Forcing politicians to wear logos of corporate sponsors

[Thanda]

As long as you include boys too, I'm with you. Excellent idea!

It's actually something I've noticed. Women, at least in my country, have the least interest in politics - I judge this not just from personal conversations but also from talk radio stations where 90% of the people who call in are men when the topic is politics, but when it is about a celebrity it is the opposite. And yet, women are the biggest voting block.

 

[Draka]

I strongly suspect it would have the opposite effect. The people with the barest sashes will be self-funded and will therefore be the most wealthy individuals within the place. When people vote against their sponsers, they will not be seen as men or women of principle, but a "bad investment". people won't sponser them and they will simply lose their election because they won't be funded at all. this isn't just advertising politicians loyalities- it's enforcing them too by turning a legislative body into a marketplace. We have already got to a point where the democratic process has reduced voters to little more than consumers, political parties are brands, and politicians have to "market" themselves as attractive or "charismatic" personalities, high on rhetoric, low on substance. In any election, sensationalism gets more airtime than level headed discussions of policy. theatre sells, democracy doesn't. we'd rather believe politicians are corrupt than accept that, as consumers, we can't have everything we want. this is just a way to publicly humilate politicians and discipline them to enforce cynicism. we should demand more from our politicians than the ability to pick up a pay cheque.

you can put the logos on them, but that doesn't tell you what they actually believe. if anything it says "we couldn't care about you or your principles; just believe in the highest bidder."

Not all who had bare sashes would be wealthy and funding themselves, some may just be funded by regular donations. Third parties especially are more likely to have more grassroots funding. And if you include representing organization endorsements you would see who was supporting which candidate. From the NRA to the ASPCA to GreenPeace to unions and so on, you'd easily see which organizations and stances that were dear to you most closely aligned with which candidate.

 

[Laika]

Not all who had bare sashes would be wealthy and funding themselves, some may just be funded by regular donations. Third parties especially are more likely to have more grassroots funding. And if you include representing organization endorsements you would see who was supporting which candidate. From the NRA to the ASPCA to GreenPeace to unions and so on, you'd easily see which organizations and stances that were dear to you most closely aligned with which candidate.

don't you find the idea that we can and should buy politicians even a little offensive?

 

[rocala]

don't you find the idea that we can and should buy politicians even a little offensive?

Far more than "a little".

 

[Draka]

don't you find the idea that we can and should buy politicians even a little offensive?

I didn't say I didn't. I think, because it is something that unfortunately goes on, that we should know which ones are allowing themselves to be "bought" and by whom. It would be a good thing to know where some loyalties truly lay and be able to easily enough look into why and what affect they may have. On the flipside, I would want to know who supports by means of approval particular organizations that are stance/charity based.

Also, by making politicians publicly show such allegiances it may just make them think twice about accepting such "donations" and tying themselves to certain entities.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As long as you include boys too, I'm with you. Excellent idea!

No, I think we should follow the tribal model. Boys have to hunt, smoke, fish and go on long journeys. We do not have time for politics.

 

[Tumah]

I'd have to think about it. Reps would start sporting Pepsi and Gatorade patches. They'd be covered from head to toe.

So what happens for someone who likes Coke but his rep wears the Pepsi badge.Is he allowed to vote for him, or does he have to start drinking Pepsi?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So what happens for someone who likes Coke but his rep wears the Pepsi badge.Is he allowed to vote for him, or does he have to start drinking Pepsi?

The very idea of our electorate being torn into two nearly equally divided camps...I really hope that never happens! It probably will though. I have rethought my observation about elections tending towards 50/50 and have finally realized something. When we all agree then we must find something to disagree about, hence the elections will always tend towards 50/50.

 

[Gambrinus]

It would be interesting to see which corporations hedge their bets and contribute to both parties.