> I think people get who they vote for. It's not like there's an exchange where you can literally buy votes for dollars.
Agreed. However, whether we like it or not, the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.
> I'm more upset with the electorate for having under-informed or unexamined political opinions.
How much work does it take to become a well informed and reasoned voter? How much value will it garner someone to change their vote? It's hard to blame someone, especially people barely scraping by, from rationally choosing to spend their time in other ways. We do need to work on helping voters be better informed. But we should also work on pragmatic approaches that recognize the current influence that money has.
> the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.
I wasn't disputing whether that's true. I was disputing that it's the money's fault and not the voters'.
> How much work does it take to become a well informed and reasoned voter?
One solution is to increase the information level of voters. Another is to lower the information requirements.
At a certain point, having complex tax codes, complex regulatory systems, and complex power structures becomes a justice issue because it's not fair to expect the average voter to be informed about how carried interest works or how one qualifies for social security disability.
The average voter does not care to keep their government local, accountable, and easy to understand. And I think it's perfectly fair to say they're getting what they voted for.
> However, whether we like it or not, the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.
Actually there is very little evidence that more money correlates with more electoral success. For example the Sunlight Foundation found that outside spending had no discernible impact on election outcomes in 2012. And that was after the Citizens United ruling.
In politics there is an "ante"--an amount of money necessary to run a basic credible campaign--but beyond that, more money does not necessarily get you anything.
Agreed. However, whether we like it or not, the evidence is overwhelming that money is extremely effective in garnering votes and winning elections.
> I'm more upset with the electorate for having under-informed or unexamined political opinions.
How much work does it take to become a well informed and reasoned voter? How much value will it garner someone to change their vote? It's hard to blame someone, especially people barely scraping by, from rationally choosing to spend their time in other ways. We do need to work on helping voters be better informed. But we should also work on pragmatic approaches that recognize the current influence that money has.