Mega-Donors and Elections

[Bomb#20]

Gee, B20, did I somewhere assert that Dems do not play by Republicans’ enforced rules?

The Democrats and the Republicans run this country as their private duopoly. The Democrats run California as a one-party state. They could easily establish proportional representation or ranked-choice or proxies here if they gave a rat's ass about free and fair elections. Are you seriously proposing the Democrats would have a welcoming attitude to third parties if only the Republicans weren't so mean? The Democrats were playing by these rules before the Republicans even existed. They like the private duopoly just fine where they can't get the private monopoly of their dreams.

Did you just return from an epic spending spree at Strawmen R-US?

Thank you, Mr. "Those are obvious facts to everyone in America, except the 30% who think Donald Trump is Jesus". What is it about your opinions you feel I've misrepresented? Disagreeing with you is not a misrepresentation.

Or maybe you just graduated from The Tigers! School of American Political Advice?

Democrats DESPERATELY want free and fair elections for the same reason Republicans oppose them:
Republicans can’t win fair elections.

You provide assertions, so I provide evidence, so you repeat your assertions. I see no reason to believe Democrats can win fair elections either, and their behavior suggests they also don't believe it.

No election that gives voters an incentive to vote strategically instead of according to their true preferences qualifies as a fair election.

The fact that the corrupt SCOTUS’ tilted playing field is the only one we have, does not alter that fact.

The Democrats had the presidency and both houses of congress a couple years ago. Let me know when the SCOTUS overturns their law introducing proportional representation.

 

[Elixir]

They could easily establish proportional representation or ranked-choice or proxies here if they gave a rat's ass about free and fair elections.

Ya sure ya betcha. And that would mean people get to pick their Presidents .... HOW?

What is it about your opinions you feel I've misrepresented?

I think you have assigned me to Tigers!'s "then you should do it" shoulder shrugging, whereby I am called a hypocrite for not recommending that Dems do what they'd like everyone to do; play fair.
Well, B2, the FACT is that they cannot do that and continue to exist. And you know it.

I see no reason to believe Democrats can win fair elections

Oh? See 2016, where the Republicans' conman candidate "won" the presidency while losing the popular vote by >3million votes.
That's EVIDENCE. As is RW efforts to suppress votes, their new habit of denying their losses and their current groundwork to declare electoral fraud when they lose this November.
(let's just ignore the failed coup attempt that the right mounted when they lost in 2020 - I'm sure Dems would have done the same thing, right? Because they don't care about fair, per your assertion)

No Dem has won without the popular vote since 1876, nor will they again as long as the current Right-Weighted systems remain in place. What you can't see a reason to believe doesn't negate the facts: Dems need a much larger margin of people's preference to attain the highest office in the land, than do Republicans. Would you like to make a bet (off-site of course) about whether this coming cycle's presidential vote margin is greater or less than the winning candidate's electoral margin? No? Then you realize that what I said is true.

 

[Tigers!]

Parties will always want more money to fund campaigns. That requires donors.

Or PUBLICLY FUNDED ELECTIONS.
You keep forgetting that part. WHY?

See my post no. 31

 

[Tigers!]

it is mostly Democrats who support campaign finance reform, and Republicans who oppose it.

Just my opinion, as yet not contradicted by Tigers!:

Tigers will not, cannot and must not concede the basic facts that American Republicans do not want free and fair elections, and American Democrats DO want free and fair elections.

Those are obvious facts to everyone in America, except the 30% who think Donald Trump is Jesus (because their Jesus says nuh-uh).
But in Au? I don’t think Tigers! Can even begin to understand -let alone internalize - the fact of our Republican Party’s malevolence and desire for totalitarianism.
So he keeps saying “why don’t you try this (thing that Republicans will not allow)?” When it is pointed out that Republicans won’t allow it, he simply reverts to “then Democrats should just do it alone, and if they don’t, they’re hypocrites, same as both sides”.

If the Democrats win in Nov. I will eagerly await their repeal of CU and other amendements to donations law i.e. timely updates, caps, transparency etc.

