zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. thephy+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-03 00:12:10
Larry Lessig also points at treating campaign donations like the illegal bribes they are and reforming the "money in politics" problem first.
replies(2): >>aaronb+b2 >>RileyJ+D2
2. aaronb+b2[view] [source] 2020-06-03 00:30:18
>>thephy+(OP)
* Warren believes the flow of money in politics has stalled progress on a number of other issues, including gun violence, climate change, and the rising cost of health care. Stamping money out of politics goes to the root of these issues, she says.*

And Lessig has been a supporter of Warren's for exactly this reason for years.

replies(1): >>splint+L7
3. RileyJ+D2[view] [source] 2020-06-03 00:33:09
>>thephy+(OP)
In Australia each vote received by a candidate is worth a $ amount of funding (paid by tax payers). We also have campaign donations. But I wonder how far the tax payer funded model could be taken.

Each vote represents a) the path to election but also b) funding for the next election campaign.

replies(1): >>projek+06
◧◩
4. projek+06[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-03 01:01:12
>>RileyJ+D2
In Australia, are parties a "first-class" part of the system? In the US, the historical animosity toward "factions" by the Federalists left us with a system where individuals are funded and the parties are independent corporate entities with their own rules but only de facto power.

In the US, a proportional representation system would have to be enabled by constitutional amendment, I think.

replies(1): >>ClaySh+os
◧◩
5. splint+L7[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-03 01:15:20
>>aaronb+b2
I highly recommend watching this video [1] to understand why "progress has stalled".

Believe it or not, it's by design.

1. https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0

replies(1): >>Alexan+Qt
◧◩◪
6. ClaySh+os[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-03 04:57:36
>>projek+06
No, it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment.

https://www.rangevoting.org/PropRep

◧◩◪
7. Alexan+Qt[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-03 05:06:58
>>splint+L7
This was a good video! I'd never seen Scalia speak, and he's very compelling - I think he would have been a good teacher. Unfortunately, while the gridlock between senate and house is good at stopping progress benefitting the vulnerable, it has been less successful in stopping "progress" benefitting moneyed interests. This is perhaps because the jobs of both house and senate representatives depend so much on securing funding for their next campaign. Or maybe it's simply because most legislators personally benefit from such legislation, being moneyed themselves. Whatever the cause, the result resembles an oligarchy.
[go to top]