[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-April-14, 09:36, said:

One of the purposes of representative democracy, rather than pure democracy, is to protect minorities from tyrrany of the majority. For instance, at the time of the Civil War, I think the majority of Americans were still in favor of slavery -- it took a government with strength of conviction to ram emancipation down our throats. A century later, I think civil rights was in a similar position. The idea is that we elect smart people to make decisions for the greater good.

Unfortunately, the problem with current politicians is that they're as partisan as the public, and they're also in the pocket of lobbies and big business. I can't imagine a legislature like we now have successfully passing the 13th Amendment -- the Cotton Lobby would never have allowed it.

This is a pretty good summation of how I see the problem. There have always been reasons for not making progress. At times, we have surmounted these problems. At times.

[y66]

From Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens (PDF) by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page via Krugman:

Quote

The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. Our results provide substantial support for theories of Economic Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Quote

What makes possible an empirical effort of this sort is the existence of a unique data set, compiled over many years by one of us (Gilens) for a different but related purpose: for estimating the influence upon public policy of “affluent” citizens, poor citizens, and those in the middle of the income distribution.

Gilens and a small army of research assistants gathered data on a large, diverse set of policy cases: 1,779 instances between 1981 and 2002 in which a national survey of the general public asked a favor/oppose question about a proposed policy change. A total of 1,923 cases met four criteria: dichotomous pro/con responses, specificity about policy, relevance to federal government decisions, and categorical rather than conditional phrasing. Of those 1,923 original cases, 1,779 cases also met the criteria of providing income breakdowns for respondents, not involving a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling (which might entail a quite different policy making process), and involving a clear, as opposed to partial or ambiguous, actual presence or absence of policy change. These 1,779 cases do not constitute a sample from the universe of all possible policy alternatives (this is hardly conceivable), but we see them as particularly relevant to assessing the public’s influence on policy. The included policies are not restricted to the narrow Washington “policy agenda.” At the same time – since they were seen as worth asking poll questions about – they tend to concern matters of relatively high salience, about which it is plausible that average citizens may have real opinions and may exert some political influence.

[y66]

Meanwhile, former Supreme Court Justice and occasional local bridge player John Paul Stevens has written a new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. One of the six amendments would allow Congress and the states to impose "reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns".

[PassedOut]

y66, on 2014-April-21, 12:39, said:

Meanwhile, former Supreme Court Justice and occasional local bridge player John Paul Stevens has written a new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. One of the six amendments would allow Congress and the states to impose "reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns".

Hard even to imagine how much money would be spent to defeat that amendment.

[kenberg]

Such an amendment will not happen. Any effort in this direction is a waste. In fact, any argument that such an amendment is needed is at least as strongly an argument that it won't happen. Which is pretty much what PassedOut just said, I guess.

People do still get to vote, the internet creates access to information and a platform for expressing views. If this isn't adequate, we are in deep stuff.

I don't know about others, but I find some of the issues facing us to be complex.

[mike777]

y66, on 2014-April-21, 12:39, said:

Meanwhile, former Supreme Court Justice and occasional local bridge player John Paul Stevens has written a new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. One of the six amendments would allow Congress and the states to impose "reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns".

This if anything would give a bigger advantage to those who are in office. Also keep in mind you could still spend unlimited monies in favor of a political idea or against one just not directly for the candidate.

I assume in his book JPS is not against unlimited funding for or against political ideas or issues. I wonder if he would limit newspapers endorsements or other media spending or in kind services in favor of a candidate?

[Winstonm]

Amercian middle class no longer richest

NYT:

Quote

The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.

And then there is this:

Quote

The number-one book on Amazon.com isn't a guide to green juice or an erotic romance novel. No, the top seller on Amazon right now is a 700-page book, translated from French, about rising inequality and the state of modern capitalism.

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.

[barmar]

He was interviewed on PBS last night, and I expect he's doing the rounds of all the political talk shows (I'll bet he'll be on The Daily Show soon). The big problem he mentioned was people contributing to candidates for whom they're not even a constituent. We're supposed to be a representative democracy, where legislators are beholden to the voters back home. But unlimited campaign contributions allows a small number of people (the 1%) to buy a disproportionate segment of Congress.

[mike777]

Perhaps a first step would be:

1) 80% tax on incomes over 1M$
2) 50% tax on incomes over 200K
3) 10% annual wealth tax on top .1% fortunes.

The goal would be to reduce Inequality in incomes and wealth rather than increase revenues

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-April-22, 09:53, said:

He was interviewed on PBS last night, and I expect he's doing the rounds of all the political talk shows (I'll bet he'll be on The Daily Show soon). The big problem he mentioned was people contributing to candidates for whom they're not even a constituent. We're supposed to be a representative democracy, where legislators are beholden to the voters back home. But unlimited campaign contributions allows a small number of people (the 1%) to buy a disproportionate segment of Congress.

This is definitely a problem. My impulse is to have no interest in who is running or winning in Tennessee or Utah. If I were a player, I would care who is running in Quebec, in Argentina, in Australia. I not only don't have the money to weigh in, I don't have the information, I don't have the time, and I don't have the interest. This is a tough nut to crack.