 

[Tigers!]

There is a very common fallacy sometimes called the Free Parking Fallacy. I call it the Designated Hitter (DH) Fallacy. Before the Aussies here complain they can't possibly understand anything about baseball, all you need to know for our purpose here is in the next paragraph.

Some baseball leagues vote whether to adopt a "DH" rule. Suppose some team owners or managers dislike the rule and vote against it. But they're in a minority and the DH rule is adopted. A team is allowed to ignore the DH rule and operate without it, but they will be at a disadvantage when playing against teams which exploit the DH rule.

Is it hypocritical for a team that opposed the DH rule to exploit it once adopted? No. Is it improper or immoral for a team that opposed the DH rule to exploit it? No.

The DH Fallacy is frequently made in political discussions. For example, Warren Buffett pays taxes at a net 20% rate and is on record stating his opinion that it would be better public policy for high-income earners like himself to pay 35%. Right-wingers despise this sort of talk and call Mr. Buffett a hypocrite because he doesn't voluntarily donate that extra 15%. Should Buffett pay the higher rate he has proposed, despite that the actual tax tables don't call for it? No. Is he under some "moral obligation" to do so? No.

We had a fellow in Australia called Kerry Packer. Very rich by Aust. standards (had nothing compared to Buffet) who went on the public record as stating that he will only pay the tax he was obligated to pay. Not a penny more. Legally he was quite correct. Pity he never did anything to improve the Aust. tax system. Worth emulating? No.

Repubs would have no interest at all in that solution, and would call it an attack on free speech (because dollars equal speech, so if you have no spare cash, we can't hear you.) We would need a strong Democrat imprint on at least legislative and executive to pull that off, and then there'd be the Roberts Court to steer around. Nice to theorize about, though.

You really believe that the Democrats are unaffected by all the big money they get? And that they are truly interested in any reforms that would stop those rivers of money?

Wrong again. With exceptions it is mostly Democrats who support campaign finance reform, and Republicans who oppose it. It wasn't so long ago that U.S. Presidential campaigns were government financed. Candidates who used non-government money for their campaign were denied the large government campaign subsidies. With the emergence of PACs, the restriction became harder to enforce; and with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by a Court packed by Republicans, the government financing became obsolescent.

Until something is actually done about campaign reform then fine words are just fine words. Actions speak louder. If the Democrats win in Nov. then you and I and Elixir et al. will eagerly await these touted campaign reforms.

[In 2000] Republican George W. Bush became the first major party candidate to opt out of the public financing system during the primaries.

Many politicians are motivated by the opportunity for public service and are unhappy with the time and effort that they must spend on fund-raising in the American system.

And to those people I will tip my hat and say well done. More power to them.

 

[Tigers!]

Repubs would have no interest at all in that solution, and would call it an attack on free speech (because dollars equal speech, so if you have no spare cash, we can't hear you.) We would need a strong Democrat imprint on at least legislative and executive to pull that off, and then there'd be the Roberts Court to steer around. Nice to theorize about, though.

You really believe that the Democrats are unaffected by all the big money they get? And that they are truly interested in any reforms that would stop those rivers of money?

The Democrats aren't looking for untold riches to run. They were beholden to corporate interests before CItizen's United. It is that post CItizen's, the numbers are getting quite out there. A billion for a candidate, a billion for the Super PACs. It is outrageous.

That said, Democrat appointed justices were less likely to consider spending as speech (yes, that isn't it exactly, but it is good enough minus the VAR). Honestly, spending on the elections isn't the primary issue, it is the damned length of the elections that is. Shortening the election cycle would reduce the potential for spending. But the SCOTUS would probably just rule that unconstitutional, rendering us legally "fucked".

The length of your electoral cycles is extraordinary. It seems you barely crown a president and campaigning starts for the next election. In Aust. our campaigns rarely last longer than 60 days (and that can feel too long).

