Ideal Representation, not in America

Warning Political Discussion I knew things were bad, but to see that there is no statistical advantage for what the majority of people want in this country passed to actually get passed by congress into law is just absurd.  Here is the Princeton Study,  [URL=http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf]http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf[/URL] Not sure what the fix is. The ability of big business to spend money on lobbying is protected by the first amendment in court cases. My fix would be to say that one person, or one entity can only spend x-amount of money per year towards political funding or lobbying. You'd basically have to put the punishment on politicians. If they get caught with extra money not accounted for they are ejected from office immediately. You hit the politicians and they stop listening to the backroom deals and extra pay outs.

This is a pretty oversimplified, doomsday video to say the least. Representation from the bottom 90% of voters is clearly less than ideal, but there's a host of statistical reasons why I believe this might not be a good study to hang your hat on.

Also, there are very specific campaign contribution laws that the FEC uses. Even Wikipedia will tell you this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Federal_contribution_limits

However, a candidate can spend as much of their OWN money as he/she wants. Add the influence of Super PACs after Citizen United, and shady donations, luncheons, etc., you get the system we have now.

Warning Political Discussion

I knew things were bad, but to see that there is no statistical advantage for what the majority of people want in this country passed to actually get passed by congress into law is just absurd.

Here is the Princeton Study,

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Not sure what the fix is. The ability of big business to spend money on lobbying is protected by the first amendment in court cases.

My fix would be to say that one person, or one entity can only spend x-amount of money per year towards political funding or lobbying. You'd basically have to put the punishment on politicians. If they get caught with extra money not accounted for they are ejected from office immediately. You hit the politicians and they stop listening to the backroom deals and extra pay outs.

I think they are not really talking about campaign finance, but actual lobbying when they are in term.

I am not sure how much regulation is on lobbying. That is the primary part, how much time does a person in office actually visit the people they are representing versus seeing people who wine and dine them with lots of money.

Another big issue I think is just the political party structure. With a two party system you get this blockade syndrome used to not get anything passed. Anything proposed by the other party must be a terrible idea even if it has a good mix of voters who approve of it.

I think money can be used in a lot of ways to grease the wheels so to speak.

Congressional term limits solve this problem. 1 term for Sens and 2 for Reps.

Agreed, now we just need to get a majority of them to vote themselves out of a job.

Special interest and unions spend a lot of money on lobbying and they are usually lobbying against what big business wants so it balances out.

Congressional term limits solve this problem. 1 term for Sens and 2 for Reps.

You really need to work or have serious time to study a political legislature at work to have a very informed opinion about it. I thought I knew something before I worked in government. I didn't. The premise of the video, that a "perfect republic" would have a 45 degree line, is ridiculous. 40% of the people in this country can't name 1 Supreme Court justice or both their state senators.

I think philosophically, lobbying shouldn't be held in such poor esteem. If you are so passionate about an issue that you actually form a company - or hire one with your money - to represent a political issue, that is democracy at work. It can become a cancer, I know (I worked in a state governor's office for 2 1/2 years, I've seen my share), but if that's not free speech, then what is? There are very intricate lobbying laws BTW - at all levels of government.

The two-party structure is a blessing and curse, but within them are several caucuses of strong left and right-wind ideologues. Votes are not always split along party lines.

You really need to work or have serious time to study a political legislature at work to have a very informed opinion about it. I thought I knew something before I worked in government. I didn't. The premise of the video, that a "perfect republic" would have a 45 degree line, is ridiculous. 40% of the people in this country can't name 1 Supreme Court justice or both their state senators. They only have 2. A republican government (not party) presupposes that an enlightened group of reps is elected to represent the interests of people. They are granted license over what THEY think is best for the nation. Would you want a poli sci professor and the guy who can't spell his name during a Jay Leno interview to have equal say in what issues are important?

Money greases the wheel, yes, but that's human nature. In some countires it's personal military outfits. Kim Jong Un of N. Korea killed someone for not making sure there are lobsters to eat at his party's 70th anniversary celebration. It's an imperfect system, but it could be worse.

"Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss..."

Isn't that the premise of Democracy?  That everyone has an equal say in what issues are important?  Do you feel that grandma who never got an education should have her vote counted even though she is clearly choosing the wrong candidate?

That is opinionated as well.

The United States was never meant to be a true democracy.

If the founding fathers wanted a true democracy they would not have created three branches of government with a congress being two houses. They knew that a true democracy is basically mob rule. That is why they created the senate and the electoral college. They didn't trust the basic citizen to be educated enough, to know the workings of the world to make an informed vote. Yet they still gave them a vote because when you are part of the process you have a sense of ownership. In the end they still fought the revolution to be free and to make sure the country was based on government with some form of representation. Yet they still put in the framework a safeguard knowing the population was basically hired work of uneducated farmers and tradesman.

Originally the senate was elected by states, not by popular vote. This was one of their safe guards to make sure half of congressional rule was elected by those in power. Back then those who ran for office were usually wealthy, educated people.