patrick.net

Probably not the perfect solution, but I like the thinking. However, I am not sure if this would only allow our .1 percent of the super rich population to run for office.

Having the Old Senate back would be a great help.

That is, Senators chosen by the State Legislature.

And, on the other hand, Representatives chosen by proportional nation-wide vote.

It ain't 1792 anymore, we have telephones and fiber optics so we don't need Congressmen based on Local Districts.

It would completely eliminate Rigged districts, since there wouldn't be any districts to rig.

It's much harder to bribe Congressmen this way, since they aren't directly elected, rather, the party is voted for.

And most Americans vote on party lines anyway, so the "Makes Parties too strong" criticism is weak. Parties would have incentives to keep moderates because having too many extremists would be a turn-off to the non-true-believers and would cause them to lose elections.

"I can't vote for that party, they are full of nuts. There isn't a practical man among them."

Better yet, give everybody 5 points to assign to three ranked choices. Your first would get 3 points, second 2 points, and third 1 point. This would add balance and allow great flexibility and choice to the individual voter.

MarsAttacks! says

I don't think that will work. It's like fighting the war on drugs by going after the suppliers. There will always be a supply as long as there is a demand. Political contributions are exactly like drugs in that way.

IMO, your analogy is wrong. Drugs are illegal, political contributions, even from corporations (i.e. 'people'; hat tip Supreme Court) is legal. If your saying that even if political contributions were made illegal, the politicians (i.e. 'addicts') would still find a way to get them, well, I don't think many would. That's called bribery and although politicians are generally scumbags, very few would commit felonies to get re-elected.

And besides, how would they secretly spend the illegal donations on their campaigns and not get noticed? It's like the guy who has a green lawn during a water rationing drought.

thunderlips11 says

Having the Old Senate back would be a great help.

That is, Senators chosen by the State Legislature.

You mean politics would be cleaner if the Illinois General Assembly got to pick a couple of Senators?

We're doomed!!

MarsAttacks! says

rowemoore says

If your saying that even if political contributions were made illegal, the politicians (i.e. 'addicts') would still find a way to get them, well, I don't think many would.

They get around the laws in place right now, so yes.

What laws are they "getting around" right now?

MarsAttacks! says

rowemoore says

That's called bribery and although politicians are generally scumbags, very few would commit felonies to get re-elected.

Yet it happens all the time. To them, the distinction you've made is really about 'getting caught or not'.

Remember: These guys actually believe that the laws don't apply to them because they actually pass laws all the time that they exempt themselves from either directly outright or they insert loopholes that are designed to let them do it behind the scenes.

You seem confused here: Are they breaking laws and not getting caught or are they passing laws that they know how to "get around" via loopholes? So, specifically, what are the laws you are referring to?
MarsAttacks! says

rowemoore says

It's like the guy who has a green lawn during a water rationing drought.

Which -- to extend the analogy of yours further -- will only be 'noticed' when some reporter catches that guy on film and the film can't be proven to be a fake. That is how elections and campaign finance violations are 'regulated' in this nation.

Political campaigns spend money in very visible ways. It is, after all, advertising. Just like the green lawn, anybody who isn't blind would be able to see that money was being spent. So the question would be: "Where did the money come from?"

It seems you think that most politicians are corrupt and steal the money they raise. A few do, sure. Most don't.

If a constitutional amendment similar to the one this thread is based on actually passed, politicians would have no incentive to raise money. Would they find other ways to influence the public? Sure. But, perhaps there methods would have to be more democratic (social media) rather than owing favors to special interests.

Of course, you're correct in that this amendment will probably never happen. But it has a better chance than your suggestion. And besides, I've been on jury duty. Sortititon scares me more than the current mess.

Truthplease says

I am not sure if this would only allow our .1 percent of the super rich population to run for office.

I agree. Since rich people could still spend money on their own behalf, eliminating all campaign contributions would give them a huge advantage.

I would agree with the proposal if everyone who gets a certain number of signatures is eligible for a certain amount of taxpayer-provided campaign funding as well.

I signed it, but I'm not really very hopeful.

