Comments on: Why I Won’t Give Money To A Campaign

By: Oh Politic Where Art Thou? | IAmJoshBrown

Oh Politic Where Art Thou? | IAmJoshBrown — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:06:01 +0000

[...] . . . I also haven’t written much here about what I think of the process and the election, outside of why I won’t give money to a campaign. I thought it might be therapeutic for me to get a few things off my chest about the whole [...]

By: Links: Food, Bikes, Music, Empire and Energy Drinks at Trying to follow

Links: Food, Bikes, Music, Empire and Energy Drinks at Trying to follow — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:06:28 +0000

[...] Why You shouldn’t give money to a campaign [...]

By: Andrew Martin

Andrew Martin — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:01:05 +0000

“Boy”, just to respond: yes, the UK system has much going for it. Then again, I’m effectively disenfranchised: in East Oxford, the constituency where I live, Andrew Smith is going to keep being elected unless he starts eating babies or something. My vote is unlikely to make an iota of difference.

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:12:31 +0000

I’ve never contributed to any campaign, though we’ve come close this time around. Just because we like Huckabee and he’s done so well with so little money thus far. Even still, I’m reluctant to do it for various reasons, including many of the reasons you cited.

I think your point about the process is more important than the actual money, though. The presidential races are more like a celebrity contest than a search for a great leader. Taking a look at how the electoral college originally worked – where each state legislature chose the electors – and going back to that – would completely eliminate this constant presidential election cycle we’ve developed and the amount waste it generates. No matter who wins in November, talk will begin about who the frontrunners are for 2012. I say let’s scrap the whole thing and let the state legislatures choose the presidents again.

And on a related note, I’ll throw out my support of enlarging the house of representatives at the same time. Each representative initially represented about 60,000 people. Last time I heard it was like 10 times that. The size of the house hasn’t changed since WWI. That’d make it significantly easier for newcomers to enter into politics, requiring a lot less money to garner support in your district.

By: Boy

Boy — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:08:25 +0000

Much as those who do not vote cannot complain about their government, so too, if your system is built that way, can those who do not contribute to their favoured candidate (and I would expect it would be the candidate who promises to overhaul this financing debacle) not complain when that candidate drops out of the race because they don’t have enough money.

Sorry if that didn’t make as much sense as I would like it too, it’s early over here and I’m tired.

Andrew, at least our political system allows one to stand for MP for only, if I remember correctly, £2000. And you get that back if you get enough votes. Unfortunately the Americans elect a supreme leader which means a nationwide election for an individual, something impossible to win without extremely deep pockets.