Page 1 of 1 pages
“The average cost of winning a House race was just shy of $1 million. A Senate seat comes closer to $7.8 million.”
OK, so “This should be a national scandal.”? What price would be a reasonable price to allow a candidate to let their potential constituants know what they stand for and against? Moreover, is it really worth taking away freedom of speech rights in order to “correct” this “problem”?
Perhaps we ought to select Congressman the same way we select juries?
Posted by wolf on Jan 4, 2007 at 11:57 AM
a lottery.
Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 4, 2007 at 12:45 PM
The average cost of winning a House race was just shy of $1 million. A Senate seat comes closer to $7.8 million.
This should be a national scandal.
It is scandalous!
What price would be a reasonable price to allow a candidate to let their potential constituants know what they stand for and against?
Wolf, maybe this formula is worthy of consideration ...
the price of a postage stamp multiplied by the number of constituents.
a lottery.
Jack, good idea. I have always thought that a lottery would be an excellent method of selecting politicians. Worth a try at least. And if a political lottery winner doesn’t want the job then they should definitely be doing it. Call it cynical but the people who want to be politicians are often the last people who should have the job.
your last sentence sums it up, David. Thanks.
Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 4, 2007 at 5:52 PM
“Wolf, maybe this formula is worthy of consideration ...
the price of a postage stamp multiplied by the number of constituents.”
Hmmm, we elect 435 Congressman out of population of 300 million. A first class stamp costs $0.39. By this measure we should spend about $250,000 per congressman, Similar for the cost of a senate seat.
David, it looks like we are nearly following you formula, perhaps off by a factor of 4-8.
I wonder, how do we acess the value of people making phone calls or doing other political work for free (like MoveOn volunteers)?
Posted by wolf on Jan 5, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Hmmm ... we could cut that back even more, Wolf.
There might be 300 million constituents but how many households are there? We don’t need a stamp costed for each member of the same household, just one stamp per household per candidate.
I wonder, how do we acess the value of people making phone calls or doing other political work for free (like MoveOn volunteers)?
We don’t. No value at all.
There is a new circle of hell (circle 5.5) being constructed for telemarketers of all stripes.
So we (that is, politicians hoping to be congressmen) spend ~10 times the amount that they “should” to get elected. And this is scandalous? (There are ~100 million households in the US.)
Perhaps the scandalous thing is not the dollar amount, but rather where it comes from? Personally i would prefer my congressman was not indebted to a large corporation or organization (whether it be Greenpeace, moveon or Exxon).
But limiting speech here in the US is a big no-no. While i am aware of the problems money brings to elections, i would rather not cut off free speech rights.
Posted by wolf on Jan 5, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Yes, it is scandalous. Both the dollar amount and where it comes from
Our elected leaders are supposed to be indebted to the people that elected them.
That means you and me. Even if we voted for the other guy.
Not some corporation or special interest group.
Limitations on the money in elections would be good for free speech because instead of the money they spend it would be the words they speak that matters.
At the risk of giving wolfgang an apoplectic fit, there is a strong movement in this country for public financing of elections.
It seems the most democratic way to go for me. If implemented fairly it would put incumbents and challengers on an equal footing. It could even help make third party campaigns more viable.
I think opening up venues of speech to those who other-wise cannot afford to make their voices heard in the public arena, is an expansion of freedom of speech, not a limitation. Freedom of the press for those who can afford one has never been much of a protection of the right of individual freedom of conscience, in my humble opinion.
Interesting they are linking to this article. Internet democratization, anyone?
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
No, it wouldn’t. Incumbents have a built-in advantage and you need to spend bucks to unseat them. Govt financing of anything is a bad idea and particularly of campaigns. Another example of the pwogwessive love affair with the state.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 6, 2007 at 6:45 PM
You’re right, Mikey:
The incumbent will always have a leg up. That is unless he/she has been demonstrably incompetent, criminal or corrupt. Effective governmental transparency and sunshine legislation is another topic. What an effective and meaningful ‘fourth estate’ would look like is another. A well-informed actively participating public still another. There is a rational argument for institutional memory.
I would much rather have a government dedicated to the advancement and protection of diversity in representative democracy and its functioning, than the boot-heel of the coercive functions of the state on my neck, telling me I’m so indubitably free, because I have the choice between Coke® and Pepsi®.
Ideally, I would like to see our representative democratic government working sensibly and positively toward building both individualized and institutional structures of participatory and economic democracy, and thereby, one would hope, diminishing the need for the agencies of state power.