Too much money is ALREADY there for any sort of meaningful campaign finance reform to stand a chance.

Well at least poor people dont run the country.

Thats a worse nightmare.

MarsAttacks! says

What makes you think that your typical Congressmen is of any higher-than-average quality than that?
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.

Quotes like this are very unfortunate. If someone wants to argue that having a PhD from Harvard is not sufficient in and of itself to be President, then I would agree. But to argue that someone with a PhD from Harvard is less qualified than someone without a PhD from Harvard is just plain idiotic.

Or that educated people don't understand "real America" is again just stupid.

It makes me really question where some people want this country to go.

Having a phD doesn't make one necessarily wise or able to run a nation, usually it's just a symbol of being a dinosaur.

Vicente says

I signed it, but I'm not really very hopeful.

Too much money is ALREADY there for any sort of meaningful campaign finance reform to stand a chance.

“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

They'll probably just shift from instant donations to promises of future cushy positions on the board of directors. I really don't think it is possible to take money out of politics, money is power in this country.

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
- William F. Buckley, Jr.

Anti-elitist screed from Buckley? Hard to believe, the man was no "Joe the Plumber". Or pandering? Or simply Yale mud-flinging? Buckley was a Yalie after all:

"With the end of World War II in 1945, he enrolled in Yale University, where he became a member of the secret Skull and Bones society,[22][23] was a debater,[23][24] an active member of the Conservative Party and of the Yale Political Union, and served as Chairman of the Yale Daily News. Buckley studied political science, history and economics at Yale, graduating with honors in 1950.[23] He excelled as the captain of the Yale Debate Team, and under the tutelage of Yale professor Rollin G. Osterweis, Buckley honed his acerbic style." - William F. Buckley education on Wikipedia

MarsAttacks! says

Vicente says

With the end of World War II in 1945, he enrolled in Yale University,

Is there a Yale/Harvard competitive thing going? That would explain a few things.

Ack! Acck!

Sorry I debated you. I didn't realize you were disabled.

MarsAttacks! says

Is there a Yale/Harvard competitive thing going? That would explain a few things.

Yes, just a LITTLE bit of a hate thing. Princeton likes to think it's part of a triad of mutual Ivy League hostility, but it's the 3rd wheel.

The 2004 prank was legendary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Harvard%E2%80%93Yale_prank

"In the afternoons he is in the habit of going into crowded rooms and making everybody else feel inferior. The evenings are reserved for extended bouts of name-dropping." - David Brooks about William F. Buckley.

Yale students, costumed as a Harvard "pep squad," gave out placards to a section of Harvard fans that when raised together, read "we suck."

The group told the crowd that by lifting the placards they would spell "GO HARVARD."

"Most Harvard students, sitting in a section off to the side of the alumni area where the prank was executed, left the stands unaware of the prank; however, players on the field did see the placards. Harvard won the game, 35-3."

Classic so Yale sucked big time ass, but rather working on their "A" game. They were out misinforming people, to operate against their interest.

I wonder how many Yale graduates are in Washington.

The Boston Globe wrote that "if there's one school that can lay claim to educating the nation's top national leaders over the past three decades, it's Yale."[46] Yale alumni were represented on the Democratic or Republican ticket in every U.S. Presidential election between 1972 and 2004. Yale-educated Presidents since the end of the Vietnam War include Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, and major-party nominees during this period include John Kerry (2004), Joseph Lieberman (Vice President, 2000), and Sargent Shriver (Vice President, 1972). Other Yale alumni who made serious bids for the Presidency during this period include Hillary Rodham Clinton (2008), Howard Dean (2004), Gary Hart (1984 and 1988), Paul Tsongas (1992), Pat Robertson (1988) and Jerry Brown (1976, 1980, 1992).

Cook County resident says

You mean politics would be cleaner if the Illinois General Assembly got to pick a couple of Senators?

We're doomed!!

They wouldn't vote for anything that would cost Illinois money without Federal Funding for most or all of it.

Small States fear the return of the state legislature electing the Senate, because the rural conservative free ride gravy train would stop.

