Democracy

[Beorning]

I've been thinking about this.

I'd say that one of the things that need to be done is stopping the deliberate spread of lies. Difference of opinions is fine, but nowadays, we have politicians and politically-aligned media that are clearly lying to the voters. I don't know how to handle it in practice, but there must be some mechanism that would stop people from spreading false information for political gain.

Related to that: social media need some serious reform. They cannot be operating as these cross-national, untouchable platforms that use hidden algorithms to generate clicks by stoking anger and locking people in information bubbles...

BTW. Coming back to the issue of legitimacy: you might say I'm of, uhm, lawful alignment (if we refer to D&D terminology for a moment). And when it comes to me, I don't have this feeling that I'm only obligated to follow the laws I voted for. If I was living under absolute monarchy, I'd still be following the law the same - unless the laws were obviously unjust or stupid...

[Oniya]

unless the laws were obviously unjust or stupid...

The problem is that different people have different viewpoints on what is 'unjust' or 'stupid'.  I, for example, think it's unjust to force a woman to carry the child of her rapist.  There are other people that think it's unjust to deliberately cause that pregnancy to end. 

I think it's stupid to allow a preventable disease to spread unchecked.  Other people think it's stupid to wear a mask which would reduce the spread of that disease.

[Krayz]

@Ollumhammersong 'May' disagree? I feel like I've been pretty clear 

That said, I do agree with the assessment that it's a big and complicated problem, and how to solve it depends a lot on the perspective you bring to the table.

Without making any downright radical propositions, I do also feel that a lot of folks support the idea of getting money out of politics, or at least significantly limiting its effect on the process. Influencing politicians and other government officials through donations, gifts, or lobbying tends to give the wealthy an undemocratic level of say in how government operates. That doesn't even go into their ability to pay for propaganda and market their ideas; this has some crossover with the comment above about lies, but it still undermines the idea of everyone getting a fair say in the process when some folks have way more control over the conversation simply because they can buy attention even if they aren't engaging in outright deception. 

While some recent developments suggest that having more money isn't the end-all-be-all, it still matters more than it should in my opinion, particularly because the current system tends to lead to folks with the most money to throw around having interests that are opposed to the common good.

[TheGlyphstone]

Is anyone here from a country with specifically mandated limits on the length of campaign 'season', i.e. how far in advance of an election you're allowed to run ads/make speeches/etc.? Ive long suspected that part of what makes money so overwhelmingly dominant here is that we spend 50% or more of our time in campaign season between midterms and presidential elections. Even setting lobbying aside, the sheer cost of supporting a campaign means only independently wealthy people can run for national office without the backing of a major party.

[Krayz]

Is anyone here from a country with specifically mandated limits on the length of campaign 'season', i.e. how far in advance of an election you're allowed to run ads/make speeches/etc.? Ive long suspected that part of what makes money so overwhelmingly dominant here is that we spend 50% or more of our time in campaign season between midterms and presidential elections. Even setting lobbying aside, the sheer cost of supporting a campaign means only independently wealthy people can run for national office without the backing of a major party.

@Ollumhammersong and I are from Canada, and it is much better here. Campaigning is limited to around 7 or 8 weeks, and donations are limited to a few thousand dollars, spread across candidates, parties, and riding associations. A lot of what people contribute gets reimbursed as tax credits as well. Leadership candidates have a limit of $25K that they can personally spend on their campaign. 

However, many of the scandals in Canadian politics over the last two decades have involved groups breaking these rules (SNC-Lavalin), or using their wealth for influence outside of explicitly political donations (the Aga Khan scandal). The upper half of what people can privately donate is not reimbursed, so people who can afford to just throw away a thousand dollars are still more likely to have a greater impact on party finances, while people really struggling to get by may not even be able to contribute anything because they're living paycheque to paycheque. The fact that leadership candidates have a much higher limit on personal spending also means that the most influential figures in party politics will be coming predominantly from the upper class, who have the extra money to throw around. While it's definitely not as bad as the USA, where billionaires can practically buy political parties, it's noteworthy that the politics of the country are dominated by the Liberal and Conservative parties, both of which are extremely friendly to big business. 

[TheGlyphstone]

Michael Bloomberg sank over a billion dollars into his self-funded campaign and couldn't match the spending and organization of the major parties, so even a 25K personal cap seems far more accessible by comparison even if it does still set a high ceiling on eligibility to fund a run.

