Further Information About Decline Of Democrat Run Areas.

[Mr Spinkles]

Why is he to become President.
The people (except me) voted for him.
They could've voted for Jorgensen,
but hey didn't.

Do you vote?
If so, why?

I think what Heyo is getting at is that in a free election - just as in a free market - voters and consumers do not receive perfect information. Voters and consumers only have a certain amount of time, energy, and education upon which to make their choices. These choices are warped and distorted when a massive amount of money is plowed into advertising.

Just as the choices of people in an authoritarian regime will skew towards the powerful, which are able to drown out the weak, so too will the choices of people in a free society skew towards the interests of the very rich, who can outspend the poor.

The result is therefore a mixed bag, reflecting the desires of the people as modulated by the effect of moneyed interests dominating the airwaves and drowning out alternative messages.

Consumer protections, like nutritional labels on food and transparent disclosure on financial investments, can help alleviate these asymmetries of information, level the playing field and enable consumers to make better informed choices.

Our political campaigns and system of donations sadly lacks many of these protections. This results in the discrepancies Heyo pointed out, between what people want, vs what the people they vote for actually do.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think what Heyo is getting at is that in a free election - just as in a free market - voters and consumers do not receive perfect information. Voters and consumers only have a certain amount of time, energy, and education upon which to make their choices. These choices are warped and distorted when a massive amount of money is plowed into advertising.

Just as the choices of people in an authoritarian regime will skew towards the powerful, which are able to drown out the weak, so too will the choices of people in a free society skew towards the interests of the very rich, who can outspend the poor.

The result is therefore a mixed bag, reflecting the desires of the people as modulated by the effect of moneyed interests dominating the airwaves and drowning out alternative messages.

Consumer protections, like nutritional labels on food and transparent disclosure on financial investments, can help alleviate these asymmetries of information, level the playing field and enable consumers to make better informed choices.

Our political campaigns and system of donations sadly lacks many of these protections. This results in the discrepancies Heyo pointed out, between what people want, vs what the people they vote for actually do.

The common argument that we aren't a democracy, & that
the oligarchs control all isn't defeated by explaining why
voters make the choices they do. Cromulent info is out
there & readily available to all.
Do you vote?
If so, why?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The common argument that we aren't a democracy, & that
the oligarchs control all isn't defeated by explaining why
voters make the choices they do. Cromulent info is out
there & readily available to all.
Do you vote?
If so, why?

That’s fair. I’m not saying we aren’t a democracy. Just that money has significant power to warp that democracy and occasionally cause results that are at odds with the will of the people. Those results were quoted by Heyo and cry out for an explanation.

Yes I vote. Because the alternative is to not vote.

Now my turn to ask a question: do moneyed interests plow huge amounts into political campaigns and lobbying? If so, why?

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s fair. I’m not saying we aren’t a democracy. Just that money has significant power to warp that democracy and occasionally cause results that are at odds with the will of the people. Those results were quoted by Heyo and cry out for an explanation.

Yes I vote. Because the alternative is to not vote.

Now my turn to ask a question: do moneyed interests plow huge amounts into political campaigns and lobbying? If so, why?

Influence.

 

[Heyo]

Why is he to become President.
The people (except me) voted for him.
They could've voted for Jorgensen,
but hey didn't.

Do you vote?
If so, why?

I don't vote in US elections. (And if I did, I'd have probably voted for Hawkins.)
I do not always vote. Sometimes it's just "I can't bring myself to vote for any of these clowns.", other times it's the party or candidate I agree most with - and that's usually non of the usual suspects.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't vote in US elections. (And if I did, I'd have probably voted for Hawkins.)
I do not always vote. Sometimes it's just "I can't bring myself to vote for any of these clowns.", other times it's the party or candidate I agree most with - and that's usually non of the usual suspects.

Is it cuz you aren't Ameristanian?

 

[Heyo]

I think what Heyo is getting at is that in a free election - just as in a free market - voters and consumers do not receive perfect information. Voters and consumers only have a certain amount of time, energy, and education upon which to make their choices. These choices are warped and distorted when a massive amount of money is plowed into advertising.

Just as the choices of people in an authoritarian regime will skew towards the powerful, which are able to drown out the weak, so too will the choices of people in a free society skew towards the interests of the very rich, who can outspend the poor.

The result is therefore a mixed bag, reflecting the desires of the people as modulated by the effect of moneyed interests dominating the airwaves and drowning out alternative messages.

Consumer protections, like nutritional labels on food and transparent disclosure on financial investments, can help alleviate these asymmetries of information, level the playing field and enable consumers to make better informed choices.

Our political campaigns and system of donations sadly lacks many of these protections. This results in the discrepancies Heyo pointed out, between what people want, vs what the people they vote for actually do.

You got that pretty right. It is a bit more complicated as we have seen with Sanders outspending his opponents in the early campaign with his small money donations. What he couldn't outspend were the talking heads of the MSM (which is owned by the oligarchs) and a general propensity to vote for the well known candidate. This conservatism is a boon for the oligarchy even if it isn't a strategy.