Tip O'Neill said all politics is local. Tip O'Neill has been dead for quite a while now, may he rest in peace.

[barmar]

Democracy is supposed to mean "1 person = 1 vote". But recent rulings on campaign finance make it more like "1 dollar = 1 vote".

[PassedOut]

Of course if people are smarter, they can slap down the big spenders by voting against them: Big money backfires in local races

Quote

One day before the U.S. Supreme Court opened new spigots of campaign cash, well-funded groups seeking to sway elections in two northern Wisconsin counties, Polk and Iron, inadvertently drove home another point: Throwing money into the process can hurt as well as help.

Of the 13 active candidates backed in the April 1 Polk County Board election by a group called Operation Prosperity Inc., just four prevailed. And one of these ran unopposed.

I'm hoping that we can do as well in Upper Michigan.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2014-April-23, 11:26, said:

Democracy is supposed to mean "1 person = 1 vote". But recent rulings on campaign finance make it more like "1 dollar = 1 vote".

"There are a lot of ways for regulation to fail; I agree on that. Generalizing from pine tar on the fingers to campaign financing is difficult at best, specious at worst. Myself, I don’t see why there is any problem with allowing other people to say whatever they have to say, or to spend as much money as they want to spend broadcasting their beliefs. I think in general it is helpful to the public for rich people to do that. Budweiser can spend as much money as they want to spend trying to persuade me to buy their beer, but I’m not buying it. Ford can spend a billion a year advertising Ford trucks; I don’t need a truck, and I’m not buying another Ford after that Windstar. xxxxxxxxxxx I think there are a million problems inherent in allowing politicians to pursue or accept donations, small or large, and I think it would be better to require that campaign contributions be given through the hands of registered political parties, such as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or Socialists. I think that politicians should be limited as to what they can do to seek donations. But just spending your money to say what you have to say. . .I don’t see any reason that that would ever need to be limited"

Bill James

[awm]

Some of the issues regarding campaign financing:

1. The US has very weak laws against slander and libel (much weaker than the UK) and there is little preventing political ads from being complete lies. This enables wealthy interested parties to "muddy the waters" quite a bit in campaigns, confusing the low information voter.
2. While we require political candidates to acknowledge their own ads (all those "I approved this message" blurbs), wealthy donors typically advertise through vaguely named groups ("Americans for Prosperity") such that the group name carries little weight. While the constitution guarantees your right to free speech, it doesn't say anything about the listener's right to know the speaker's identity. Seems to me that in political campaigns knowledge of the speaker's identity can be quite important to weighing the accuracy of information received.
3. If politicians (or parties) are to be basically bought and sold by donors, at least voters ought to know who's paying the bill. But again, this information is relatively easily concealed.

If we had stronger protections against blatant falsehoods, combined with open acknowledgement of who funded the advertisements (including names of top donors in the case of PACs) and fully open finances for all organizations spending on political ads, then I wouldn't see as much of a problem with unlimited money spent on campaigns. We have none of these things.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2014-April-25, 15:00, said:

:

1. The US has very weak laws against slander and libel (much weaker than the UK) and there is little preventing political ads from being complete lies. This enables wealthy interested parties to "muddy the waters" quite a bit in campaigns, confusing the low information voter.

,,,


If we had stronger protections against blatant falsehoods, combined with open acknowledgement of who funded the advertisements (including names of top donors in the case of PACs) and fully open finances for all organizations spending on political ads, then I wouldn't see as much of a problem with unlimited money spent on campaigns. We have none of these things.

"I am not going to send American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do" Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 campaign.

He probably meant that he would not be sending American boys to be cooking hot and sour soup.

Of course I understand that you mean lying about past facts, not future intentions, but it is an indication that solid skepticism is always useful.

Old joke:
How can you tell if a politician is lying?
Watch his lips, if they move, he is lying.

[barmar]

It's not fair to compare political advertising to commercial advertising.

First of all, in commercial advertising it's almost always obvious who is promoting the product -- the company that sells it. We expect everything said in the ad to be self-serving, and we're naturally skeptical of it. This is much less clear in political advertisements. When the politician is promoting himself, it's obvious, but it's very difficult to know the agenda of third-party promoters. And the FTC or FCC have regulations against misleading commercial advertisements; these don't apply to political ads.

Second, if a commercial advertisement convinces someone to buy the product, and it ends up being a poor decision, it usually just affects that one customer. The old adage "caveat emptor" applies. But if a political advertisement convinces enough people to vote for a candidate, it affects all his constituents. And if the advertiser is able to do this for enough candidates, it affects all of us.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2014-April-26, 11:11, said:

It's not fair to compare political advertising to commercial advertising.

First of all, in commercial advertising it's almost always obvious who is promoting the product -- the company that sells it. We expect everything said in the ad to be self-serving, and we're naturally skeptical of it. This is much less clear in political advertisements. When the politician is promoting himself, it's obvious, but it's very difficult to know the agenda of third-party promoters. And the FTC or FCC have regulations against misleading commercial advertisements; these don't apply to political ads.

