|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: I think you have it backwards... posted by dado5 on April 21, 2002 at 09:43:29:
I would agree that power motivates some to seek public office, but the means to seek office here is money from interests which comes with strings. Elsewhere, especially in parliamentary systems with no primaries (we alone use these), the political parties are the means to gaining office. At least in that circumstance their interest is in retaining their office-holders. Here when the interest say jump, the office-holders must say, how high.I do not understand your reasoning on campaign finance reform. With 99 percent of incumbents who run winning now and with 76 percent of congressional districts being uncompetitive, the modest reforms will do nothing in my opinion. This is, of course, what the interests want. This is not what I want and will never get. I would limit candidates to spending say $10,000 in elections, which is more than is allowed in the UK. Money is the root of limiting electoral choice, but we would also need to take district line drawing out of the hands of state legislatures also.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Political Parties versus interests - Norm 04/21/0211:04:36 04/21/02 (3)
- Re: Political Parties versus interests - dado5 12:59:46 04/21/02 (2)
- Re: Political Parties versus interests - Norm 16:59:22 04/21/02 (1)
- Re: Political Parties versus interests - dado5 06:50:31 04/22/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