I imagine it also makes a difference when you aren't directly electing your chief executive as well? If I remember parliamentary rules, the dominant party/coalition selects the prime minister internally, elections determine the makeup of parliament membership.

[Krayz]

Michael Bloomberg sank over a billion dollars into his self-funded campaign and couldn't match the spending and organization of the major parties, so even a 25K personal cap seems far more accessible by comparison even if it does still set a high ceiling on eligibility to fund a run.

I imagine it also makes a difference when you aren't directly electing your chief executive as well? If I remember parliamentary rules, the dominant party/coalition selects the prime minister internally, elections determine the makeup of parliament membership.

As I said, it is much better. I was just arguing that "much better" isn't the same as "good." As I've noted above, I'm somewhat critical of the representative democracy model we currently have, so while I have some ideas for fine-tuning it, they aren't especially thought-out, and really I'd be more in favour of local assemblies choosing representatives on an ad-hoc basis when large-scale decisions need to be made that are simply too big for direct democracy. Having one person as a full-time politician makes them a target for subversion; you can't buy the representative if they are changing constantly.

You are correct. However, there's been a trend of growing emphasis on party leaders that brings things a little closer to how it is in the US, with who is running the party having a lot of influence on which party people vote for, rather than their local representatives.

[Ollumhammersong]

Is anyone here from a country with specifically mandated limits on the length of campaign 'season', i.e. how far in advance of an election you're allowed to run ads/make speeches/etc.? Ive long suspected that part of what makes money so overwhelmingly dominant here is that we spend 50% or more of our time in campaign season between midterms and presidential elections. Even setting lobbying aside, the sheer cost of supporting a campaign means only independently wealthy people can run for national office without the backing of a major party.

As Krayz stated in Canada we've had laws restricting campaigns from turning into marathons for a long time. The legal minimum length of a federal election campaign is 37 days after the writ is dropped (dropping the writ, is a term used in canada when parliament is formally dissolved by the governer general and the election cycle officially begins), which can be extended to a maximum of 51 days. 

This was actually a recent change to election laws as culturally, long elections just piss us Canadians off and are seen as grueling for the general public to sit through. So calling an extended election beyond the 37-40 day mark is very risky politically as it will likely piss off at least some undecided voters who are now being bombarded with adds on every youtube video and radio station. 

in 2015 Stephen Harper called an election that was 72 days long and that was rightly criticized for being ridiculous. He did that because in addition to the donation limits that Krayz mentioned, there are also daily spending limits during a campaign so the parties can't actually just flood tens of billions unchecked into campaigns. But that limit increases the longer the election goes beyond 37 days. Back in 2015 everyone knew that's why the Conservatives were calling a double length election, because they had a war chest far larger than any other party and wanted to try an American style media flood of ads and and money, etc, etc. 

But it backfired and while not the main reason Harper lost that election. It is cited as a contributing factor. Long campaigns simply aren't accepted by the broader populace here. Hell, we get exhausted just watching the Americans. Back in December I saw the US news start speculating about the next party presidential tickets before Trump was even sworn in. The US media doesn't give the population time to just settle and absorb results. 

I think a problem with the US is that a good chunk of the population has just kinda accepted that one or two year, or even longer campaigns are normal and acceptable. There's grumbling from the public but no actual backlash reflected in how people vote, so there's no reason to change. 

Up here people really fucking hated the 72 day election. Not just voters but volunteers and even local candidates resented it. It's a huge imposition on everyone's time.

[Beorning]

Over here, politicians are (at least in theory) allowed to campaign in a specific time period which is appointed by the State Electoral Commission. Not sure how long it is, but it's a few months at most. The finances of the candidates and the parties are closely monitored in this period. I don't remember the details, but there are limits on the amount of money that can be donated for election purposes etc.

Of course, our politicians like to bend the rules - and, lately, a "pre-campaign" became the norm. As in, a period when there's no official campaign period yet, but the politicians are actively meeting with the voters etc. - with nobody being fooled that this is not related to the coming elections. This is an annoying case of our politicians overtly skimming the limits of the law. Ugh.

Nevertheless, the state oversight of campaign finances does help, I think, with keeping big money out of politics. That's one part of our electoral system I definitely like.