1 voice = 1 vote

Stop corporate sponsorship of candidates. Money should not determine the outcome of an election. Democracy is about discussion so lets start to listen to all the voices of the world.



  • This something that must happen, take away the money,how long will it take hopefully sooner than later.

  • I agree, and I believe soon we will see a leader emerge using social media.

  • I istvinctinely nodded along enthusiastically whilst reading this.However, as you touch on, each individual vote is normally uninfluential. There's the problem of safe seats, and there's the problem of the only electable candidates standing on an indistinct centrist ticket which appeals to few but also offends few. But even more generally than that when you are just one voter amongst an electorate of tens of thousands, the chances of your vote making a substantive difference are tiny.This makes voting in some respects an irrational behaviour while it has high levels of social utility, it relies on individuals to behave in a manner that provides little personal utility. This is a real weakness in a democracy.If it wasn't for my liberal mind's nagging insistence on freedom from coercion, I'd be concluding that compulsory voting is the way forward.

  • Oh yeah, fuabluos stuff there you!

  • Hi Brian! Glad to find you again. I miss hearing you on the radio. I wrote and told KIRO what a sptuid thing they did by firing you. Have you heard that boring new guy they put in the morning slot, Allen Prell? You could fall asleep before he gets to the topic! However, he fits the status quo: Bush bashing and Republican hating. Will you be on any local radio station anytime soon? You are right about the Democrats doing anything to undermine Rossi's chance for a re-vote! This state is so corrupt now and it never used to be. I'm old enough to remember Henry Jackson and Democrats like him in state politics. They were as honest as the Republicans then. We need to get our state back on track and Dino Rossi can do that.

  • I agree... by the way, First Anonymous: let me try to be light though I feel fiercely about what you just said: Democracy demands that every person have a very small vote, that's exactly the point; in a multitude of millions, every person cannot have a huge say, else we'd go to direct democracy, which cannot work in a large setting; in a direct democracy every single person can vote on everything, and has equal say as everyone else, but naturally while this semi-worked in Athens (not everyone could vote), it would not in modern day b/c there are too many people and bureaucratic efficiency would disappear. Lovely otherwise, though. What you suggest is the opposite of this: a few people, I can only presume yourself being counted in your theories, should be able to be heard while the rest suffer silence; while this would seem to work for those few, it ultimately unfortunately carries the side effect of cutting off the right arm of the thinkers of the day, b/c most of them are not on that list. xD

    Now, as for this idea (felt the need to address the other post, sorry; and feel free to reply, Anon, I don't mean to be rude and care what message you take home at the end of the day), I agree completely, sfray. I might learn by you when I post the ones I care about, btw, though I'm looking into things to learn about the site first for now... you solidly nailed it by giving exactly what you wanted to say in a handful of words and leaving it at that, not complicating any interpretation nor leaving there any to be done.

    The guy I take to actually be your real-world friend notes you have experience in Broadcasting; I can see as much, given the skill of your post. I will note that by leaving out all the why, which most of us can fill in, you kept most of your audience better than most of the people who post similarly popular ideas. At least, that's my interpretation. Kudos. You know what you're doing and I'm learning from you lol. XD

    My support is definitely given, voted yes and genius because it is a major problem today; I will point out myself, there is a news thread in my native state of South Carolina (the place with all the swamps xD) that goes back sometime, not really current anymore, but that covers a mayor who won the county seat by taking a war chest from Republicans and spamming air waves; his opponent had been popular for environmental and quality of life reasons, which had hurt the vast minority, hog farmers, in their business; with hog farmer funding, the new candidate won and restored all the things everyone had hated. Money DOES buy votes, let's be real.

    There should be a relatively low cap on that sort of spending for all candidates, and Super-PACs need to be dealt with by the legislature (referencing US mainly now, sorry), b/c the Supreme Court has ruled they are legit. Super-PACs are complicated, because, let's be frank, they're overtly fair and yet give power to corporate conglomerates that I don't think most citizens want in the hands of what amount to lobbyists.

    I will tell you though, it being a corporate right, I think there needs to be something in place making sure corporations don't allow their freedom of speech rights; meaning if you happen to be wildly wealthy, and your neighbor is very poor, you should both have exactly the same rights regarding financing campaigns and advertising, so I'm curious what anyone who actually does read everything I just wrote (kudos if you did!) thinks of that.... It's a problem, but perhaps not best solved the easiest way possible. When corporations can't fund finance campaigns, just making sure, the executives can still do the same political activities as the man who doesn't have a dollar to spare? Just making sure; however, don't get the wrong idea, lots of people make companies successful, and I agree they should not be able to campaign for candidates.

    Peace, and, first post, hopefully there's no word count limit! lol

  • This is great but it doesn't belong in this category. This category is for ideas associated with the function of this site, more or less. You should do the right thing and take it down and repost it where it belongs. We mustn't be afraid to tell out peers when they have made and honest mistake and the potential outcomes of that mistake. There are people over in the government category that need to hear this. Thank you for being a team player and socially responsible.

  • I object because the intention to achieve consensus should take precedent over voting methods. Eg. Voters 1 and 2 out of 3 vote to imprison voter 3 for odd appearance, and now democracy is the tyrannical dictatorship of the dominant vote. This is why political parties form, another unnecessary and wasteful division of humans against humans.
    An open source government based on Sociocracy a.k.a Dynamic Governance is a much more effective organizational structure than a voting based Democracy. Voting can be useful to achieving or assessing consensus, but consensus is the goal.

  • Sorry this is a flawed comment. the above was a vote no and I attempted to withdraw my vote in an experiment with the sites user friendliness. Excuse me.

  • I object because I believe democracy can only be achieved by planting the seed of democracy in ourself and our children not by forcing an idea regardless of how good an idea maybe, we may have to go through a critical path such as wars, hunger, et c before we go into action .

  • i think democracy is amazing, besides the fact that we are not a true democracy, we are a capitalism society and i think it would be best as a true democracy, capitalism is ruining our system.

  • "Money is the root of all evil". People the World bank is here so lets work to stop it

  • How can a large population of people, uneducated in certain areas, e.g. Biotechnology or specialized areas of science, vote on something with such large implications? The group may vote on what appears best, without understanding an entire concept

  • Thanks for introducing a little rationality into this dbetae.

  • Your wbeiste has to be the electronic Swiss army knife for this topic.

  • We have to let the people that run for office know that what they are doing is a public service and as a public servant, the people are the one they should listen to, not the special interests groups that want to influence their decisions on policy that affects them. Public service should not be a path to a special interest position, maybe making sure that if you are an elected official you should have a wait period after holding office that you can go and work as a lobbyist or any other position that can influence lawmakers. Maybe that way, the people that decide they want to run for any office in government will be cautious about their decision if it's going to affect their future and leave government and public offices to the people that want to serve, not just use the office as a springboard to private interests.

Similar Ideas: