the presidential race

[Down under there]

is driving me crazy! The amounts of money involved are really getting out of hand. How can we expect a fair race when it becomes a money contest like this? The government should think about some spending limits.

[Henneth annun]

Mony+ charisma= votes.

preety simple equasion.

[Down under there]

Call me an idealist if you want, but I disagree.

Anyway, even if that is the case, better equality in funding just might force some people to choose based on who they think is best for the country.

[Odracir]

But don't you think that the fact that one person gets more money than the other through donations speaks about who Americans want to win?

[Sheynat]

No, it actually doesn't necessarily speak about who Americans want to win. Usually, the Republican is supported by the ultra-rich, so he can recieve more funding than the Democrat without actually having more SUPPORT than the Democrat, because his supporters are rich and tend to give larger amounts to keep somebody in power who will continue to cut their taxes, let them run their businesses the way they want (i.e. screwing their employees over), blah blah blah. Not saying Bush has less support, just saying, the amount of money raised is totally meaningless when the ultra-rich support one as a solid bloc.

[Parthini]

Whoa! That was a lot of stuff in one big, mother run-on sentance.

To me, this race sucks because it's just a bunch of people yelling at each other. I hate TV now.

GPP

[Kellopalopalis]

TV is very annoying with all the political ads. They're pointless because of their complete bias. I say Bush and Kerry should agree to only raise a certain amount of money. That way, they can focus their energy on more important things than a financial competition. Also, people will save money by not having to donate. Around a half a billion dollars will be spent in the election. Just think how great it would be if we could have that money back. The campaign would then be fair and practical.

[Re-Yupanqui]

Sheynat, that was soooo true. The ads are kinda pointless, because there IS so much bias, its just like two kindergarteners saying 'Did so!' "Did not!" over and over, except with more money involved...

[Sheynat]

Parthini sez: Whoa! That was a lot of stuff in one big, mother run-on sentance.
(HTML's broke or something.)
Yeah, that was a biga$$ run on sentence, wasn't it? And Yupanqui, yeah, the ads suck that way. It's like you said. "Did not!" "Did so!" When they actually sit down and debate the issues, that's worth listening to. But the ads present only one side, and are therefore worthless, regardless of which side shows them.

[stinkyhippies]

Feh.

Let's take a good, hard cynical look at the practice and process of an election.

Politicians in America can only realistically come from one of two parties. Any third party candidate had best get used to the idea that the only way Dems and Reps work together is in thier hatred of folks who come laong trying to be thier equal. This is not a democracy, it's a republic, which means GROUPS have power, not individuals.

So... let's say I'm a politico who has snuggled up to the party to become the Prez. Now, I am responsible to act on ALL the pormises made by my party. It's the only way I can get the support I need to run, unless I am independantly wealthy and plan on dumping my fortune into running. Even then, were I that foolish, the party can support anoher more pliable to thier causes and make you look like a fool. So... first step is to become the party's lackey.

The next step is to secure the support of other large groups. This come sin the form of cash from corporations, unions and such. For thier money and vocal support, they also want you to be thier supporter. Pass laws that benefit thier industry, speak out in a way that supports thier stance. Even more insidious, some don't WANT you to be vocal, instead to quietly do things that support them. Tying up an environmental bill that would force oil industries to be cleaner (sound familiar?) for example.

Lastly, is to deal with the public. This part isn't organized and has no leader to scream about broken promises, so you can say just about anything. You can tell one state's Young republicans that you want nothing more than a burgeoning economy where competition is fierce and small businesses and entrepreneurs are encouraged, and then have dinner with a 1000 cronies in big industries and tell them the status quo will be preserved. The press doesnt closely cover these meets, and even if they do, it becomes backpage news unless your opponent wants to make himself look bad by dragging it out and slinging the muck at you.

So, it all comes down to cash. Giving them more or capping the amounts, or even fully controlling the election in a fair manner won't help, as all those groups will campaign FOR a candidate, and the biggest groups will always have the loudest voices. At one time, that was the parties, which represented the people, but now... now it's the conglomerates who give the most to the party.

<sigh> We need a king.

[Sheynat]

StinkyHippies said:

<sigh> We need a king.

I volunteer.
/had to be said.
Anyway, Stinky is right. Basically, the people with the biggest say are the ones who can throw about the most money. Restrictions won't help; the money will just be passed under the table and the candidate will sprinkle the money about, claiming it came from legitimate donors-not the whole chunk from one, of course.

[Down under there]

StinkyHippies said:

the biggest groups will always have the loudest voices

That's the point. The biggest, not the richest, groups should be represented. What would be really nice is complete regulation of all money recieved by candidates. Both should recieve the same. Yes, I know that's highly unlikely.

Lol, the problem with kings is that they're an all-or-nothing bet, usually. And after a while they get corrupt and spoiled and inbred and get hemophilia and die, so.. ;D

[legatus]

For the record, as I've noticed some people have been saying that so-and-so party can receive larger "amounts" of money than another.

By Federal Law, an amount of a donation may not exceed two thousand dollars.

[Down under there]

I never knew that.

I'm sure there are ways to get around it though.

[Lexwolf]

Has anyone else thought that it is not really a democracy when to be a leader you need military service, millions of dollars, and give up your own ideals for your party's, just to gain more votes? I mean, under one percent of people, who are totally unrelatable to you, can actually become the president?

[Down under there]

Well, it's good to have some money involved, because it shows you're serious. And it's also good to have experience with governing, like as mayor or senator or something. We still do get "activists" like Al Sharpton sometimes, but more would really be annoying.