Political Identity today comes first today before policy preferences

[sayak83]

Yes, and something actually can get done, unl

I am talking about money for the campaign for the politician, not money that would be income. If there were no political parties and no campaigns, they would not be corrupted by money designated for their campaigns. Money stealthily put in the pocket of anyone in the government even if there was no parties that would be something that should definitely be monitored.

If there were no political parties and no campaigns, then there would not be any democracy.
I also meant that the ambit of independent audit should include conflict of interest in campaign donations as well.

 

[Truthseeker]

Sometimes I fantasize about a ballot with no names, just questions about your opinions on relevant issues. The candidate receiving your vote would be s/he who accorded best with your political opinions.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Truthseeker]

If there were no political parties and no campaigns, then there would not be any democracy.
I also meant that the ambit of independent audit should include conflict of interest in campaign donations as well.

I propose voting for anyone you want, without campaigns. Since in a national race, you would not know enough about who should be elected, I propose voting locally on someone you trust to cast the vote for your locality. Most likely, the winner or winners would be among the people the localties delegated to cast the vote. In the national convention, they would get to know each other. The person they should vote for is someone with good character, mature experience, and a well-trained mind. This way, the country will not be polarized, and you can have relative trust that they make good decisions. I propose this not only because partisan politics is bad, but because the average voter has no idea what is best for the country.

 

[sayak83]

I propose voting for anyone you want, without campaigns. Since in a national race, you would not know enough about who should be elected, I propose voting locally on someone you trust to cast the vote for your locality. Most likely, the winner or winners would be among the people the localties delegated to cast the vote. In the national convention, they would get to know each other. The person they should vote for is someone with good character, mature experience, and a well-trained mind. This way, the country will not be polarized, and you can have relative trust that they make good decisions. I propose this not only because partisan politics is bad, but because the average voter has no idea what is best for the country.

That is not a democracy. The belief that an average voter has no idea what is best for the country is the belief that leads to autocracy. It is also wrong, because the nation is a community of the citizens only and the collective voice of each citizen who votes in accordance with his or her own interests is basically (and axiomatically) what should be considered good for the nation. And citizens will only learn what interests truly do good and what actually do harm by making mistakes and correcting them over history. I also find it naive to believe that we can rely on good character of a locally elected candidate to decide who the leaders of the nation are going to be. Who would decide whether the local candidate is incorruptible, is mature and has a well trained mind etc. etc.? Furthermore this will create a huge distance between the leaders of the nation and the people. The leaders will not care about the people at all, but only the local leader that people elect and how to influence that local leaders decisions and get his or her loyalty through various means. That is a recipe for large scale corruption.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is not a democracy. The belief that an average voter has no idea what is best for the country is the belief that leads to autocracy. It is also wrong, because the nation is a community of the citizens only and the collective voice of each citizen who votes in accordance with his or her own interests is basically (and axiomatically) what should be considered good for the nation. And citizens will only learn what interests truly do good and what actually do harm by making mistakes and correcting them over history. I also find it naive to believe that we can rely on good character of a locally elected candidate to decide who the leaders of the nation are going to be. Who would decide whether the local candidate is incorruptible, is mature and has a well trained mind etc. etc.? Furthermore this will create a huge distance between the leaders of the nation and the people. The leaders will not care about the people at all, but only the local leader that people elect and how to influence that local leaders decisions and get his or her loyalty through various means. That is a recipe for large scale corruption.

It is a democracy because the leaders are elected. It is not the current idea of democracy because the voters don't have much of a hand in determining policy. It has been demonstrated to me that policy driven by voting for partisan candidates doesn't work very well at all.

I just look at the reasons why voters vote as they do, and I realize the voters don't really have a very good idea of what's best for the country. Many are voting for people now because they deny that Trump lost. Many voters are out of touch with reality.

If the people who are elected do a bad job, other people can and I think will be elected. Peopel who have a good character, which includes not a power-grasping person makes better leaders, and won't be autocrats. The system now encourages people who desire power for their own ends to campaign to get power. In the system I propose the power-graspers are less likely to be in government.

Power-graspers don't care about the people they govern as much as those who are elected under this alternate system because it is perceived they care about the welfare of the people.

There is large-scale corruption now, the system I propose would improve that, I believe. The press would still cover what the leaders do, we would be informed about what they do.

