I agree with a lot of your points (especially the negative advertising) but I don't know why you consider these qualities to have to do with a true Democracy. What does state regulated funding have to do with the principles of democracy? Maybe you know something I don't...

 

 

 

The core principle of democracy is the people's ability to decide about their own lives and to choose their own leaders from amongst themselves.

 

 

 

What the United States has already turned into, is Plutocracy, i.e. rule by wealth.

 

 

 

It is safe to say that without something groundbreaking event, it is now literally impossible to be elected president in the United States unless you come from a social background of enormous wealth or power connections, gaining multi-million dollar donations from corporations that want to further their agenda through you, ...

 

 

 

And obviously, since the two major parties compete for power, small players like Ralph Nader don't stand a real chance. The people HAVE to choose one candidate over the another, one millionaire over another. While it is in theory democracy, the truly merited and politically aware people of America will never stand a chance of being elected as president no matter how much better they could do the job.

 

 

 

Then, for example let's look at the current president of Finland. She is an ordinary woman with no significant family background who even worked in a gay rights group before getting into politics. She rose from an ordinary citizen to be the president by the power of the people.

 

 

 

It almost sounds like an utopia in America, doesn't it? But countries like this do exist. It's just that in america everything is so polluted by money it is IMPOSSIBLE to advance to such high positions without cold hard cash.

 

 

 

That moment, it stops being a democracy. And as you know it, the chances are zero that you or I, as citizens, ever could hold the position of president in America, no matter how hard we studied or worked in the field. In a democracy, all people have equal chances in politics before the people, should they be chosen to represent them. In america however, your opinion cannot be voiced if you are not extremely wealthy.

 

 

 

I agree, however I do not believe our goverment is the exact definition of a Plutocracy, because that leads more towards Oligarchy.

 

 

 

I do agree with your Finland example. I mean, the Prime Minister of Finland, is not only the Prime Minister of Finland, but is also the President of the European Union. And I don't believe he ever came from a family of immense wealth. That would be Matti Vanhanen for those who didn't know.

It isn't so much a money problem as it is just a straight-up lying and decieving problem. The older I get, the more lies I hear from people running for office. I don't understand why they can't just say what they'll do and then do it...So few of them do...Most do just the opposite they say they'll do.

 

 

 

Though I feel that them using money to slander their opponent is rather...Childish...

 

 

 

Exactly. That is my problem with Bush. He claims to be a conservative but he's not at all - just like his daddy. He says it just to get the Reagan vote...just like his daddy did. :P

It isn't so much a money problem as it is just a straight-up lying and decieving problem. The older I get, the more lies I hear from people running for office. I don't understand why they can't just say what they'll do and then do it...So few of them do...Most do just the opposite they say they'll do.

 

 

 

Though I feel that them using money to slander their opponent is rather...Childish...

 

 

 

Exactly. That is my problem with Bush. He claims to be a conservative but he's not at all - just like his daddy. He says it just to get the Reagan vote...just like his daddy did. :P

 

 

 

Yep, the root cause of all evil is the lies. The worse part is...Americans actually buy the lies and believe them.

 

 

 

However, I don't see how it is an oligarchy (gov't by few) at all. Don't we have Congress and all that jazz? If it was just the executive branch running the whole country I would agree.

 

EDIT: FuBai...still curious to hear your opinion...?

 

Oh, we just hate those people, don't we Ghost? :D

It isn't so much a money problem as it is just a straight-up lying and decieving problem. The older I get, the more lies I hear from people running for office. I don't understand why they can't just say what they'll do and then do it...So few of them do...Most do just the opposite they say they'll do.

 

 

 

Though I feel that them using money to slander their opponent is rather...Childish...

 

 

 

Exactly. That is my problem with Bush. He claims to be a conservative but he's not at all - just like his daddy. He says it just to get the Reagan vote...just like his daddy did. :P

 

 

 

Yep, the root cause of all evil is the lies. The worse part is...Americans actually buy the lies and believe them.

 

 

 

However, I don't see how it is an oligarchy (gov't by few) at all. Don't we have Congress and all that jazz? If it was just the executive branch running the whole country I would agree.

 

EDIT: FuBai...still curious to hear your opinion...?

 

Oh, we just hate those people, don't we Ghost? :D

 

 

 

Further reading:

 

 

 

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.p ... 14/6660379

 

 

 

In theory it is still possible to have influence on politics by getting elected to the senate/congress, but then again it's interesting to note that the average wealth of a senator for example is counted in the millions (average $33m with the top dogs at $100m+); In the nordic parliaments very few (if any) of the members have even wealth exceeding $500,000 (not counting homes).