trump off the CO ballot

[President Bush]

I would challenge you to show me any modern democracy that doesn't have elements of plutocracy in it.

Bolivia. Its current president Luis Arce is no plutocrat. He has an interesting political history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Arce

A democracy resisting its wealthy elites faces serious headwinds.

But Bolivia's large indigenous population looks well organized. Women’s and Indigenous rights and respect for the environment, along with raising living standards, education levels, and healthcare coverage for the poor are seen as genuine values now.

[Meadmaker]

Here in America, the poor can rise to the top, though, and the rich aren't automatically able to gain political power.

True, anybody can get political power if they can raise enough money. The candidate with the biggest war chest wins.

That's objectively false. I've seen analyses asking that very question, and the answer is that there is a correlation between spending and electoral victory, but it's harder to say if there's causation. Is it that money wins elections, or is it that popular candidates are able to raise more money?

I have heard complaints from former congressmen about the constant need to fundraise, so I'm not saying it's not a problem, but it's exaggerated.

I read an article about it by the Freakonomics people, studying the effect of ad buys on election results. It was very small. After I read that, gave some thought to it, and did a little bit of digging, I came to a conclusion far worse. If that ad spending wasn't moving the needle, why do it? I concluded that political ad purchases were a major source of revenue for the media in general, and news departments in particular. Candidates were customers, and no one wants to make customers angry. In effect, it's bribing media companies for favorable coverage.

So, that plays to your point about plutocracy. You can't buy power, but you can buy corporate media coverage, which can lead to power.

What is definitely true is that in order to get elected, it is absolutely essential to attract money as donations. However, isn't it the case that if you attract the support of a lot of people, some of those will have money? Likewise if you cannot attract people who are willing and able to donate, you won't be able to attact others, either.

The way I see it, there are lots of politicians in America who tailor their campaigns toward poor people, and get elected doing it. If we were a plutocracy, that wouldn't work.  

I feel like we're no less democratic than anywhere else in the world. I don't know how we would go about measuring it, in an objective fashion, though.

[Meadmaker]

I would challenge you to show me any modern democracy that doesn't have elements of plutocracy in it.

Bolivia. Its current president Luis Arce is no plutocrat. He has an interesting political history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Arce

A democracy resisting its wealthy elites faces serious headwinds.

But Bolivia's large indigenous population looks well organized. Women’s and Indigenous rights and respect for the environment, along with raising living standards, education levels, and healthcare coverage for the poor are seen as genuine values now.

I can't say I know much about Bolivia.

Our State Dempartment has some rather unflattering things to say about it, though. It doesn't seem like a beacon of democracy:
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-coun ... 0on%20free

[President Bush]

I would challenge you to show me any modern democracy that doesn't have elements of plutocracy in it.

Bolivia. Its current president Luis Arce is no plutocrat. He has an interesting political history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Arce

A democracy resisting its wealthy elites faces serious headwinds.

But Bolivia's large indigenous population looks well organized. Women’s and Indigenous rights and respect for the environment, along with raising living standards, education levels, and healthcare coverage for the poor are seen as genuine values now.

I can't say I know much about Bolivia.

Our State Dempartment has some rather unflattering things to say about it, though. It doesn't seem like a beacon of democracy:
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-coun ... 0on%20free

If you would like to know more about Bolivia I recommend reading the wiki link I provided about Bolivia's current president Luis Arce (it's in my previous quote ^) There's a lot of recent history there.

US State Department doesn't care for anti-plutocratic, left-leaning politics, surprise, surprise.

If democracy is government by the people, well...

The polls in Bolivia closed at 5pm but as midnight approached with no official results, or even exit polls or quick counts, suspicions and tensions were growing. Then the night took an unexpected turn. After hours of delays and excuses, Unitel, the TV channel with the largest audience in Bolivia, finally made public the projected results based on the quick count by the Ciesmori polling firm. The results were explosive. Not even the greatest optimists in the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) campaign had imagined such a number. Luis Arce Catacora would easily surpass 50 percent of votes and win without any need for a runoff. Former president Carlos Mesa, who had expected to receive the “strategic votes” of all those who wanted to keep the MAS out of power, was more than 20 points behind.

All of the talk during the campaign and on election day about how Arce had limited appeal and little chance of winning more votes beyond core MAS supporters was blown sky high, and the MAS began to prepare to return to the Palacio Quemado with a landslide victory. Even if their opponents had managed to unite behind a single candidate, which they failed to do, it would still not have been enough. By rapidly recognizing the MAS victory and congratulating Arce in the early hours of the morning, interim president Jeanine Áñez undoubtedly helped to ease the tension, as the official count slowly dragged on after an exemplary day of voting following all the protocols in pandemic times.

