What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

[zorq]

But obviously that's not what we have.

And if what we have isn`t ideal then obviously we should just smash it up some more because nobody will notice a little more damage... Right?

And excluding foreigners from "interfering" doesn't make the elections work any better. Allowing foreigners to play some role does not mean the people are no longer running the country. If we allow some foreigners to be in the country -- e.g., tourists -- does that mean it's no longer "our" country, or that we still are not running it? So then how are we not still running "our own country" even if we allow foreigners to have some influence in the elections?

The word "some" is tricky because 99% is some. If we keep giving away "some" influence to the highest bidder there may come a time when there isn't as much "our country" as "their country."
But such extremes aren't necessary. Minute influence can still tip the balance of power in vastly different directions with countless repercussions.

What's a serious example of damage to the country which might happen as a result of allowing foreigners to "influence" or "interfere" with or "meddle" in the elections?

Don't play dumb, you know how corruption works. If you don't, now is your chance to go learn about it. Corruption from foreign sources works the same as internal ones.

But what's the harm if some people make money in the process? especially if some of that money can be taxed or is spent paying for the elections?

Gee, Mr Al Capone wants to keep prohibition going, I guess his cash for the air time he buys trying to swing the election more than makes up for all the other consequences his position might inflict on the nation... Right?

Surely you can recognise the significance of certain political calculations far outweigh a single elections marketing budget. SURELY.

Don't lots of printers and sign-makers and propagandists etc. make money off the elections? Don't the media and other institutions profit from them? Does this make the elections corrupt? There must be millions of workers and business owners who profit from them. Is that bad? How is it even possible to hold elections of any kind without some people making profit from them? To eliminate money from it would require eliminating elections altogether and adopting a different form of political system.

This is content for a different thread, but rest assured, plenty of people have thought of different strategies for conducting elections with far fewer risks of corruption than the current system in the US.

I don't even think money should be involved at all in elections. No campaign contributions. They all lead to corruption.

What about allowing people to volunteer their time to a candidate? Why wouldn't that also be corrupt? Why is it OK to volunteer your time but not your money which you spent time to earn? One volunteer works going door-to-door, another "volunteer" works hard to run a business so he can donate to his candidate. What's the difference?

So you would also have to ban all volunteer work done for candidates.

Nah, we wouldn't have to. We also don't have to conflate vastly different things like labor and capital.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

That someone profited from the election or a candidate does not delegitimize the election or the candidate.

Is it really a good thing for certain local media companies to take in money from foreign sources if the consequence is a distorted perspective of the electorate when making decisions on the course their country should take?

The phrase "distorted perspective" is subjective. If we outlaw all perspectives which are "distorted" we will have never-ending litigations fighting over what perspectives are "distorted" and which ones are OK.

There should not be anything in the law using terminology such as "distorted perspectives" or based on such subjectivity.

The OP implies that a thousand dollars in Google's pocket is worth inflicting a Donald Trump presidency on a nation.

Surely thousands of legitimate candidates have been elected as a result of something being bought or sold somewhere. You can't say that any buying or selling has to be wrong because the result of it is that some candidate got elected as a result of it. The buying and selling is just a normal part of the process.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How does "a few dollars more" do harm to democracy? including FOREIGN dollars?

How can it hurt the country if foreigners influence which demagogue-blowhard gets elected?

If you think our elections are farcical, then it would seem that you would be in favor of rules and laws making them less so.

How does excluding foreigners from having an influence make the elections any better?

Why would you want to make them even more problematic at reflecting the democratic will of the governed?

No, what's "more problematic" is the artificial waste of resources trying to exclude foreigners from playing a role, like restricting them from contributing to a campaign or advertising or lobbying.

Or also putting restrictions on citizens -- businesses or interest groups to limit their influence on campaigns.

