Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (439)	11/13/2002 4:53:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

I think devolution is a good idea, and I am willing to entertain a national sales tax to replace the income tax. But the Federal government has an essential role in the modern world, and will remain substantial even when downsized. Democracy is a dynamic system, where even minorities get substantial power if they can act as a swing vote, and where one cannot just take for granted any constituency group, with Congressional seats lost by a few hundred votes. Jeffords was not only disloyal, he was stupid. He would have had much more power as a Republican that the leadership was trying to keep on the reservation than as a defector. All of Lani Guinier's nonsense showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how coalition politics works. We don't need elaborate new systems to make things fairer. That extends to lobbyists and such. They are all competing in such a manner as to negate each other. Additionally, groups like the Sierra Club can not only deliver some amount of financial support, but can get votes with their endorsement, and provide voters from their membership roles. In a lot of districts, having the Sierra Club on your side is more important than getting money from timber interests. Democracy is relatively messy and inefficient, that is true. It is supposed to be. It is even somewhat corrupt. But by forcing us to air issues and consider them from every side, and by making things move slowly, with predictability, it makes it likelier that we will not behave rashly, and will perhaps improve over time......

To: The Philosopher who wrote (439)	11/13/2002 10:04:57 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

If we are going to brainstorm about ways to improve our government then I have a suggestion that will never fly that would go a long way towards cleaning things up, IMHO. It's simple, amend the constitution,. add an amendment that says if you can't vote for a person you are not allowed to give that person money to get elected or re-elected. By "if you can't vote" I mean that literally. Corporations, National and Local Parties, unions and persons outside the voting district unable to pull a lever at the poll would not be allowed to give money to a candidate. PACs have no vote so they have no use. Politicians would have to use their own money or raise it from the individuals they want to represent. There would be no limit on the amount of money a person could give to the candidate of his/her choice as long as they are actually eligible to pull the lever for that person. This would eliminate the biannual spectical of millions of dollars flowing into a state or district to influence the outcome. All politics would be local.