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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10981)	2/8/2006 12:23:28 PM
From: Fred Gohlke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

Good Morning, Tim re: "First there is some ambiguity about what is meant by corruption. It can be anything from political decisions being determined by bribery, to much more subtle influence." "I do think there is some corruption from contributions to parties, but I don't see it as being any more corrupting that any other type of political contribution." I have stated that political parties are conduits of corruption and that the corruption is perpetuated because political parties control the political process, including candidate selection. I have stated that, if we have the will, we have the means to devise a better system, and I'm trying to find out how others think that better system could be constructed. You may find citing subtle differences in the definition of corruption a worthwhile endeavor, but in terms of defining a better political system, it's a digression. re: "Well maybe not quite assuming that there is no possible method of selecting representatives that doesn't involve campaigning but that there is no good democratic way to select representatives that doesn't involve campaigning." I don't agree. What is is not necessarily *what must be. Until someone proposes a different method, we have no way of determining whether it is or is not a "good democratic way to select representatives". re: "Receiving a political contribution doesn't necessarily make you beholden to anyone."* That's a quibble. Obviously, the degree of obligation is directly proportional to the size of the contribution ... or, in the case of candidates, the amount of campaign funds supplied by the party. re: Public Finance If you presented this as a method we should consider, you undermined the concept more than you promoted it. If you didn't propose it as part of an improved method of selecting our representatives, it is not responsive. re: "I read your aim as being beyond anything we already have. That all citizens that have reached maturity should be able to get on the ballot, or should have some realistic chance to at least get considered by the voters." I would change "should be able to get on the ballot" to "should be able to be selected", but, aside from that, you read my aim correctly. Right now, I'd avoid the word "ballot" because it presupposes the method ... and we haven't defined a method, yet. Please don't raise the issue of felons, etc. It is not, at this point, germane. re: "I've made assumptions because its hard to understand what you are really supporting." This may be the central problem. I've stated, several times, that I'm seeking a better way to select representatives. If you feel the current method is adequate, there's nothing for us to discuss. If you, too, think we could do better, please help us find a way to accomplish it. Whoops! I see you've already addressed that issue: "If your asking for a utopian political vision from me, the changes that such a vision would entail would not primarily be ones of reducing corruption, and would not deal with issues like the role of the parties and campaign contributions." That's a definitive answer. If, in the future, you have anything productive to add to the search for improvement, it will be welcome. Fred