Money in Politics: The Efficiency of Focus

Posted by & filed under Citizens United, Controlled by Parties, Political Cartoon, The IVA Angle

political cartoon 1

The community of independent voters active on our Facebook page has been very vocal around several issues, but one that there seems to be near universal agreement on is that the money prevalent in our political system from corporations and special interest groups makes the two parties nearly indistinguishable. The parties are loyal to their corporate financial backers, and those corporate backers hedge their investments in influence by spreading their money across both parties.

This is the first in a series of political cartoons we are developing at Independent Voters of America with illustrator Damon Lacey. The goal is to provide the community of independent voters with images that represent issues/beliefs/concepts that most independent voters can agree on. Images that independent voters can share as a representation of their thinking, POV and/or indignation with the two-party status quo. Please feel free to share this. More to come.

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses

  1. Gary Bohlman May 23, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Hi people;Is there anyone in CT running in the presidential election?
    I am sick of the utterly stupid politics and gridlock in Washington and will vote for any person(MAN OR WOMAN)who is interested in the middle clas.Usally politicians go to Washington and the first year work for the people and after that they work for their own interests and gain.

  2. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. May 30, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Money is the Very Reason Why Independents Should Demand Internet Voting

    Imagine this: You are watching candidates debate online or on TV. After each debate you log on to your state’s secure voting website, using your own PC, cell phone, or other electronic device. Your voter registration is checked, and then the voting window comes up. You enter your rating of each debater’s performance, from 0-9.

    Suppose further that entry to the debates is open to everyone who wants to be considered by the voters, and that all candidates are eliminated through a series of such debates. Qualification for candidacy can be as it is now in states like California; i.e., fulfill the signature requirements, pay a filing fee, and you are on the ballot and in the debates.

    In this scenario, it is the political parties that are excluded from the candidate selection and election process. Suppose there are a dozen candidates for an office. Two one hour debates can be held per evening. In three evenings all twelve can be heard, considered, and voted on by the electorate. The next week a final debate can be held between the top two, so that the candidate is supported by a majority of the voters.

    Here is an election process that can be used for all local, state, and federal offices, with only minor changes in state laws. No constitutional amendment is required. Ballot access is 100% nonpartisan – an Independent’s Heaven, right here on Earth. Because no self-serving political party will control the process, the locus of power will move to where it should be in a democracy – to the center of voter preferences.

    Best of all, Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money in all US elections. How? 90% of campaign money is spent on trying to sway the voter’s mind. But in this process of elimination debates, the voter will vote based on what he or she has just seen. Political ads require repetition to succeed. There won’t be time for that in this process; thus, advertising will become ineffectual. This will neuter Citizens United without having to slice up the First Amendment, as Lawrence Lessig and others seek to do.

    This picture can become reality by demanding that your state government, state Secretary of State, and local election officials implement an Internet voting system organized along the lines I have suggested. In consideration for their sacrifices and service, you can also demand Internet voting for your state’s overseas military personnel.

    William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
    Twitter: wjkno1

    Author of Internet Voting Now!
    Kindle edition:
    In paper:

    • Hugo August 30, 2012 at 2:53 am

      I don’t think they should’ve made the BNP one of their chcoeis. It makes it seem like they are a legitimate choice on the same level as all the other parties.Of course, they pick all policies as if they are what each party will actually do. They don’t assume that any party is making unrealistic promises or that any party is trying to hide their agenda. Perhaps they should have put “would destroy democracy” under the BNP’s space on the democracy section, for example, rather than stating their pretend policy.

  3. Rajani September 1, 2012 at 12:09 am

    Luke, what’s come over you? This is clearly a prmiatoonol tool for the Green Party crudely being passed off as supposedly neutral exercise in psephology, I’m no supporter of Respect but by excluding them from the survey and thus weighting it towards the far and extreme-right wing fringe parties the authors have guaranteed a boosted Green result and an ‘Oh my God perhaps at heart I’m a Green supporter and I really never knew it’ style reaction from passing survey-takers.


Leave a Response

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>