Apparently, some people believe that elections and especially presidental elections, actually mean anything. They think that candidates win or lose based on their own merit, and on the strength of their platforms. I cast doubt on this.

Campaigning for the presidential election costs a lot of money. And wealthy campaign donors can easily decide the outcome of the election by contributing to a certain candidate substantially. Then they probably expect favors from him if he wins. This isn't just my own paranoia, this is a widespread public perception and wikipedia also references it.

The only way I might be dissuaded is if people can actually show me the hard numbers. Show me a detailed, itemized rundown of a candidate's total campaign expenses, and then show me the total amount of campaign funds that he or his party legitimately raised. If the latter is enough to cover the former, then I will shut up. Otherwise, the shortfall can only be made up by big money and this really is just legalized bribery.

Thanks for reading.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Aug 17 2022 09:41am

Moot point.
So long as voting is done digitally,
it can be altered with a stroke of the keyboard.
It's not the people who vote that count,
it's the people who count the votes.

But further than that.
They don't care who you vote for,
as both have been compromised long before you ever heard of them.
So long as you don't question the system.

This post was edited by sirthom on Aug 17 2022 10:00am

Imagine politicians wore the logo's of their lobbyists
They would look like Nascar drivers

#accidentally progressive

Obviously, money has an impact on the outcome of an election. This is not some new take, it's widely accepted that that money aids in the campaign process. It costs money to campaign. Large quantities of money allows candidates to be competitive in advertising and mobilizing voters.

It does not mean that the candidate with the most funding will have the most electoral success though.

Obviously, larger institutions and companies will view it as an investment if they're donating any significant amount of money. I'm sure that many of them hedge their bets and donate to both parties.

There's been lobbying for years to have a campaigning spending limit.

the best measurement is the % of someone's campaign fund that is comprised of donations of $1,000 or under, vs over. Over = corporations, under = individuals. those with a high % are considered grassroots candidates and less subject to corporate interests once elected.

they do exist, they're just rare.

in 2012 for example Obama had 51%+ donations of 200$ or under, Romney had 9%.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 17 2022 10:48am

So are you implicating that the United States is not the greatest nation on Earth?



Isn't it possible for donors to just spread out many 999 dollar contributions?




Idiocracy.

This post was edited by Cascadian on Aug 17 2022 11:05am

People in America love saying America is horrible and racist etc.

After being to half of the countries in Europe I can definitely say I've witnessed more racism and weird shit in the year I spent in Europe than the 28 years I've spent in America.

the last years should have made it clear that none of these dipshit politicians give a fuck about you

you can at best choose which one will mess the least with your life, thats it

Precisely.
Waiting for science to say water is bad for us, and still morons will keep their trust.