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.