How do these restrictions promote "the democratic will of the governed"? Allowing ALL the influences to compete against each other does more to promote the "democratic will of the governed" than all these cumbersome restrictions. What's unhealthy about the increased competition?

What do you stand to gain by letting any government in the world pour money into our elections?

By letting anyone and everyone "pour money" or anything else into them, we increase the sources of information and promote a greater variety of ideas. If some of those players are BAD guys, then let the GOOD guys also join in and oppose them. The more players the better. We stand to LOSE by restricting the players or disqualifying some who want to play.

Are you that desperate to save a few dollars every year at tax time?

If some of those contributions can be taxed, why isn't that good for the country? What's wrong with allowing something that does no harm and then taxing it? How does a little more revenue to reduce the deficit make us worse off?

 

[zorq]

.

Regarding your title,
Nobody said 3rd party profit deligitimizes an election.

Is it really a good thing for certain local media companies to take in money from foreign sources if the consequence is a distorted perspective of the electorate when making decisions on the course their country should take?

The phrase "distorted perspective" is subjective. If we outlaw all perspectives which are "distorted" we will have never-ending litigations fighting over what perspectives are "distorted" and which ones are OK.

Some perspectives are objectively wrong. Some people and industries profit from the propagation of those objectively wrong perspectives. When we let money be the deciding factor of whether a perspective gets broadcast we get all kinds of distorted perceptions of reality in the population. Now, do you suppose that a foreign power( who is most leither a competitor, or an enemy of the local nation or its industries) is either more likely or less likely to contribute objectively wrong perspectives to the political process of the local nation?

There should not be anything in the law using terminology such as "distorted perspectives" or based on such subjectivity.

Then it's a good thing I proposed no such thing!

The OP implies that a thousand dollars in Google's pocket is worth inflicting a Donald Trump presidency on a nation.

Surely thousands of legitimate candidates have been elected as a result of something being bought or sold somewhere. You can't say that any buying or selling has to be wrong because the result of it is that some candidate got elected as a result of it. The buying and selling is just a normal part of the process.

While corruption is normal, it doesn't have to be tolerated.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's the difference between "polarizing" and increased diversity?

right-wing conservative: So Russian Intelligence is fucking with multimedia, passing along polarizing fake ads in an effort to undermine our democracy. Is it that big of a deal?!

Are "polarizing fake ads" a threat to our democracy? a corrupting influence which must be stamped out? Whatever these ads are, the best response to them, if any is needed, is for someone else to run counter-ads to debunk them.

What's an example of how our democracy is being undermined by this? Or rather, how is it being undermined in a negative way? Maybe some of what we call "democracy" needs to be undermined. Maybe these fake ads are part of a medicine which will purge our democracy of its rotten part.

Having MORE total input is usually an improvement that makes everything (slightly) better than before.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Even parrots (trained to say "vote for _____") should be allowed to influence our elections.

As Jolly pointed out there are non-Americans on this board. Should we ban them from talking about our elections?

Is there no distinction between a non-American participating on an online forum and a foreign agent(s) posing as Americans using fabricated social media profiles and using the alias as a provocateur?

Why should any of the above be illegal?

If this foreign agent or provocateur is committing fraud, then it should be illegal. But that means he's buying or selling something, paying or being paid, and violating the terms agreed to. And also that's just as illegal whether it's a foreigner or a citizen.

How about a bot written to share and re-share both fake and inflammatory material?

Or a non-bot -- what's the difference? If it's slanderous it might be illegal. Regardless if it's from a foreigner. What's "inflammatory"? You mean like Karl Marx was inflammatory and was expelled from several countries?

I noticed accounts that were obsessed with pushing the Russian position on the MH 370 were also heavily promoting anti-GMO and sometimes anti-Vaccine conspiracy theories. Those same accounts were magically anti-Clinton and pro-Trump until Trump bombed a Syrian air base then they changed their tune. A few of them went dark for awhile but woke back up when the first Mueller indictments came out.