Second, if a commercial advertisement convinces someone to buy the product, and it ends up being a poor decision, it usually just affects that one customer. The old adage "caveat emptor" applies. But if a political advertisement convinces enough people to vote for a candidate, it affects all his constituents. And if the advertiser is able to do this for enough candidates, it affects all of us.

Well said. Those are exactly the problems.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2014-April-26, 11:11, said:

It's not fair to compare political advertising to commercial advertising.

First of all, in commercial advertising it's almost always obvious who is promoting the product -- the company that sells it. We expect everything said in the ad to be self-serving, and we're naturally skeptical of it. This is much less clear in political advertisements. When the politician is promoting himself, it's obvious, but it's very difficult to know the agenda of third-party promoters. And the FTC or FCC have regulations against misleading commercial advertisements; these don't apply to political ads.

Second, if a commercial advertisement convinces someone to buy the product, and it ends up being a poor decision, it usually just affects that one customer. The old adage "caveat emptor" applies. But if a political advertisement convinces enough people to vote for a candidate, it affects all his constituents. And if the advertiser is able to do this for enough candidates, it affects all of us.

I could not disagree more.


To be more fair your argument is a very old one against democracy in general.

Bottom line low information voters are by definition low information. 2) if you want to sell your vote then you do.

commercial advertisement of course affects/effects all of us.

This is sort of the progressive line, there are victims and we need a powerful central govt to protect the victims.

The cost is to limit the freedom of only the 1%.

Free speech is free speech or not.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2014-April-26, 20:52, said:

The cost is to limit the freedom of only the 1%.

Free speech is free speech or not.

Good job setting off the quote you responded to, by the way. Doing so makes it clear what you are responding to.

Even a member of the 1% cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (I presume/hope) because of the harm to others caused by that particular misuse of free speech. Barmar laid out correctly the harm to others caused by another misuse of free speech, the anonymous purchase of misleading political advertising to further one's own interests. Why do you feel so strongly that that should be permitted?

[kenberg]

I am struggling with this, and I will try to explain. I think the anonymity bothers me more than the factual inaccuracy.

Going way back: In 1952, I came home from a Boy Scout meeting to find my parents listening to Joe McCarthy on the tv. I would love to see a text of the speech, but I am not sure anything he said was really factually false. As I recall, he said that Adlai Stevenson had, in the thirties (so maybe fifteen years ealrier than the speech) belonged to certain organizations, and that one or more of these organizations was now on the Attorney General's list of possibly subversive organizations. Perhaps this was so, or perhaps not, I don't know. The implication was that Stevenson was a Communist, which was beyond ridiculous, but I don't recall that McCarthy said so in those words. Certainly McCarthy was one of the worst, that's part of why I start with him, but whether even he should have been prosecuted for what he said in that speech is iffy.

And then we get into lawyers. I am not out to dump on lawyers, but I would rather that politics did not become a series of court cases.

In 1960, the first election I voted in, the alleged missile gap was a big deal. Eisenhower and Nixon (for the youngsters, Nixon was Veep under Ike, and then Kennedy's opponent in 1960) had let a dangerous missile gap develop. To put it bluntly, this was hooey. Should the lawyers have been involved?

I have already mentioned "I will not send American boys to do what Asian boys should be doing". Whooie, that was a biggie. If Goldwater had won in 64 and we went to war, at least we would have had to acknowledge that he did what he said he was going to do. But LBJ? I worked for his election. Someone told me that I had to be some sort of idiot to think of Johnson as the peace candidate. I think a case could be made that this deception made the Nixon presidency of 1968 possible, or even inevitable. Should the lawyers have been called in?

Move on to modern times. "If you like the health plan that you have, you can keep it. Period." I'm older now and more able to recognize bullcrap when I hear it, so I was not really taken in by this. But no, I don't want him fined or jailed for it. I believe the Dems will pay a price for this in November, but I am fine with letting the voters decide on the matter. And anyway, it wasn't really a lie. The person can keep that plan, he would just have to also get another approved plan. If for some idiotic reason he wanted two plans, he would be allowed to keep his current plan as one of them. This is absurd of course, but it is what we can expect if the lawyers get into it. Depends on what the meaning of "keep" is.

I repeat, i am not bashing lawyers. They have a job to do and they can largely be expected to do it well. I simply prefer that elections be settled otherwise.

I do, however, think that large, and I am not sure exactly what large means, financial sources should be disclosed. If I want to give someone a hundred bucks, that's nobody's business but my own (isn't that a Billie Holiday song?). But scale matters here. Somewhere between my hundred bucks and someone's hundred thousand bucks, the nature of the transaction changes. Or so it seems to me. Maybe the problem, part of it, is that the source is known to the candidate but not to the public.


Just a little more about money and politics. Of course FDR had money but the Dems could have run an actual donkey against Hoover and won. Truman didn't have so much money. Probably it was with Kennedy that the cash, and the power that went with it, really made a difference both in the nominating process and the general election. It was a close election. Money will continue to talk, but it does behoove us to try to keep it from totally monopolizing the conversation.

Finally, the voter probably has, today, more resources than ever before for determining whether a given statement is or is not factual. If this is not enough, hmmmm.

As I say, I am struggling with this.