Fundamental Political Change

[WinePusher]

Barack Obama has indicated that he wishes to fundamentally transform the United States of America. The entire progressive platform seems to also be based upon change and transformation as well.

What, in the United States of America, needs to be fundamentally transformed?

[McCulloch]

Personally, I would put this remark down to hyperbolic election rhetoric. I see nothing in the changes being brought in by Obama that would be described as fundamental. Has he proposed changing the constitution? Implementing a Parliamentary system? Proportional representation? Changing the federal nature of the USA? These would be fundamental changes.

[WinePusher]

I honestly have to say that the funding of campaigns doesn't concern me. There are more pressing issues at hand, if Meg Whitman wants to spend millions of dollars on her campaign or Barack Obama wants to purchase a half an hour ad on TV they can go ahead and do it. In fact, managing a state or national election would requires large sums of money, reducing or capping the amount of money a donar or a candidate can spend on their personal campaign would be a violation of their rights. As for as Citizens United is concerned, it was a victory for speech and really has no adverse affects.

What about our rights to a fair and open election? It is because of funding we get crooked politicians. Funding makes the candidates accountable to the funders, and NOT the people. I would argue the obscene elections are the number one reason this country is the way it is.

I just don't see it from this perspective. First, the amount of money poured into a campaign generally does not affect the publics vote. Every registered citizen gets one vote, and although I am speaking from my own opinions I don't believe the high frequency television ads or billboard signs or calls actually influence the population in a drastic manner. Secondly, funding generally does not harm "free and fair" elections. Like I said, the public votes on issues, not money; which is why a rich republican like Meg Whitman (who poured her entire fortunes into her Gubernatorial campaign) still lost because the liberal California public did not agree with her on the issues. Also:

Funding makes the candidates accountable to the funders, and NOT the people.

OK, This is a good point. However, I think you are mischaracterizing the situation a little bit. An institution does not pick a random candidate to financially support so that the candidate will be their puppet in while office. A candidates political platform is laid out at the outset of any election, and an institution will follow suit and donate to the candidate whom they believe will represent their issues in the Government. It's a mutually beneficial relationship between the candidate and his or her funders and the candidate is accountable to his political platform rather then any funders. Also, this doesn't have much of an impact on the political scene anyways, generally a winning politician will give his or her funders a seat in their cabinet or something like that.

[nygreenguy]

I just don't see it from this perspective.

and this is exactly how they get away with it.

First, the amount of money poured into a campaign generally does not affect the publics vote.

Really? Then why is the amount ever increasing? Listen, if advertising didnt work, people wouldnt do it. It works, that why politicans and ad agencies spend billions.

Every registered citizen gets one vote, and although I am speaking from my own opinions I don't believe the high frequency television ads or billboard signs or calls actually influence the population in a drastic manner.

People also dont think advertisements affect them, but the research shows it does.

Secondly, funding generally does not harm "free and fair" elections. Like I said, the public votes on issues, not money; which is why a rich republican like Meg Whitman (who poured her entire fortunes into her Gubernatorial campaign) still lost because the liberal California public did not agree with her on the issues.

The biggest reson we dont see 3rd parties is because of money. Ross Perot did so well as a 3rd party because he was a billionaire. Ralph Nader did well that one year because he got tons of funding. There is a direct correlation between amount of money raised and a candidates success.

Since 2000, the average winner in contests for open House seats has outspent the average loser by at least $310,000
http://cfinst.org/congress/pdf/Table4_PostElec.pdf

OK, This is a good point. However, I think you are mischaracterizing the situation a little bit. An institution does not pick a random candidate to financially support so that the candidate will be their puppet in while office. A candidates political platform is laid out at the outset of any election, and an institution will follow suit and donate to the candidate whom they believe will represent their issues in the Government. It's a mutually beneficial relationship between the candidate and his or her funders and the candidate is accountable to his political platform rather then any funders. Also, this doesn't have much of an impact on the political scene anyways, generally a winning politician will give his or her funders a seat in their cabinet or something like that.

Wp, dont be so naive. Our politicans are beholden to the funders and the lobbyists. $$$ buys access. We have seen several instances where politicians write specific legislation favorable to their large donors.

While your scenario sounds nice, its simply not reflective of whats really going on.

[WinePusher]

I just don't see it from this perspective.

And this is exactly how they get away with it.

Get away with what? Being able to run their own personal campaign in the manner they choose without being subject to the regulations of bloated and inefficent bureacrats? Let's hear it from your perspective. Your grievance, along with other people, has been with the large amount of funding that goes into campaigns. What alternative would you like to see?

First, the amount of money poured into a campaign generally does not affect the publics vote.

Really? Then why is the amount ever increasing? Listen, if advertising didnt work, people wouldnt do it. It works, that why politicans and ad agencies spend billions.

That is irrelevant. The voter votes according to his or her political beliefs, not the number of ads a specific candidate runs on television. This has been proven in nearly every election cycle. The actual factors that influence and suay voters consist of media coverage and the candidates background and platform.