 

[Shadowy Man]

If the Democrats win in Nov. I will eagerly await their repeal of CU and other amendements to donations law i.e. timely updates, caps, transparency etc.

how exactly does one repeal a Supreme Court decision? Am I missing something in your logic? What does the word “repeal” mean to you in the context of American law?

 

[Elixir]

I will eagerly await their repeal of CU and other amendements

What part of TWO THIRDS don’t you understand? Then there’s a 75% bar.
But yeah -who ya gonna blame? Why, the Party nominally in charge of course.
Please read the short bit below so you don’t keep making the same mistake.

Overturning the Citizens United decision would require a constitutional amendment. This process involves several steps:

1. **Proposal**: An amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures[1][2][3].

2. **Ratification**: The proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states[1][2][3].

Multiple constitutional amendments have been introduced (BY DEMOCRATS) to overturn Citizens United, aiming to restore the ability of Congress and states to regulate campaign finance.
They all fall to REPUBLICAN opposition. It only takes an Empty Gee here and a Hee Hawley there, and next thing, you have a cabal of Trumpsucking morons preventing democratic processes - and being handsomely rewarded for it by those very people who would lose power if CU went away.

 

[jonatha]

Let me know when the SCOTUS overturns their law introducing proportional representation.

PR (at a national level at least) would require a Constitutional Amendment...

 

[scombrid]

it is mostly Democrats who support campaign finance reform, and Republicans who oppose it.

Just my opinion, as yet not contradicted by Tigers!:

Tigers will not, cannot and must not concede the basic facts that American Republicans do not want free and fair elections, and American Democrats DO want free and fair elections.

Those are obvious facts to everyone in America, except the 30% who think Donald Trump is Jesus (because their Jesus says nuh-uh).
But in Au? I don’t think Tigers! Can even begin to understand -let alone internalize - the fact of our Republican Party’s malevolence and desire for totalitarianism.
So he keeps saying “why don’t you try this (thing that Republicans will not allow)?” When it is pointed out that Republicans won’t allow it, he simply reverts to “then Democrats should just do it alone, and if they don’t, they’re hypocrites, same as both sides”.

If the Democrats win in Nov. I will eagerly await their repeal of CU and other amendements to donations law i.e. timely updates, caps, transparency etc.

Repeal Citizens United? How does that work?

 

[Elixir]

Repeal Citizens United? How does that work?

It doesn't, obviously. Maybe in Au.

 

[Swammerdami]

If the Democrats win in Nov. I will eagerly await their repeal of CU and other amendements to donations law i.e. timely updates, caps, transparency etc.

Brief history lesson for Tigers! :--

As others have explained to you, the American system is rigged AGAINST reform. Now, almost four years into his term, Biden is still plagued with a criminal Postmaster-General appointed by Trump: a criminal who has used his power to remove mailboxes and make it harder for Ds to vote. The GOP rigged the rules to make him hard to fire.

Obamacare needed 60 votes in the Senate but never had more than 59. (In part because the R's delayed for months before allowing Senator Franken to sit.) Instead of a 60th vote, Obamacare got Lieberman, darling of the insurance companies. The insurance industry was the biggest obstacle to comprehensive health-care reform but, in effect, it was the insurance companies who ended up writing the legislation! Do you ever watch Senate or House hearings on YouTube, Tigers! Do they really show same-same?

It is the ignorant repetitions of "Same-same; they're all same-same" that help doom the chance for real reforms.

The hyper-partisanship is a relatively recent thing. Even Reagan and Bush-41, while in league with criminals, worked sincerely for the betterment of the country. It was with Speaker Newt Gingrich that Republican politics became a sewage dump. (Gingrich acted to tank Clinton's entire agenda because he didn't like the seat he was assigned on Air Force One.) Bush-43 was a figurehead dunce who turned the country over to Dick Cheney (nicknamed Darth Vader).

And now, in the era of Donald Trump, anyone still babbling about "Same-same" is so drenched in ignorance that their opinions are absolutely worthless -- nothing but wasted ink. You can see that right here on this Board: We have Trumplickers and "independents" allied with Trump's Ilk here. Has any of them ever written anything worthwhile?