Lot of wackos out there. Fanatics, partisans. Cranks. Nut jobs. How many Senate hearings will it take to separate all the "inflammatory" ones to be banned from the politically-correct ones? or the red-blooded American accounts from the foreign-tainted accounts?

Much more efficient would be to hold hearings on how to tap into the money flowing around from all these and grab a little revenue to spend on infrastructure or something. Extend invitations to ALL the players, foreign and domestic, give them free run at all the "platforms" here and there, get them into the game, and then say "And Oh, by the way, we get a little piece of the action while you're at it." Much better for democracy and for the taxpayers than all the waste they're doing now.

Am I incorrect in making a distinction between this type of social media participant and actual people just having a discussion?

If a bot, or a computer, or a parrot, tells me the earth is round, it's telling the truth.

If a human tells me the earth is flat, it's not the truth.

Why do we need to know what the thing is that's saying it? We have to check out everything we're told anyway, regardless who told us.

If they can design a "bot" which answers questions intelligently and gives facts that are relevant, etc., who cares that it's a "bot"? If it can't interact intelligently this will be detected. If it's putting out lies, these have to be discovered anyway, no matter whether it's from a human or a bot. Or from a foreigner.

Actually it would be an advancement if they can invent a machine that answers the questions and argues and presents facts and reasons and so on. So this kind of participant should not be banned. It should have to pass the necessary tests, imposed by the system providers. I.e., if all it can do is just keep repeating its slogans without responding to reasonable questions, then it is excluded, because it won't pass the tests.

But there shouldn't be any legal restrictions against it just because it puts out political messages or "interferes" in elections. Instead, find a way to tax it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's OK if foreigners influence our elections.

This is not a free speech issue. If it were, however, I would be compelled to point out that free speech, as it is codified in our constitution, only applies to citizens of the USA.

But it's in our interest to extend it to foreigners. Their free speech in the U.S. does not pose any threat to us.

If Russia wants to engage in free speech, perhaps they should first look toward affording that right to their citizens.

They should. But still equal free speech should be granted in the U.S. to all foreigners, regardless what their home country practices. And we can't distinguish between Russians and Germans or Danes, etc., and say that foreigners from bad countries have LESS free speech than those from the good countries. There are many shades of infringement of free speech in many different countries.

As Jolly pointed out there are non-Americans on this board. Should we ban them from talking about our elections?

No, we shouldn't, and no one is advocating that we should. They should not, however, be able to influence our elections in any other manner.

But they are able to and there's no practical way to stop them, nor any need to stop them. Let anyone try to influence our elections if they want to. How is that a threat to us? What damage can they do? How is their influence anymore harmful than that of a citizen who might have some bad sentiments?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why send someone to jail over nothing?

The people who broke the law need to go to jail, no matter what political office they currently inhabit, or which political party they have decided to hang their hat with.

But what if the law they broke is unnecessary, or silly? Why does it matter if some foreigner, or foreign government, "interfered" in our election? What is the fuss over this really about?

Each party is seeking a "smoking gun" to use against the other, but the "crime" committed is a phantom.

No one is really naming a substantial risk or danger to U.S. democracy posed by the foreign "interference." Suppose a violation is proved and someone gets prosecuted and convicted -- what is gained? What was the damage they did to the country by their "collusion" with the Russians? or other foreign government?

 

[DrZoidberg]

They didn't bust the Russians, even if they did this. The Special Investigation report admits any of its estimates could also be wrong.

Well.. that's the nature of using proxy's. It's a game where the hackers are trying to beat the investigators. But once they've tracked the traffic to Russian servers I'd say it's pretty settled. Don't you? Sure, there's doubts. But come on... this isn't exactly out of character for Putin.

They did not do that. They found few Tor nodes in Russia and claimed "See, Russia!"