But one must begin the journey of a thousand miles with the first step. It’s called the politics of the possible.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 7, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Can’t speak for Blondie but your comments make sense to me at least here. Don’t think govt financing is any panacea though. They might not want to finance third parties and the ballot laws are rigged against third parties. I always check off my IRS form to give $ but it’s voluntary and not the exclusive form of financing.
Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 8, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
“The average cost of winning a House race was just shy of $1 million. A Senate seat comes closer to $7.8 million.”
OK, so “This should be a national scandal.”? What price would be a reasonable price to allow a candidate to let their potential constituants know what they stand for and against? Moreover, is it really worth taking away freedom of speech rights in order to “correct” this “problem”?
Perhaps we ought to select Congressman the same way we select juries?
a lottery.
It is scandalous!
What price would be a reasonable price to allow a candidate to let their potential constituants know what they stand for and against?
Wolf, maybe this formula is worthy of consideration ...
the price of a postage stamp multiplied by the number of constituents.
a lottery.
Jack, good idea. I have always thought that a lottery would be an excellent method of selecting politicians. Worth a try at least. And if a political lottery winner doesn’t want the job then they should definitely be doing it. Call it cynical but the people who want to be politicians are often the last people who should have the job.
your last sentence sums it up, David. Thanks.
“Wolf, maybe this formula is worthy of consideration ...
the price of a postage stamp multiplied by the number of constituents.”
Hmmm, we elect 435 Congressman out of population of 300 million. A first class stamp costs $0.39. By this measure we should spend about $250,000 per congressman, Similar for the cost of a senate seat.
David, it looks like we are nearly following you formula, perhaps off by a factor of 4-8.
I wonder, how do we acess the value of people making phone calls or doing other political work for free (like MoveOn volunteers)?
Hmmm ... we could cut that back even more, Wolf.
There might be 300 million constituents but how many households are there? We don’t need a stamp costed for each member of the same household, just one stamp per household per candidate.
I wonder, how do we acess the value of people making phone calls or doing other political work for free (like MoveOn volunteers)?
We don’t. No value at all.
There is a new circle of hell (circle 5.5) being constructed for telemarketers of all stripes.
So we (that is, politicians hoping to be congressmen) spend ~10 times the amount that they “should” to get elected. And this is scandalous? (There are ~100 million households in the US.)
Perhaps the scandalous thing is not the dollar amount, but rather where it comes from? Personally i would prefer my congressman was not indebted to a large corporation or organization (whether it be Greenpeace, moveon or Exxon).
But limiting speech here in the US is a big no-no. While i am aware of the problems money brings to elections, i would rather not cut off free speech rights.
Yes, it is scandalous. Both the dollar amount and where it comes from
Our elected leaders are supposed to be indebted to the people that elected them.
That means you and me. Even if we voted for the other guy.
Not some corporation or special interest group.
Limitations on the money in elections would be good for free speech because instead of the money they spend it would be the words they speak that matters.
At the risk of giving wolfgang an apoplectic fit, there is a strong movement in this country for public financing of elections.
It seems the most democratic way to go for me. If implemented fairly it would put incumbents and challengers on an equal footing. It could even help make third party campaigns more viable.
I think opening up venues of speech to those who other-wise cannot afford to make their voices heard in the public arena, is an expansion of freedom of speech, not a limitation. Freedom of the press for those who can afford one has never been much of a protection of the right of individual freedom of conscience, in my humble opinion.
Interesting they are linking to this article. Internet democratization, anyone?
No, it wouldn’t. Incumbents have a built-in advantage and you need to spend bucks to unseat them. Govt financing of anything is a bad idea and particularly of campaigns. Another example of the pwogwessive love affair with the state.
You’re right, Mikey:
The incumbent will always have a leg up. That is unless he/she has been demonstrably incompetent, criminal or corrupt. Effective governmental transparency and sunshine legislation is another topic. What an effective and meaningful ‘fourth estate’ would look like is another. A well-informed actively participating public still another. There is a rational argument for institutional memory.
I would much rather have a government dedicated to the advancement and protection of diversity in representative democracy and its functioning, than the boot-heel of the coercive functions of the state on my neck, telling me I’m so indubitably free, because I have the choice between Coke® and Pepsi®.
Ideally, I would like to see our representative democratic government working sensibly and positively toward building both individualized and institutional structures of participatory and economic democracy, and thereby, one would hope, diminishing the need for the agencies of state power.
But one must begin the journey of a thousand miles with the first step. It’s called the politics of the possible.
Can’t speak for Blondie but your comments make sense to me at least here. Don’t think govt financing is any panacea though. They might not want to finance third parties and the ballot laws are rigged against third parties. I always check off my IRS form to give $ but it’s voluntary and not the exclusive form of financing.
register a new account »Posting Security