stardateunknown
04-26-2020, 10:15 AM
Hello,
This is my first post on this website, so I am sorry if I seem new at this. I also am new to politics and am coming at this from a learning standpoint as much as I am from a debate standpoint. Anyway, that's besides the point.
I was thinking recently about how candidates receive funding for their campaigns and how they are able to spend said money. For the most part, candidates are given money from a variety of donors. Furthermore, according to FiveThirtyEight, around 80% or more of Congressional elections since the year 2000 were won by the top spending candidate. This poses an interesting situation: If people and organizations donate to who they support, then those candidates will have more money to spend. More money to spend equals higher probability of winning the election. Therefore, if a candidate wants a higher probability to win, then they will do things that will get them money. However, individuals and organizations with more money will probably donate more, which means that a candidate will probably do things that will get more support from the upper class as opposed to the middle and lower classes. As you can see, individuals and organizations with more money, whether it is accidental or not, influence politicians to do what is better for them as opposed to what is better for everyone.
I propose that in order to eliminate this form of corruption, we should get rid of the ability for people and organizations to donate to candidates all together. Instead of getting funding from all of their supporters, which in this case would mainly be the upper class, each party could get an equal amount of money allocated from the federal budget, which they could then divide equally among their candidates. In order to determine which political parties have a hand in this “pot”, we could have an election where every party that would like to participate must secure a minimum percentage of support from the population, or maybe the first few parties who secure the most support in the form of votes. By using a system like this, we would eliminate the aforementioned corruption and we can help establish the winning party or parties and therefore the candidates that all of the people want, not just the upper class.
I recognize that this proposal is a long read, and lacks specifics and actual numbers, but I ask you to consider this purely as a concept that can be flushed out later. I also appreciate honest feedback and criticisms, so if you have and thoughts and questions, please speak them.
Thank you for your time.
This is my first post on this website, so I am sorry if I seem new at this. I also am new to politics and am coming at this from a learning standpoint as much as I am from a debate standpoint. Anyway, that's besides the point.
I was thinking recently about how candidates receive funding for their campaigns and how they are able to spend said money. For the most part, candidates are given money from a variety of donors. Furthermore, according to FiveThirtyEight, around 80% or more of Congressional elections since the year 2000 were won by the top spending candidate. This poses an interesting situation: If people and organizations donate to who they support, then those candidates will have more money to spend. More money to spend equals higher probability of winning the election. Therefore, if a candidate wants a higher probability to win, then they will do things that will get them money. However, individuals and organizations with more money will probably donate more, which means that a candidate will probably do things that will get more support from the upper class as opposed to the middle and lower classes. As you can see, individuals and organizations with more money, whether it is accidental or not, influence politicians to do what is better for them as opposed to what is better for everyone.
I propose that in order to eliminate this form of corruption, we should get rid of the ability for people and organizations to donate to candidates all together. Instead of getting funding from all of their supporters, which in this case would mainly be the upper class, each party could get an equal amount of money allocated from the federal budget, which they could then divide equally among their candidates. In order to determine which political parties have a hand in this “pot”, we could have an election where every party that would like to participate must secure a minimum percentage of support from the population, or maybe the first few parties who secure the most support in the form of votes. By using a system like this, we would eliminate the aforementioned corruption and we can help establish the winning party or parties and therefore the candidates that all of the people want, not just the upper class.
I recognize that this proposal is a long read, and lacks specifics and actual numbers, but I ask you to consider this purely as a concept that can be flushed out later. I also appreciate honest feedback and criticisms, so if you have and thoughts and questions, please speak them.
Thank you for your time.