 

[sayak83]

It is a democracy because the leaders are elected. It is not the current idea of democracy because the voters don't have much of a hand in determining policy. It has been demonstrated to me that policy driven by voting for partisan candidates doesn't work very well at all.

I just look at the reasons why voters vote as they do, and I realize the voters don't really have a very good idea of what's best for the country. Many are voting for people now because they deny that Trump lost. Many voters are out of touch with reality.

If the people who are elected do a bad job, other people can and I think will be elected. Peopel who have a good character, which includes not a power-grasping person makes better leaders, and won't be autocrats. The system now encourages people who desire power for their own ends to campaign to get power. In the system I propose the power-graspers are less likely to be in government.

Power-graspers don't care about the people they govern as much as those who are elected under this alternate system because it is perceived they care about the welfare of the people.

There is large-scale corruption now, the system I propose would improve that, I believe. The press would still cover what the leaders do, we would be informed about what they do.

I do not see how what you are claiming will happen. The local leaders elected thus will be even more be amenable to corruption from various interest groups and there will be much less of any checks and balances when people are disconnected from direct national level elections. People will stop caring about national interests since they will simply lose their voice in determining national leaders. Eventually a few autocrats or oligarchs will emerge who will simply buy all the local level petty leaders and rule for decades.
The Chinese communist party has elections of this form currently. People actually vote for the local communist representative and these representatives choose the communist leadership of the country. That is working very well is it not? You are simply packaging Marxist autocratic system here and calling it a democracy.

Elections in China - Wikipedia

Elections in the People's Republic of China are based on a hierarchical electoral system, whereby local People's Congresses are directly elected. All higher levels of People's Congresses up to the National People's Congress (NPC), the national legislature, are indirectly elected by the People's Congress of the level immediately below.[1] The NPC Standing Committee may partially alter laws passed by the NPC when the NPC is not in session, which is significant since the Standing Committee meets more frequently than the NPC.[2]

Governors, mayors, and heads of counties, districts, townships and towns are in turn elected by the respective local People's Congresses.[3] Presidents of people's courts and chief procurators of people's procuratorates are elected by the respective local People's Congresses above the county level.[3][note 1] The President and the State Council are elected by the National People's Congress, which is made of 2981 people.

Elections in China occur under a single-party authoritarian political system.[4][5][6][7] Elections occur only at the local level, not the national level.[4][8] China is among few contemporary party-led dictatorships to not hold any direct elections at the national level.[9] The competitive nature of the elections is highly constrained by the Chinese Communist Party's monopoly on power in China, limitations on free speech, and government interference with the elections.[10][11] According to Rory Truex, "the CCP tightly controls the nomination and election processes at every level in the people's congress system... the tiered, indirect electoral mechanism in the People's Congress system ensures that deputies at the highest levels face no semblance of electoral accountability to the Chinese citizenry

 

[Valjean]

It is a democracy because the leaders are elected. It is not the current idea of democracy because the voters don't have much of a hand in determining policy. It has been demonstrated to me that policy driven by voting for partisan candidates doesn't work very well at all.

A democracy does not have leaders. A democracy has representatives, specialists and experts.
I'm tempted to say that anyone who needs a leader is an incompetent who does not know her job.
Boss Tweed said: "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I can do the nominating."

We used to criticize the Godless Russkis' elections because the candidates were vetted and chosen by the State -- AKA: the Party.
It's no different here. Through a series of incremental changes, corporations are now able to give unlimited and anonymous donations to candidates of their choice -- and they choose those who will do their bidding, and deregulate.

Trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt's opponents complained of the politicians of the day: "We bought them, but they wouldn't stay bought." Today, they're staying bought.

In the recent 'Princeton study', Gilens and Page found that legislative decisions no longer mirror the will of The People, but, rather, the interests of corporations. Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

I just look at the reasons why voters vote as they do, and I realize the voters don't really have a very good idea of what's best for the country. Many are voting for people now because they deny that Trump lost. Many voters are out of touch with reality.

In yet more incremental legislative shenanigans, the major media: TV, radio, magazine and newspaper, have been monopolized by corporate interests, and they won't bite the hand that feeds them. The Fairness Doctrine is long gone.They echo corporate interests and talking points, and ignore dissenting opinions.
Newspapers used to have both business and labor sections. When was the last time you read a paper with a labor section?

