23 ms·

It is still people, not money, who votes for them over and over again…

by qeternity 28d ago

oth001 28d ago
Well when the choice is between two corrupt and/or bribed politicians...
- JKCalhoun 28d ago
  Agree, vote for the most wildly corrupt.
Timon3 28d ago
And the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections, combined with the media apparatus built up by the right. I don't think any democracy could survive Fox News. Unfortunately the global right is colluding to export this concept across the globe...
- otterley 27d ago
  If money won elections, then the outcome of every election could be predicted with accuracy based solely on the relative spending by or on behalf of each candidate. In reality, that's not how it works. There are countless examples of candidates who outspent their opponents and lost. Money gets you reach. It doesn't get you guaranteed results. Besides, the voters don't get any of that money, nor do they even know most of the time who got more financial support. They'd be insulted by even the slightest suggestion that money is driving their vote.
  - Timon3 27d ago
    I didn't say that money wins elections, but nice try. Though I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives could affect more voters with the same amount of money, since spreading bullshit is much cheaper than proving it wrong. The right can flood the zone with a firehose of lies, and even if they literally admit these lies, their voters go along.
    - otterley 27d ago
      I...didn’t say you did say that? No need to be defensive. But a reasonable interpretation of “the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections” is that such a direct causal link exists. If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification.
      - Timon3 27d ago
        Then I must admit I'm unsure how to interpret your objections, since I understand you to be arguing against the position "The group spending the most money must always win elections". If you're not assuming that I'm taking this position, why bring it up? > If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification. As a thought experiment, assume we're playing gods and decide to simulate a bunch of universes almost exactly like ours, so we can reliably study how civilizations develop (free from the influence of random chance). Then we evaluate how many of these civilizations had periods of strong corruption, loss in quality of life, and all the other negatives we're experiencing this decade. My argument is: you'd find a correlation between these periods, and the relative amounts of wealth invested into politics. Note this doesn't imply that bigger sums of money must lead to victory - especially if the thesis mentioned in my first reply is correct, which I very much assume it is.
        otterley 27d ago
        I'm not sure. On the other hand, there're plenty of corruption and loss of quality of life where there's not much money in electioneering, or not even a democracy. Take Russia, for example, or any of a number of African or Central American countries.
        Timon3 26d ago
        Again, I'm not proposing a necessary condition. But leaving aside that Russia isn't a democracy (meaning it's not relevant when discussing elections): are you referencing a study that, among the countries you mentioned, compares the relative amounts of money spent & the development of said issues? If so, links would be greatly appreciated. If not, I once again fail to see your point - sure, the issues I mentioned occur a lot in poorer countries, I never claimed otherwise! So I still can't see how this relates to my hypothesis.
JKCalhoun 28d ago
I sympathize with your point, we should still blame the voters, but the 1% wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars into politics if they were seeing zero return on their money.

It is still people, not money, who votes for them over and over again…

oth001 28d ago

Well when the choice is between two corrupt and/or bribed politicians...

JKCalhoun 28d ago
Agree, vote for the most wildly corrupt.

Timon3 28d ago

And the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections, combined with the media apparatus built up by the right. I don't think any democracy could survive Fox News. Unfortunately the global right is colluding to export this concept across the globe...

otterley 27d ago
If money won elections, then the outcome of every election could be predicted with accuracy based solely on the relative spending by or on behalf of each candidate. In reality, that's not how it works. There are countless examples of candidates who outspent their opponents and lost. Money gets you reach. It doesn't get you guaranteed results. Besides, the voters don't get any of that money, nor do they even know most of the time who got more financial support. They'd be insulted by even the slightest suggestion that money is driving their vote.
- Timon3 27d ago
  I didn't say that money wins elections, but nice try. Though I wouldn't be surprised if conservatives could affect more voters with the same amount of money, since spreading bullshit is much cheaper than proving it wrong. The right can flood the zone with a firehose of lies, and even if they literally admit these lies, their voters go along.
  - otterley 27d ago
    I...didn’t say you did say that? No need to be defensive. But a reasonable interpretation of “the primary reason for people voting like this is the ungodly sums of money spent on elections” is that such a direct causal link exists. If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification.
    - Timon3 27d ago
      Then I must admit I'm unsure how to interpret your objections, since I understand you to be arguing against the position "The group spending the most money must always win elections". If you're not assuming that I'm taking this position, why bring it up? > If you meant something else, happy to receive a clarification. As a thought experiment, assume we're playing gods and decide to simulate a bunch of universes almost exactly like ours, so we can reliably study how civilizations develop (free from the influence of random chance). Then we evaluate how many of these civilizations had periods of strong corruption, loss in quality of life, and all the other negatives we're experiencing this decade. My argument is: you'd find a correlation between these periods, and the relative amounts of wealth invested into politics. Note this doesn't imply that bigger sums of money must lead to victory - especially if the thesis mentioned in my first reply is correct, which I very much assume it is.
      - otterley 27d ago
        I'm not sure. On the other hand, there're plenty of corruption and loss of quality of life where there's not much money in electioneering, or not even a democracy. Take Russia, for example, or any of a number of African or Central American countries.
        Timon3 26d ago
        Again, I'm not proposing a necessary condition. But leaving aside that Russia isn't a democracy (meaning it's not relevant when discussing elections): are you referencing a study that, among the countries you mentioned, compares the relative amounts of money spent & the development of said issues? If so, links would be greatly appreciated. If not, I once again fail to see your point - sure, the issues I mentioned occur a lot in poorer countries, I never claimed otherwise! So I still can't see how this relates to my hypothesis.

JKCalhoun 28d ago

I sympathize with your point, we should still blame the voters, but the 1% wouldn't be throwing billions of dollars into politics if they were seeing zero return on their money.