Hacker News Reader

Comment by HashThis | Hacker News Reader

US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. 84% of the time, the congress person that wins in that district raised the most money. Corporations and the wealthy provide that money to get congress people who represent THEM, not US citizens.

US Congress doesn't represent US citizens. So nothing changes if moneyed interests want US citizens to live under surveillance.

View on HN

Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.

>Your logic doesn't leave room for the possibility that there is a correlation between electability and ability to raise funds. I.e. the candidate most likely to win raises more funds and not vice versa.

That's circular logic. "They must be the most qualified, because they raised the most money and the person who gets elected is the one who raised the most money".

In a functioning democracy there should be a cliff where, no matter how much you spent, you cannot simply buy the election.

the whole notion of 'electability' is a ruse created by democrats to push voters towards politicians that agree more with the corporate wing of the party than any issues people care about. if electability was actually a thing, trump would not have won.

https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-67-the-gate-keepi...

Except when this correlation is wrong. Such as when Trump won with less than 60% of the money spent by Hillary Clinton.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

Targeted ads/disinformation campaigns are very effective

They were talking about Congress not the presidency, and the presidency is not popular vote. The electoral college is specifically designed to be different

Well the idea is that having more money means you can get your message out more. The money has to be spent to be useful. It isn't just the person who "has" the most (though you could also use Trump as an example to that).

But Trump's team did a good job at getting in the media. Any news station you turned on there was more talk about Trump than Hillary.

This is one of the problems with money in politics. As money becomes more important in winning elections, politicians' interests align more with the "moneyed interests" rather than the voters or even the public.

The house of representatives should serve as a bulwark against "moneyed interests", but even they are being targeted and bought by money. What good is democracy if a small group of people buy all the politicians?

There's currently a "small donor boom" on the Democratic side (possibly Republicans too, I'm unsure). Super PACs etc are fading in importance, in this cycle at least.

Yeah, they say that every election cycle. Remember Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders? Remember the "small donors" for Obama? Nobody remembered them and neither did Obama. Super PACs are growing. Not sure where you got the idea that they are fading. Super PACs are only a few years old and they have tons of room to grow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com