No more rural Alaskans and Alabamans paying $400/year in property tax yet getting 4 lane roads between two podunk villages while bridges that serve millions a day in traffic rot away even with hefty tolls.

CA, NY, TX, FL - their senators would all vote against the heavy redistribution of wealth from where the majority of people are to the Empty Quarter.

The Buffalo Breath, WY police department would get less per-officer in DHS funding than the NYPD, which is how it should be. The Cow Queen Festival is not exactly a prime target, but the Statue of Liberty or Madison Square Garden would be.

thunderlips11 says

They wouldn't vote for anything that would cost Illinois money without Federal Funding for most or all of it.

Sure they might. It would depend on what else was offered. The "what else" might include something much more valuable like veto power on Federal prosecutors,

Each of the Senators elected from the General Assembly would be accountable almost entirely to the Cook County Democratic organization. They are the 600 lb gorilla in Illinois politics.

Currently, Illinois senators have to at least look like they are making an effort for downstate Illinois, In fact, being a downstater is an advantage in statewide elections.

Sometimes the state even elects red teamers for variety's sake.

More rarely, the public will be sufficiently outraged to throw some bum out. It's less likely the public will throw out the bums who don't throw out the bums.

So what is "real America"? At the end of the day, isn't "real America" just code word for WHITE America?

Cook County resident says

Sure they might. It would depend on what else was offered. The "what else" might include something much more valuable like veto power on Federal prosecutors,

Are Cook County state legislators so dominant, they always control a majority in the Illinois legislature? Enough to wholly control two Senators without compromise with any help from other power centers there?

I doubt Cook County would be happy about Federal Mandates that they had to come up with the money to fund, instead of getting the funding to go with the mandate. Or instructing their Senator to refuse to vote for the bill unless it included such funding.

Because current rules allowed Cook County Democrats to not only back a Senator, but help him to the highest office in the land...

At worst, it'll be the same as now :)

thunderlips11 says

Are Cook County state legislators so dominant, they always control a majority in the Illinois legislature? Enough to wholly control two Senators without compromise with any help from other power centers there?

Yeah, right now they have more than half the power in Springfield. And, if they want to play hardball, 51% of the power would let them choose 100% of the two senators.

thunderlips11 says

I doubt Cook County would be happy about Federal Mandates that they had to come up with the money to fund, instead of getting the funding to go with the mandate. Or instructing their Senator to refuse to vote for the bill unless it included such funding.

Politicians care about voter finances less than the voters themselves care. Any one around here who pays attention is aware of some of the special deals and favoritism which is hitting us in the pocketbook right now. Property taxes have doubled in the last decade and we have the highest retail sales tax in the nation. Yet, somehow, the total government debts here total over 100 billion dollars. 100 BILLION! At least corporate taxes are going down and down. The Cook County pols have done a masterful job of screwing their own constituents for their own benefit and, for the right deal, they'll sell us out in the Senate too.

What's going on? To oversimplify things, the most powerful politician in Illinois now is the Speaker of the House. Not only can he bottle up legislation but he has an enormous campaign fund in which he can reward his pals. He gets huge campaign contributions even though he's in a 100% safe district. The fact that he heads the most influential tax appeal firm in the state sure doesn't hurt, either. It's widely believed he slates the patsies who reliably fall to loyal Republicrats.

Most voters don't follow this sort of political complexity. They vote for the best sounding name or the guy with the best haircut or somebody who they imagine would be their coolest drinking buddy. Or they vote against the guy whose grandparents came from the wrong country or the bald guy or that guy who's doing the Devil's work.

But, everyonce in a while, the general dissatisfaction with a politician will reach a critical mass of outrage. Curiously, the average voter finds some minor sex scandal to be far more offensive than finding himself being economically pimped out to special interest groups.

But, if we're really mad at Senator X, we vote against Senator X. Simple enough.

thunderlips11 says

ecause current rules allowed Cook County Democrats to not only back a Senator, but help him to the highest office in the land...

At worst, it'll be the same as now :)

When Barack Obama was a Senator, he was, in a slight way, accountable to me. That slight accountability would be gone if he was accountable only to an organization which gets to play by it's own rules.