Why would any other country have an incentive to manufacture these accusations against Russia? There's a lot of traffic. There's a lot of posts. That requires somebody well motivated and well funded. It's not the Democrats, or they would have broken the news before the election was over. What other candidate is there?

 

[barbos]

Well.. that's the nature of using proxy's. It's a game where the hackers are trying to beat the investigators. But once they've tracked the traffic to Russian servers I'd say it's pretty settled. Don't you? Sure, there's doubts. But come on... this isn't exactly out of character for Putin.

They did not do that. They found few Tor nodes in Russia and claimed "See, Russia!"

Why would any other country have an incentive to manufacture these accusations against Russia?

You can't think of any reason? What are the incentives Russia has to try to meddle in US elections?

There's a lot of traffic. There's a lot of posts.

So they claim.

That requires somebody well motivated and well funded.

So. only Russia is well motivated?

It's not the Democrats, or they would have broken the news before the election was over. What other candidate is there?

Candidate for what?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The people who broke the law need to go to jail, no matter what political office they currently inhabit, or which political party they have decided to hang their hat with.

But what if the law they broke is unnecessary, or silly? Why does it matter if some foreigner, or foreign government, "interfered" in our election? What is the fuss over this really about?

Each party is seeking a "smoking gun" to use against the other, but the "crime" committed is a phantom.

No one is really naming a substantial risk or danger to U.S. democracy posed by the foreign "interference." Suppose a violation is proved and someone gets prosecuted and convicted -- what is gained? What was the damage they did to the country by their "collusion" with the Russians? or other foreign government?

It's real simple for me, I want a President who will work for the best interests of the US. I don't want a president who is beholden to a foreign government. I want to know what the quid pro quo is. It's clear to me that if Trump's foreign connections to Russia hadn't been exposed, that the US would have pulled out of Nato and Russian sanctions would have been dropped.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

right-wing conservative: So Russian Intelligence is fucking with multimedia, passing along polarizing fake ads in an effort to undermine our democracy. Is it that big of a deal?!

Are "polarizing fake ads" a threat to our democracy? a corrupting influence which must be stamped out? Whatever these ads are, the best response to them, if any is needed, is for someone else to run counter-ads to debunk them.

What's an example of how our democracy is being undermined by this? Or rather, how is it being undermined in a negative way? Maybe some of what we call "democracy" needs to be undermined. Maybe these fake ads are part of a medicine which will purge our democracy of its rotten part.

Having MORE total input is usually an improvement that makes everything (slightly) better than before.

More total input? Yeah, it is called a DOS attack, you clearly have no idea about how anything in the real world works.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do any of you really believe that Russian interference cost Hillary the election and not her decades of being hated by the right and her own corruption and self-entitled "I'm with her" rhetoric, and lack of known policy agenda?

"Russia hacked the election for Trump" is the loonie left's equivalent of the loonie right's "Obama was born in Kenya." Horseshoe Theory.

Except, the Russians did interfere with the election and Obama was born in Hawaii. We know the Russians even infiltrated voting rolls at some states. And we know that the Trump Campaign conspired with the Russians.

Otherwise, you almost made an accurate point.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do any of you really believe that Russian interference cost Hillary the election and not her decades of being hated by the right and her own corruption and self-entitled "I'm with her" rhetoric, and lack of known policy agenda?

"Russia hacked the election for Trump" is the loonie left's equivalent of the loonie right's "Obama was born in Kenya." Horseshoe Theory.

Except, the Russians did interfere with the election and Obama was born in Hawaii. We know the Russians even infiltrated voting rolls at some states. And we know that the Trump Campaign conspired with the Russians.

Otherwise, you almost made an accurate point.

So close... He was so close.

 

[KeepTalking]

How does excluding foreigners from having an influence make the elections any better?

Because it reduces corruption, and corruption is a big part of what makes our elections farcical.

Why would you want to make them even more problematic at reflecting the democratic will of the governed?