 

[Bomb#20]

Let me know when the SCOTUS overturns their law introducing proportional representation.

PR (at a national level at least) would require a Constitutional Amendment...

... which would require the Democrats to write one.

 

[Elixir]

Let me know when the SCOTUS overturns their law introducing proportional representation.

PR (at a national level at least) would require a Constitutional Amendment...

... which would require the Democrats to write one.

I figure they will if they think it will pass.

 

[Bomb#20]

They could easily establish proportional representation or ranked-choice or proxies here if they gave a rat's ass about free and fair elections.

Ya sure ya betcha. And that would mean people get to pick their Presidents .... HOW?

I must have missed the part where you showed only the presidency matters. If Democrats genuinely "DESPERATELY want free and fair elections" then why are they letting the impossibility of getting that in presidential elections stop them from making California's legislature and governor elections free and fair?

What is it about your opinions you feel I've misrepresented?

I think you have assigned me to Tigers!'s "then you should do it" shoulder shrugging, whereby I am called a hypocrite for not recommending that Dems do what they'd like everyone to do; play fair.

Where the bejesus did I assign you or call you any such thing? What I'm calling you is hopelessly naive for taking the Democratic Party's self-serving window dressing at face value.

Well, B2, the FACT is that they cannot do that and continue to exist. And you know it.

Duh! That's my point. The party does not desperately want free and fair elections. It desperately wants to continue to exist; it desperately wants to be a permanent ruling party without any functional opposition where it can; and where it can't, it desperately wants to maintain the two-party system that guarantees it will continue to frequently get a turn in power, every time the other tolerated party wears out its welcome with the voters.

I see no reason to believe Democrats can win fair elections

Oh? See 2016, where the Republicans' conman candidate "won" the presidency while losing the popular vote by >3million votes.

What's your point? Clinton lost the popular vote as well, by 2 million votes. If she'd "won" the presidency with that, that would have been free and fair, would it?

And that's just when we consider the candidates on the November ballot -- how free and fair an election is depends on how candidates get on the ballot in the first place. Do Bernie Sanders' supporters think the 2016 Democratic primary election was free and fair? And how free and fair an election is also depends on the voting system. When voters are allowed to pick only one candidate they're put in a position of needing to grit their teeth and vote for whoever has the best chance to beat the person they hate most, instead of voting for something positive the way they could if we had ranked-choice voting. How free and fair could an election be that guaranteed the winner would be one of the two most loathed candidates in the country? At that point the Democrats had nothing of value to offer America besides "Keep the Republicans out of power", and the Republicans had nothing of value to offer America besides "Get the Democrats out of power."

That's EVIDENCE. As is RW efforts to suppress votes, their new habit of denying their losses and their current groundwork to declare electoral fraud when they lose this November.
(let's just ignore the failed coup attempt that the right mounted when they lost in 2020 -

I'm sorry, did you get us mixed up with somebody's "Do Republicans care about fair elections?" argument?

I'm sure Dems would have done the same thing, right? Because they don't care about fair, per your assertion)

I'm sure the Dems wouldn't have been stupid enough to think they could get away with it. Besides which...

No Dem has won without the popular vote since 1876, nor will they again as long as the current Right-Weighted systems remain in place. What you can't see a reason to believe doesn't negate the facts: Dems need a much larger margin of people's preference to attain the highest office in the land, than do Republicans.

... the whole point of declaring electoral fraud was to prevent an EC majority and send the election 1824-style to the HoR, where the Repubs had the advantage. So the Dems wouldn't have done it even if they thought they could get away with it because it wouldn't have let them win. They object to the current system because it is, as you say, "Right-Weighted". Not because it's Weighted.

Would you like to make a bet (off-site of course) about whether this coming cycle's presidential vote margin is greater or less than the winning candidate's electoral margin? No? Then you realize that what I said is true.

