[Dork.]

The principle of "One Person, One Vote" seems archaic now in light of the enormous amounts of money being flung around during campaign season. More and more, it seems like money buys elections, and the votes are a formality.

Why not just admit it and move on?

The election should go to the candidate with the largest campaign account on election day. One Dollar, one vote! Candidates will have to choose between buying ad time and stockpiling cash for election day. And all money put toward the election will go to paying of the debt. Even the losers win!

Is it time we finally acknowledged that votes don't really matter, unless we vote with our wallets?

[The Final Dakar]

Sounds like something happened that struck a nerve.

I saw an article a few weeks ago about the limited influence of money on politics, but sadly I can't find it.

Personally, I don't see why can't take a NASCAR like approach to it, but if there's anything politicians fear, it's a fair fight.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Personally, I don't see why can't take a NASCAR like approach to it

Which is what? Everyone wears jammies and only ever turns left?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

turns left?

Aye, comrade.

[andi*pandi]

Interesting... related to the Superpac funding issue.

Scott Brown, who was elected in part due to a great deal of outside money contributing to his coffers, this time around saw the same thing happening for Elizabeth Warren. So he proposed a no-superpac-funds contract, and they are still bickering over who is the biggest anti-outside-money person.

I do wish that local matters could be kept local.

Elizabeth Warren rejects Scott Brown's offer to curb super PAC power - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

[Dork.]

Let's take Scott Brown's calls to stop outside money coming into his campaign at face value. Look at all the contortions he is going through to try and get an agreement in place to limit the contributions of outside groups without actually coordinating with them! none of that is going to work -- it is literally impossible for a candidate who doesn't want outside money coming in to a campaign to make it happen, because that would be coordinating with them.

And with so much money pouring into these outside groups, it's only a matter of time before we find that most spending is done by these groups, and the actual campaigns are only concerned with making sure that the candidate's name is on the ballot and funding their travel expenses (to places where the SuperPAC "coincidentally" has events....) All of a sudden, all campaign speech will get even more nasty, with no candidate being able to be held responsible for any of it.

[OAW]

My 2 cents on how to fix the electoral process ....

1. If you are not eligible to vote in an election, you can't contribute money to an election ... directly or indirectly.

This accomplishes two things. A) It prevents corporations, unions, and other groups like Super PACs from corrupting the political process with virtually unlimited money, and B) it prevents outside interests from influencing local and state elections.

2. If you are eligible to vote in an election, you are limited to $2000 (or thereabout) per candidate in campaign contributions.

Given the truth of the old saying ... "Your loyalty lies from whence your financing comes." .... this prevents elected officials from being unduly beholden to special interests or wealthy contributors.

3. A campaign must provide full-disclosure on its campaign contributions.

This provides transparency to the public on the who, what, and when with respect to campaign contributions.

4. The redistricting that is done every decade as a result of the Census should be done by a non-partisan independent commission in all states.

This prevents the redistricting process from being used as a tool to protect the incumbency of the party that happens to be in power in the state legislature when a Census is conducted.

IMO it seems like wherever one falls on the political spectrum, one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how an approach like this would NOT be fair or would NOT create a level playing field. And regardless of one's politics, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be all about?

OAW

[nonhuman]

I agree with everything that OAW said.

[besson3c]

Me too... I like OAW.

[The Final Dakar]

Like the post, couple random thoughts (not necessarily directed at you)

Originally Posted by OAW 

3. A campaign must provide full-disclosure on its campaign contributions.

What's the reasoning behind anonymous giving? And how is it that I can look up what guys like David Stern have donated to campaigns?

Originally Posted by OAW 

4. The redistricting that is done every decade as a result of the Census should be done by a non-partisan independent commission in all states.

This strikes me as a gigantic no-brainer.

Interesting side-note: I heard that this is the first time since the passage of Voting Rights Act (in '65) that a democrat has held the Presidency during redistricting. That's kinda insane.

[Dork.]

You all are asking the people with the power in the process to voluntarily give it up. What's in it for them?

In my proposal, we tell all those people if they think that government is so important, they can take it! Then the rest of us are free to watch all the TV we want!

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sounds like something happened that struck a nerve.

I saw an article a few weeks ago about the limited influence of money on politics, but sadly I can't find it.

Freakonomics � How Much Does Campaign Spending Influence the Election? A Freakonomics Quorum