And somehow we still call it a democracy

[sine]

Elections should last two weeks strictly limited to public funding.

Two weeks might be a little short.....but this.........way way too freaking long.

[cp43]

Two weeks might be a little short.....but this.........way way too freaking long.

To me, the public funding part is more important than the two weeks part.

But, I agree, the length of the current process is ridiculous.

[robin3mj]

Two weeks might be a little short.....but this.........way way too freaking long.

I think anyone running for office while holding an office should need to account to their constituents for time not spent actually governing, and their pay should be reduced accordingly or they have to give up their current office.
Can you imagine getting hired at a new job at GM, then spending 50% of your working days doing nothing but trying to get a job at Toyota? And your current boss thinking that's completely fine?

[Scott G.]

It's spelled o.g.l.i.a.r.c.h.y.

The Beeb disgrees with you....on spelling.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - BBC News

[deano]

Writing a letter to the governor? Meaningless.

Voting the governor out of office? Meaningful.

Don't forget the basic principle. People's votes win elections. Bottom line.

I thought the basic principle was "whoever has the gold, makes the rules." Take my earlier example of mass communication. If mass communication is purchased (airtime, ad dollars, etc.) then whomever has the cash and organizational might to get on there and he/she changes the context of what people believe they are voting for. They will become your choice.

And, writing a letter to your governor is effective. Because he/she will likely actually hear your message, unlike a vote fer/agin, and maybe even wonder if you've got some money to throw around next time. I got a handwritten note back from the governor (Ohio) last time I called his office. Tried to get the space shuttle to my home state a few years back. California got it. Guess I shoulda written a check instead. :)

[ericpmoss]

If one really thinks that voting is not important, compare and contrast Jerry Brown as governor of California and this guy:

Alaska mulls extra oil drilling to cope with climate change - BBC News

(Civilized) words escape me...

[XR2]

In reality the USA is a federalist republic with democratically elected leaders.

Take a look at Gary Johnson. An experienced legitimate leader. Consider real options instead of complaining.

[Dallas Tex]

Ask Al Gore if a couple individual's votes can make a difference.

[vertical_doug]

Ask Al Gore if a couple individual's votes can make a difference.

Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 (50,999,897 to 50,456,002) but lost the electoral vote by 5. 266-271

So how does this work>?

[Dallas Tex]

........ If mass communication is purchased (airtime, ad dollars, etc.) then whomever has the cash and organizational might to get on there and he/she changes the context of what people believe they are voting for. They will become your choice......

You suggest a direct cause-effect relationship between 'ad dollars' and outcomes. None ever existed, and with the abundance of new information sources none will ever exist.

I'm going to assume that you are basing this on the fact that the candidate that spends the most money typical wins the election. While the reality is that the 'best' (more likely to win candidate) attracts more money to his campaign and is then capable of spending more.

Vote on the primaries. Vote in the general election. People choose the candidates and people choose winners with their votes.

[Dallas Tex]

Al Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 (50,999,897 to 50,456,002) but lost the electoral vote by 5. 266-271

So how does this work>?

In America, presidential elections are won or lost based on the electoral college. Al Gore lost Florida by a few votes and lost the election as a result. This link may help:

A beginners guide to the Electoral College | Donkeyselephants

[vertical_doug]

In America, presidential elections are won or lost based on the electoral college. Al Gore lost Florida by a few votes and lost the election as a result. This link may help:

A beginners guide to the Electoral College | Donkeyselephants

You missed the point. Al Gore won the popular vote but because of a quirk in our process, George Bush won the electoral college. So all votes are not equal. Otherwise, Gore won.

One man one vote has been proven false. Some votes are more important than others, so smart money focuses on those.

You can also look at some of the wonderfully gerrymandered districts to see how you can also stack the deck. Not for the presidency, but definitely for the congressional seats.

[Dallas Tex]

You missed the point. Al Gore won the popular vote but because of a quirk in our process, George Bush won the electoral college. So all votes are not equal. Otherwise, Gore won.

One man one vote has been proven false. Some votes are more important than others, so smart money focuses on those.

You can also look at some of the wonderfully gerrymandered districts to see how you can also stack the deck. Not for the presidency, but definitely for the congressional seats.

The point is more that all votes are important. If 537 people in Florida had made it to the polls Al Gore would be president.

Using your popular vote numbers from above: 50,999,899+50,456,002=101,455,901 people voted to choose the leader of the free world. Out of an estimated 246,400,000 voting age people. Meaning that nearly 60% of the voting age population didn't vote!

The system isn't broke. We don't have a system problem we have a participation problem. Its hard to argue that we need some sort of legal remedy or some dramatic re-engineering of our political process when 60% of the people aren't participating in he current process.

Kinda like saying that you need a better bike when don't care enough to ride the one that you already own.

[vertical_doug]

The point is more that all votes are important. If 537 people in Florida had made it to the polls Al Gore would be president.

Using your popular vote numbers from above: 50,999,899+50,456,002=101,455,901 people voted to choose the leader of the free world. Out of an estimated 246,400,000 voting age people. Meaning that nearly 60% of the voting age population didn't vote!

The system isn't broke. We don't have a system problem we have a participation problem. Its hard to argue that we need some sort of legal remedy or some dramatic re-engineering of our political process when 60% of the people aren't participating in he current process.

Kinda like saying that you need a better bike when don't care enough to ride the one that you already own.

It is not a participation problem. 543,895 more people voted for Gore in other states. Those 543,895 votes were not as important as 537 votes in Florida were. That does not strike you as a failed system?

[stnphoto]

It is not a participation problem. 543,895 more people voted for Gore in other states. Those 543,895 votes were not as important as 537 votes in Florida were. That does not strike you as a failed system?

No, I'm glad we have a representive democracy, otherwise we would very likely be looking at living in a society where bigotry could become law. In many states, a pure majority would likely vote to eliminate same sex marriages, for example.

[ides1056]

Elections should last two weeks strictly limited to public funding.

voting should be mandatory, and done on a weekend

[dogrange]

No, I'm glad we have a representive democracy, otherwise we would very likely be looking at living in a society where bigotry could become law. In many states, a pure majority would likely vote to eliminate same sex marriages, for example.

This is his point, the electoral college is the opposite of representative democracy, it biases certain votes much more heavily = some votes are worth a lot more than others.

[Dallas Tex]

It is not a participation problem. 543,895 more people voted for Gore in other states. Those 543,895 votes were not as important as 537 votes in Florida were. That does not strike you as a failed system?

What you are failing to see is that when you vote for president, basically you are voting in a state election. The electoral college was set up to ensure that the will of less populous states was not overwhelmed by the will of higher populous states. When you are voting as a state, your vote has the exact same value as anyone else in your state, and may have more or less value than someone in a different state, depending on that election that day.

Anyway, you're off in the weeds with this talk of a vote's 'value', with regards to the original topic and money's influence on elections.

No one is paying me to 'vote' one way or the other. And as far as I know, no one is paying anybody to vote one way or the other. Until that day comes, votes elect presidents not money.

[Honus]

This is a really interesting read-
The Definitive Story of How President Obama Mined Voter Data to Win A Second Term | MIT Technology Review

[jclay]

Our system has multiple problems.
Disparity in campaign treasure does affect message penetration and skews votes towards better funded messages. That is a problem.
Having 60% of the population fail to vote is a problem.
The influence of big money on lobbyists and the political system is a problem.
Gerrymandering is a problem.
I'm sure there are more problems.

It would be nice if we had only one, textbook simple problem, but we don't. We have quite a few. To say that it's all this or all that or only this because nobody buys my vote is ridiculous.