Hey man, my state joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Yours? Where exactly is "Mountains"? We only need a few more states to sign up and we can put this whole Electoral College garbage behind us.

 

[Bomb#20]

Let me know when the SCOTUS overturns their law introducing proportional representation.

PR (at a national level at least) would require a Constitutional Amendment...

... which would require the Democrats to write one.

I figure they will if they think it will pass.

The average Congress introduces about a hundred Constitutional Amendments. Thinking their ideas won't pass evidently doesn't stop Congressthings from writing them.

 

[Elixir]

Thinking their ideas won't pass evidently doesn't stop Congressthings from writing them.

P.R. Would be a massive overhaul of our electoral system. How many such are written every year?

 

[Elixir]

They could easily establish proportional representation or ranked-choice or proxies here

Easily? How easily?
A ranked choice system would be the easier step, I believe. Whether it would be easier to gain the required assent, I’m not sure at all.
And of course it wouldn’t do shit beyond the State borders. Most of our problems stem from the electoral college which has given us bad leadership and our current corrupt SCOTUS, which would likely strike down any move toward P.R. at Santa Monica’s request, lest it threaten their benefactors.

 

[Elixir]

The party does not desperately want free and fair elections. It desperately wants to continue to exist;

Duh. That’s each party’s JOB.

it desperately wants to be a permanent ruling dominant party without any functional opposition where it can; and where it can't, it desperately wants to maintain the two-party system that guarantees it will continue to frequently get a turn in power, every time the other tolerated party wears out its welcome with the voters.

I had to correct the “permanent ruling” part, as I think the current Republican presidential candidate is the only one seriously questing for that, and only for his personal benefit.
Most political professionals, however impure, power hungry and greedy, have a sense patriotism, public service and legacy (or at least the appearance thereof) that drives them to want to win by the rules. The malevolent faction wants to destroy the rules.
The degradation of our collective ethic has been accelerated out of control by Citizens United, and there’s probably no turning back, now that our system is officially rigged to do the bidding of whoever has the most money, no exceptions, and to lavish riches upon anyone who can win and toe their line.

ETA: no, it has NOT “always been that way”.

 

[Bomb#20]

Thinking their ideas won't pass evidently doesn't stop Congressthings from writing them.

P.R. Would be a massive overhaul of our electoral system. How many such are written every year?

Fair point; I don't know how many of the hundred are typically massive overhauls. But I don't think the massive overhaul would have to be written into the amendment itself. The amendment could just say Congress has the authority to replace itself with a body elected by proportional representation. Only if it gets ratified does it get serious, and then Congress would have a reason to put in the effort to design a massive overhaul.

They could easily establish proportional representation or ranked-choice or proxies here

Easily? How easily?
A ranked choice system would be the easier step, I believe. Whether it would be easier to gain the required assent, I’m not sure at all.

By "easily" I wasn't counting gaining the required assent. That part would be impossible, because it wouldn't be in the legislators' self-interest. That was my point -- this was a thought experiment about what would happen if they genuinely desperately wanted free and fair elections. They don't. They desperately want to stay in power.

If they did want to do it, yes, ranked choice would be easiest -- just change the ballots and the counting software. PR would mean abolishing the geographical districts and redesigning the whole constituent-services part of an assembly member's job, since anybody anywhere in the state might be somebody who voted for you. Actual proxy voting would be hardest of all if we want to preserve the secret ballot. But you could safely approximate it with two rounds of voting. The first round is conventional PR; in the second round, now that everybody knows who the legislators are going to be, anybody can vote for any legislator, and each legislator's vote on a bill is weighted in proportion to how many votes she got in the second round.

Most of our problems stem from the electoral college which has given us bad leadership and our current corrupt SCOTUS, which would likely strike down any move toward P.R. at Santa Monica’s request, lest it threaten their benefactors.

Possibly. I can't guess what Constitutional excuse they could find for striking it down, but hey, the SCOTUS does seem to be evolving away from a Court towards a House of Lords.