Voters today have little access to balanced, pro and con information. They have corporate media feeding them corporate propaganda, and online social media stroking their individual baises,

If the people who are elected do a bad job, other people can and I think will be elected. People who have a good character, which includes not a power-grasping person makes better leaders, and won't be autocrats. The system now encourages people who desire power for their own ends

"Now?" The rich and powerful have always manipulated the people and social narrative, with varying success. Humanitarians who would put the interests of the people over those of the "economic royalists" (FDR) are rarely elected, and, if elected, have a way of being deposed in short order.

 

[Truthseeker]

I do not see how what you are claiming will happen. The local leaders elected thus will be even more be amenable to corruption from various interest groups and there will be much less of any checks and balances when people are disconnected from direct national level elections. People will stop caring about national interests since they will simply lose their voice in determining national leaders. Eventually a few autocrats or oligarchs will emerge who will simply buy all the local level petty leaders and rule for decades.
The Chinese communist party has elections of this form currently. People actually vote for the local communist representative and these representatives choose the communist leadership of the country. That is working very well is it not? You are simply packaging Marxist autocratic system here and calling it a democracy.

Elections in China - Wikipedia

The elections in China are for show only, they have nothing to do with what I am talking about. Never mind, we have to agree to disagree. There is a party in China with an idealogy. One party is worse than multiparty. The people can't break from the ideology imposed on them by force. Than can be no parties for this to work. The representitaves have to have there own opinion, and not one imposed on them by a dictator. The communist sytem didn't start the way I advocated, with no strings attached. I can't prove to you that this would work it appears. So live and let live.

 

[Truthseeker]

A democracy does not have leaders. A democracy has representatives, specialists and experts.
I'm tempted to say that anyone who needs a leader is an incompetent who does not know her job.
Boss Tweed said: "I don't care who does the electing, as long as I can do the nominating."

We used to criticize the Godless Russkis' elections because the candidates were vetted and chosen by the State -- AKA: the Party.
It's no different here. Through a series of incremental changes, corporations are now able to give unlimited and anonymous donations to candidates of their choice -- and they choose those who will do their bidding, and deregulate.

Trust-buster Teddy Roosevelt's opponents complained of the politicians of the day: "We bought them, but they wouldn't stay bought." Today, they're staying bought.

In the recent 'Princeton study', Gilens and Page found that legislative decisions no longer mirror the will of The People, but, rather, the interests of corporations. Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
In yet more incremental legislative shenanigans, the major media: TV, radio, magazine and newspaper, have been monopolized by corporate interests, and they won't bite the hand that feeds them. The Fairness Doctrine is long gone.They echo corporate interests and talking points, and ignore dissenting opinions.
Newspapers used to have both business and labor sections. When was the last time you read a paper with a labor section?

Voters today have little access to balanced, pro and con information. They have corporate media feeding them corporate propaganda, and online social media stroking their individual baises,
"Now?" The rich and powerful have always manipulated the people and social narrative, with varying success. Humanitarians who would put the interests of the people over those of the "economic royalists" (FDR) are rarely elected, and, if elected, have a way of being deposed in short order.

Well, whatever, there needs to be ethical people who resist corruption, and a media that is not manipulated by moneyed people also. The govenment needs to come up with some wise way to keep the media from being corrupt by money while avoiding the dangerous step of controlling the media fot there own ends. It is hard to do all that, I admit, in the current state of affairs. It's a mess right now. The United States has too many people who are materialistic and want power and a lot of money they don't need. I guess I can't advocate a good fix in this environment. I am not smart enough for that.

 

[Valjean]

Well, whatever, there needs to be ethical people who resist corruption, and a media that is not manipulated by moneyed people also. The govenment needs to come up with some wise way to keep the media from being corrupt by money while avoiding the dangerous step of controlling the media fot there own ends. It is hard to do all that, I admit, in the current state of affairs. It's a mess right now. The United States has too many people who are materialistic and want power and a lot of money they don't need. I guess I can't advocate a good fix in this environment. I am not smart enough for that.

Perhaps we should go back to the regulatory safeguards that were in place when I was a wee-un.
Maybe we should undo the deregulation the Corporatists and the party they own have put in place over the past few decades, and 'turn back the clock' -- or would this be too conservative?

No money in Politics!