The MAS also won a majority in congress. The party won by 65 percent to 32 percent in its stronghold of La Paz, but even gained a notable 35 percent in Santa Cruz, the department where the conservative Luis Fernando Camacho won. In November 2019, Camacho had been the leader of the street protests, which, along with a policy mutiny and military ultimatum, lead to the overthrow of then-President Evo Morales and his exile in Argentina.

https://nacla.org/news/2020/10/24/new-mas-era-bolivia

[Meadmaker]

US State Department doesn't care for anti-plutocratic, left-leaning politics, surprise, surprise.

Human Rights Watch isn't too kind to Bolivia, either.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/c ... CAEALw_wcB


With all of our faults, I think America is better.

[President Bush]

US State Department doesn't care for anti-plutocratic, left-leaning politics, surprise, surprise.

Human Rights Watch isn't too kind to Bolivia, either.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/c ... CAEALw_wcB


With all of our faults, I think America is better.

No need to be defensive. I was only responding to your challenge.

I would challenge you to show me any modern democracy that doesn't have elements of plutocracy in it.

[Meadmaker]

US State Department doesn't care for anti-plutocratic, left-leaning politics, surprise, surprise.

Human Rights Watch isn't too kind to Bolivia, either.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/c ... CAEALw_wcB


With all of our faults, I think America is better.

No need to be defensive. I was only responding to your challenge.

I would challenge you to show me any modern democracy that doesn't have elements of plutocracy in it.

I get what you mean. I was asking for examples of democracy without plutocracy.

I'm not sure that Bolivia is a great example of the former, nor entirely free of the latter.

"Populist" candidates might have more support from poor people, and so might appear to be less plutocratic. However, they tend to end up being less democratic than typical candidates in places like the USA or more established democracies.

In places where democracy is more sound, freedom of speech includes freedom to advertise, and people with money use that money to attempt to influence electoral preferences. Why wouldn't they? That sort of "plutocracy" is a feature of modern democracy.

[stanky]

as far as i know, our electoral process is particularly non-democratic compared to other modern democracies. the electoral college sux; gerrymandering and redistricting; vote on a work day, not a day off; no rank choice or mandatory voting like Australia...our process weeds out the will of the people quite specifically. can't say i know how it works elsewhere except what i've heard.

this election is a classic. force feeding the masses a shit sandwich.

The Biden show has made some bold moves recently. The new bill on anti-antisemitism will bring out some hate. It'll be illegal to criticize Israel. And they get more bombs. Protesters are criminals. This is some far-right shit going on, under a dem. Trump's the side show distraction.

btw, El Salvador is making some bold changes; becoming more paradise-like. We will likely fuck with them; make it difficult. this may be the greatest country...but do we have to be such a dick?

[President Bush]

Human Rights Watch isn't too kind to Bolivia, either.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/c ... CAEALw_wcB


With all of our faults, I think America is better.

No need to be defensive. I was only responding to your challenge.

I would challenge you to show me any modern democracy that doesn't have elements of plutocracy in it.

I get what you mean. I was asking for examples of democracy without plutocracy.

I'm not sure that Bolivia is a great example of the former, nor entirely free of the latter.

Little while ago you said:

I can't say I know much about Bolivia.

Like I said, there's a lot of current Bolivian political history described in the wiki article I linked earlier about their president. I recommend reading it if you want to know more.

"Populist" candidates might have more support from poor people, and so might appear to be less plutocratic. However, they tend to end up being less democratic than typical candidates in places like the USA or more established democracies.

In places where democracy is more sound, freedom of speech includes freedom to advertise, and people with money use that money to attempt to influence electoral preferences. Why wouldn't they? That sort of "plutocracy" is a feature of modern democracy.

Funny thing about that money=speech idea.

Far as I can tell the corporate right to free speech isn't about any freedom to speak. It is entirely about the corporation's right to be heard. By as many people as possible depending how deep the corporate wallet is. The idea that corporations must be treated exactly the same, have the same rights as natural persons in the political sphere is quite screwball if you think about it. Should corporations be able to vote or run for office?

Funny how, prior to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, nobody seemed to think that American democracy was suffering a lack of corporate money in politics.

[arthwollipot]

as far as i know, our electoral process is particularly non-democratic compared to other modern democracies. the electoral college sux; gerrymandering and redistricting; vote on a work day, not a day off; no rank choice or mandatory voting like Australia...our process weeds out the will of the people quite specifically. can't say i know how it works elsewhere except what i've heard.

Yep. Australia (just an example since it's the one I happen to know well) makes it ridiculously easy to vote. Polling places are everywhere, they're not crowded, you vote on a Saturday if you want to do it in person at all, and if you do they lay on a sausage sizzle and a cake stall. Last Federal election I voted in I walked up the street to my local primary school, queued for about three minutes and was out of there with a sausage in bread (onions on top) no more than five minutes later.

Furthermore, everybody votes and everybody's vote counts. There's nowhere that you can say, oh, I'm not going to vote because my vote won't count for anything anyway. That is antithetical to democracy, and yet there are places in America where it is true. It's messed up.

Disagree with me about plutocracy if you like, but you can't disagree that America is a very, very poor example of functional democracy.