No, what's "more problematic" is the artificial waste of resources trying to exclude foreigners from playing a role, like restricting them from contributing to a campaign or advertising or lobbying.

No, corruption and the will of the governed not being recognized by their governors are by far more problematic than waste when it comes to elections.

Or also putting restrictions on citizens -- businesses or interest groups to limit their influence on campaigns.

How do these restrictions promote "the democratic will of the governed"?

Restrictions that reduce the influence of those who will not be governed necessarily increase the ability of the governed to influence their governors.

Allowing ALL the influences to compete against each other does more to promote the "democratic will of the governed" than all these cumbersome restrictions. What's unhealthy about the increased competition?

Not when some of those influences have a very disproportionate ability to leverage their influence with vast sums of money, or when other influences are able to manipulate the electorate from outside with no chance that the negative aspects of that manipulation will affect them because they will not be governed by the result.

What do you stand to gain by letting any government in the world pour money into our elections?

By letting anyone and everyone "pour money" or anything else into them, we increase the sources of information and promote a greater variety of ideas. If some of those players are BAD guys, then let the GOOD guys also join in and oppose them. The more players the better. We stand to LOSE by restricting the players or disqualifying some who want to play.

And when I want to play, but I lack the means to play because of the influence of foreign money, what then?

I am the poor sap who will bear the brunt of that influence, not the foreign billionaire who just bought themselves a city/county/state/country.

Are you that desperate to save a few dollars every year at tax time?

If some of those contributions can be taxed, why isn't that good for the country? What's wrong with allowing something that does no harm and then taxing it? How does a little more revenue to reduce the deficit make us worse off?

Your supposition is that it does no harm. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in supposing that. I submit the following evidence in support of my position that it does do harm:

President Donald J. Trump

Sorry, I just won, you can take your toys and go home now.

Oh wait, you don't get to take your toys, I was able to use money from foreign sources to buy enough influence to enact laws that say you lost the argument, so I get to keep your toys. And, by the way, that home that you used to have, I took money from another foreign source, so now I have to pay them back by granting them the land you used to live on, you know, imminent domain and all that. But hey, you will have to pay less in taxes, so what are you complaining about?

 

[LordKiran]

Because nation-states don't work that way. The entire idea behind the nation-state is that the state apparatus derives its legitimacy from being a state by the people which it rules (The nation)

 

[Elixir]

It's real simple for me, I want a President who will work for the best interests of the US. I don't want a president who is beholden to a foreign government. I want to know what the quid pro quo is. It's clear to me that if Trump's foreign connections to Russia hadn't been exposed, that the US would have pulled out of Nato and Russian sanctions would have been dropped.

You are basically wondering the same thing that everyone else (outside of the trumptard asylum) is wondering:
WHAT IS THE DIRT THAT UNCLE VLAD IS HOLDING OVER TWITLER'S HEAD?

It's patently obvious that he is Putin's puppet - that the strings remain invisible to-date is a testament to Vlad's competence and Cheato's incompetence.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because nation-states don't work that way. The entire idea behind the nation-state is that the state apparatus derives its legitimacy from being a state by the people which it rules (The nation)

Can't kingdoms be nation states as well?

 

[KeepTalking]

Because nation-states don't work that way. The entire idea behind the nation-state is that the state apparatus derives its legitimacy from being a state by the people which it rules (The nation)

Can't kingdoms be nation states as well?

The UK, and the Netherlands are both examples of Kingdoms (at least in name) as nation states, but in both cases the Monarch is little more than a figurehead.

 

[LordKiran]

Because nation-states don't work that way. The entire idea behind the nation-state is that the state apparatus derives its legitimacy from being a state by the people which it rules (The nation)

Can't kingdoms be nation states as well?

A kingdom is a form of state, not nation. At any rate, if every nation gets involved in other nation's politics then you don't have nation-states anymore. The entire point behind the Peace of Westphalia was that individual nations had the right to sovereignty within their borders.