Forum Post: Democracy Does Not Exist
Posted 11 years ago on May 17, 2012, 4:07 p.m. EST by jrhirsch
(4714)
from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In a political debate, everyone agrees that each candidate should be given an equal length of time to present their views. The race for political office is like a months long debate, held not on an auditorium's stage, but on a statewide or national stage that intrudes into every voters living room. But this longer, drawn out debate has different rules. There is no moderator. There are no time limits. Each candidate can speak as long and as loud as they want, if they have enough money to pay for it. This is where fairness has been removed from our Democratic election process.
When a contributor, due to his personal wealth donates such a great amount of money that no common man can match it, the playing field becomes tilted in favor of that contributor and the candidate who accepts it.
The candidate whose voice is amplified by the clear advantage gained through unfair contributions is heard for hours on lavish television commercials. The honest candidates voices, who refused to accept those unfair contributions, are unamplified and in effect drowned out. The wealthy choose which voices can be heard, robbing the common man a core principle of Democracy, the ability to choose the candidate of his choice.
There are many candidates running for office, but we only hear the voices of one or two. Without each candidate having an equal voice, Democracy does not exist, it's bright light has been extinguished, only it's shadow remains.
you can bitch about the rules of the game or get busy winning, win enough; you can rewrite the rules, 2000 never again...
I built a platform for bottom-up democracy and debate on policy ideas.
http://the99percentvotes.com
If it catches on, I think it can make strides toward fixing the system.
Do you think someone who wants to raise taxes could get elected if they spend enough on advertising?
An honest question.
What if, in addition to the use of Patriot Dollars to keep big money out of elections http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/, voters could go to a website where they could prioritize a list of issues that they select as being for or against, then upon completion, would be matched up with candidates whose own lists best approximate that of the voter's. Thus, if a voter lived in Alaska and an unheard of presidential candidate who best approximated the voter's views lived in Florida, the voter would now be aware of that candidate and others who would otherwise not be heard due to money limitations.
The problem with government financed elections is that the same representatives who abuse the system now will abuse the next system later on. Control must be completely taken from congress. It does not limit outside money, super pacs. This is where the big money goes. Any effective reform must close all loopholes.
It is easier to limit contributions from all contributors to $100 or $200 per candidate per election whether directly to the candidate or indirectly to a super pac. This will not violate their free speech, whether an individual, a corporation or special interest.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]