BF2S Forums Is American politics REALLY that bad?

CameronPoe wrote:

Money seems to be ruining democracy.

CameronPoe wrote:

Money seems to be ruining democracy.

Last edited by jonsimon (2007-02-26 12:04:47)

PluggedValve wrote:

Its interesting to note that in the US you need $100 million just to be approved as a legitimate candidate.  ANYONE can run for president??  Why dont i believe that.  Anyone want to fund my campaign??  AIPAC?? Oh ya, im not willing to do your bidding, i just want whats best for the country.  No, you dont want to fund me.  Oh darn,  now where do i find $100 mil to get the campaign going. 

Why would anyone put that kind of money into a campaign without SOME kind of return?? Because they support democracy??  Riiiiiiiiight!!!  Why not fund a guy that isn't already a millionaire??

Last edited by Spearhead (2007-02-26 13:12:44)

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

I disagree.  Strongly.

Of course it is under the microscope more. The decisions made by our government good or bad affects more of the world than any other. Remember the Obsessed with America thread?

Under the microscope more, yes.  But countries like Australia with proportional representation prevent many of the problems the US has, by making it difficult to get an outright majority, and thereby forcing comprise.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-26 15:13:29)

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't think the American political system is that bad. Everyone has their democratic choice and can vote for whoever they want.

The problem is the electorate themselves, the politicians themselves and the fact that big money prevents elections from being truly pluralistic.

The problem with the electorate is that they won't vote for a third party because they see it as a 'wasted vote', given that they believe the system to be a 'two party' system which they propagate and perpetuate by continuing to vote along the traditional party lines.

In USA people need money to get elected. Lots of it. You ain't going to see no well-meaning hobo in the senate. So basically - only rich people can go up for election or people who can procure lots of money. What this means is that politicians asses are owned by their patrons and the lobby groups that fund them. So politicians do not have the electorate's interests at heart - they are only loyal to their backers, which is often counter to the interests of the electorate. Big money is not going to back a third party because they, like the electorate see that as throwing money at a lost cause.

The politicians themselves are at fault for thinking with their pockets and not with their morals or principles.

The same goes in most countries but the larger the country the worse the situation is and the USA seems to be pretty bad with respect to problems I've mentioned. Russia is probably worse again.

Personally I think a cap on election expenditure should be enforced in all countries to ensure equality between the various candidates. Money seems to be ruining democracy.

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

There may be some grain of truth in what you say but recent results, i.e., the election of the relatively extreme candidate, George W. Bush, would suggest otherwise. Big money is in the hands of a tiny minority of the general populace - a minority that generally hails from a conservative or extremely capitalistic background. That's part of the reason there is no real left wing representation in American politics. Big money interest groups buy power and influence. I don't really believe that politicians have to drift towards the centre - they could rely on tobacco, defence contractors and oil money alone to get elected, they have an almost endless supply of money. The amount of money that Greenpeace, for instance, could muster up to donate to an election candidate would be loose change. No-one has a direct interest in moderation or the middle way, they generally support one cause or another. As such, I can't agree with your claim that the system reigns politicians in towards the centre ground. However, the donation cap is interesting, although people would find ways around that through subsidiaries, etc. no doubt.

Here's some more possibles:
1) GWB got elected because Clinton made the Presidency seem like an extended whorehouse.  (I voted Clinton in BTW).  So GWB was brought "family values" back, rather than the money aspect.
2) GWB got elected because he "seemed" to be more like the politcal center during the election.

With that being said...I said they were theories...I ain't no analyst.

I do believe, however, that a cap on the expenditures instead of the donations will somewhat increase the chances of an undesirable president (like there is any other kind).  If you were to show some sort of a bell curve with the political center as the peak, and you believe in relatively equal distribution of wealth among the political views, in theory the candidate nearest the center would share views with the most amount of people...which translates into the opportunity to raise more money.

But the only way to prevent something like a "tobacco candidate" would be for campaign reform - and although it would be tough to justify and track - there's got to be some tracing and limitations to prevent this from happening.  Nothing is easy...ever...

mcminty wrote:

Yes, it's that bad.

I think the 2 party system leaves a political arena where the views of people become too polarised. There is no middle ground. That's just bad.


Also, the corruption involved in american politics, including the partial rigging of the first GB election (for the state of florida), and the conflicts of intrest that many influencial politicians have with major companies. I don't like how energy companies lobby to politicians, playing on their greed just to turn a buck (and fuck the world up some more).


Yes, it's that bad.

Mcminty.