Elections Exceed Five Billion Dollars

[Barry]

Washington, Oct 23 - A newly released report says that the cost of this year's U.S. presidential and congressional campaigns will hit a record 5.3 billion dollars.

The Center for Responsive Politics' estimate includes spending from candidates, political parties and political action groups. The $5.3 billion figure marks a one billion dollar increase over 2004. - Election Campaigns in U.S. Exceed Five Billion Dollars



I think its figures like this that should make us question the nature of democracy. A democracy where ideas, solutions and ideas dont gain votes - but money, propaganda, spin and branding, both racial and organisational.

[cyberianpan]

To create ideas costs resources, pushing them through likewise.

I'd be very worried of the US election wasn't costly as that would show the President to be irrelevant or unchecked.

Spending $5 billion upfront , in order to determine the direction of your country and trillions of dollars of spending seems reasonable to me.

cYp

[Barry]

To create ideas costs resources, pushing them through likewise.

I'd be very worried of the US election wasn't costly as that would show the President to be irrelevant or unchecked.

Spending $5 billion upfront , in order to determine the direction of your country and trillions of dollars of spending seems reasonable to me.

cYp

Ideas speak for themselves. If there were standardized election material, leaflets, adverts, posters - people could see through the propaganda and spin.

It would be cheaper and fair.

Not as dramatic, colourful or entertaining. Then again, politics isnt a game, spending billions makes it just that though.

There are plenty of alternatives to this waste.

[East Coast Elitist]

On the other hand, this campaign has been going on for 100 years, so that's just fifty million per year.

[Barry]

On the other hand, this campaign has been going on for 100 years, so that's just fifty million per year.

Eh, its 5.3 billion for one year.

[cyberianpan]

Ideas speak for themselves. If there were standardized election material, leaflets, adverts, posters - people could see through the propaganda and spin.

It would be cheaper and fair.

Not as dramatic, colourful or entertaining. Then again, politics isnt a game, spending billions makes it just that though.

There are plenty of alternatives to this waste.

Firstly ideas do not speak themselves, they need to be spoken for and indeed on some complex subjects debates have ranged over hundreds of years. For starters the same idea has to be presented in different ways to different people.

Secondly "standardising" materials would constrain freedoms.

-Who would be responsible for deciding the standards?
-How would innovation : e.g. low cost ads only produced for YouTube, come about ?
- How would we decided the relative apportionment of resources (broadcast times , printing runs etc) ?

For just $5 billion the attention of he nation has been caught:

Washington Post 25.Oct: Voters are more deeply attuned to the race for the White House than at this point in 2004 or 2000. Six in 10 said they are following "very" closely, a high for this cycle, six points above the 2004 level and [COLOR=Red]a whopping 16 points higher than the proportion this tuned in for the Al Gore-George W. Bush face-off in 2000.[/COLOR]

In 2000 they weren't as tuned in and look what happened [SIZE=1]*[/SIZE] ?

cYp
([SIZE=1]* aware that this correlation is thin but think it worth considering)[/SIZE]

[Breadan O'Connor]

I think its figures like this that should make us question the nature of democracy. A democracy where ideas, solutions and ideas dont gain votes - but money, propaganda, spin and branding, both racial and organisational.

It's becoming obvious that politicians at the high level are not working on behalf of those who elected them but rather on behalf of powerful corporate interests.

A prime example is the current spat involving Nathan Rothschild, Peter Mandelson, a Russian oligarch and George Osborne.

[East Coast Elitist]

Eh, its 5.3 billion for one year.

See? we're all horrible with figures.

[Barry]

Firstly ideas do not speak themselves, they need to be spoken for and indeed on some complex subjects debates have ranged over hundreds of years. For starters the same idea has to be presented in different ways to different people.

Secondly "standardising" materials would constrain freedoms.

-Who would be responsible for deciding the standards?
-How would innovation : e.g. low cost ads only produced for YouTube, come about ?
- How would we decided the relative apportionment of resources (broadcast times , printing runs etc) ?

For just $5 billion the attention of he nation has been caught:



In 2000 they weren't as tuned in and look what happened [SIZE=1]*[/SIZE] ?

cYp
([SIZE=1]* aware that this correlation is thin but think it worth considering)[/SIZE]

Cyberianpan, you list these things off as if to say people cant regulate, make and come to decisions.

If freedom of ideas, or speech for that matter, comes down to how much money I or a political party can have - then no thanks, I dont consider that free. I consider that an oligarchy.

The US elections, as they stand, mean nothing. Empty of ideas. Contradictory and so superficial it comes down to peoples race, gender or personality.

Thats not democracy, thats a show. Ill stick with faircity.

Its not about how many tune in with 5 billion dollars. If people dont tune in with any resources at all - then it just shows how marginalized and alienated people are from the political process and decision making.

Money and people's personal lives makes up for that though dosnt it.

[cyberianpan]

Cyberianpan, you list these things off as if to say people cant regulate, make and come to decisions.

If freedom of ideas, or speech for that matter, comes down to how much money I or a political party can have - then no thanks, I dont consider that free. I consider that an oligarchy.

The US elections, as they stand, mean nothing. Empty of ideas. Contradictory and so superficial it comes down to peoples race, gender or personality.

Thats not democracy, thats a show. Ill stick with faircity.

Its not about how many tune in with 5 billion dollars. If people dont tune in with any resources at all - then it just shows how marginalized and alienated people are from the political process and decision making.

Money and people's personal lives makes up for that though dosnt it.

But the US is a pretty capitalist society - it uses currency as the medium of decision making. Obama-McCain need to compete with Coke-Pepsi.

Much of Obama's money came from small donors, so I think that makes the case against oligarchy , but also: say if I am a successful businessman , well society already accepts my higher value contributions ... so I'd be entitled to put that behind my preferred candidate. Think of money as being kinda like a great big karma system !

cYp