Every registered citizen gets one vote, and although I am speaking from my own opinions I don't believe the high frequency television ads or billboard signs or calls actually influence the population in a drastic manner.

People also dont think advertisements affect them, but the research shows it does.

No, it doesn't. Political ads do nothing and have no influence on how an election will turn out. The voter realizes that ads are biased and contian misconstrued information that will only benefit the politician.

The biggest reason we dont see 3rd parties is because of money. Ross Perot did so well as a 3rd party because he was a billionaire. Ralph Nader did well that one year because he got tons of funding. There is a direct correlation between amount of money raised and a candidates success.

The reasons we don't see third parties is because they're platform is irrelevant to public opinion. Third parties either generally focus on one specific issue or lean towards the extreme ends of the ledge, thereby alienating the mainstream public.
The Green Party has every capability to fundraise and monetarily compete with the RNC, yet they lose because their platform is unattractive to the majority of Americans.

Since 2000, the average winner in contests for open House seats has outspent the average loser by at least $310,000
http://cfinst.org/congress/pdf/Table4_PostElec.pdf

And in 2010, the DNC outspent the RNC and the democrats lost. In California, Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown and still lost, In 2004 John Kerry outspent Bush and still lost.

Wp, dont be so naive. Our politicans are beholden to the funders and the lobbyists. $$$ buys access. We have seen several instances where politicians write specific legislation favorable to their large donors.

While your scenario sounds nice, its simply not reflective of whats really going on.

Actually it is. The normal scenario, when it comes to funding, is candidate Joe promising CEO Rex a spot on his cabinet or a seat on a federal agency if he donates X amount of dollars to his campaign. And what legislation are you referring to. Representatives always attach riders to "likely to pass" bills that will probably end up benefiting their donar, that is not equivalent to drafting up an entire legislative agenda based soley on benefiting your funders. That would be an exaggerated view of the situation.

[bernee51]

First, the amount of money poured into a campaign generally does not affect the publics vote.

Really? Then why is the amount ever increasing? Listen, if advertising didnt work, people wouldnt do it. It works, that why politicans and ad agencies spend billions.

That is irrelevant. The voter votes according to his or her political beliefs, not the number of ads a specific candidate runs on television. This has been proven in nearly every election cycle. The actual factors that influence and suay voters consist of media coverage and the candidates background and platform.

Advertising influence s the swinging voters...not the 'rusted' on. In the Oz political system who gets to govern is decided by marginal voting areas where the swinging vote is crucial.

Advertising affects the swingers.

No, it doesn't. Political ads do nothing and have no influence on how an election will turn out. The voter realizes that ads are biased and contian misconstrued information that will only benefit the politician.

You are a 'rusted on' constituent...the above is opinion.

Logic (and focus group research) indicates that political advertising works.

[WinePusher]

Advertising influence s the swinging voters...not the 'rusted' on. In the Oz political system who gets to govern is decided by marginal voting areas where the swinging vote is crucial.

Advertising affects the swingers.

Most voters are already "rusted on" which is why in every general election we see swing voters making up a marginal percentage of around 8%-10% of the public. But even if this is the case, I can think of a host of factors that would have more influence on swing voters rather then advertisments and television ads.

[bernee51]

Advertising influence s the swinging voters...not the 'rusted' on. In the Oz political system who gets to govern is decided by marginal voting areas where the swinging vote is crucial.

Advertising affects the swingers.

Most voters are already "rusted on" which is why in every general election we see swing voters making up a marginal percentage of around 8%-10% of the public. But even if this is the case, I can think of a host of factors that would have more influence on swing voters rather then advertisments and television ads.

Perhaps it is our differing political systems...i live in a democracy. :2gun:

I remember a poll of a group of voters from swinging seats in the 'burbs. Asked where they got there political info....60 minutes and tabloid newspapers.

Wonder if advertising would have had any effect of these?

[Lux]

First, the amount of money poured into a campaign generally does not affect the publics vote.

For deciding among (R) or (D), you're probably right. For other candidates, however, the fact that their main opponents can spend 1 billion dollars in self advertising is a huge blow. On top of the fact that the biparty system seems to be quite deeply rooted in the USA.

Basically, spending a lot on the part of the Democrats and Republicans helps further perpetuate the "We only have two realistic candidates, so I hope you like one of them" scenario.

[McCulloch]

Spending by politicians in campaigns generally has two objectives. Firstly, to get those who might be decided but disinterested to vote; get them interested in the process; create in them an urgency, remind them of the dire possibility that their opponents might win this time. Secondly, to convince the swing voters; those who have not made up their minds. Either of these categories can determine the outcome of an election.

If anyone thinks that advertising does not influence people's behavior, that message has not gotten through to the hard nosed business leaders who spend billions trying to get you to buy their products.

[nygreenguy]

If anyone thinks that advertising does not influence people's behavior, that message has not gotten through to the hard nosed business leaders who spend billions trying to get you to buy their products.

Or the hundreds of scientific studies which prove the efficacy of advertising.