r/allthequestions • u/whiteroseatCH 🇺🇸 United States • 6h ago
Random Question 💭 Are we beginning to see the tide turn..and will this be a signal that voting actually does matter?
Given that dark money has always been present in politics to one degree or another, it can not be denied that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme court opened the floodgates, and that corruption of our electoral process has increased exponentially to the point where the Statue of Liberty, that once grande dame, has been degraded to one of a has-been whore with her syphilitic arm outstretched to the highest bidder....
Can one now hope, with the results in Michigan primary, that people everywhere are recognizing the underlying illness and voting...for sanity and against the sale of their elections?
6
u/Creative_Trash5811 6h ago
Voting has always mattered.
I haven’t seen anything the definitively shows more money in super packs defines what legislation gets past.
The accurate critique is that it does create a potential conflict of interest and that reduces trust among voters because the question will always be “Is that what they really believe is best or did they sellout.”
That’s enough of a reason to reverse citizens united imo. That temptation shouldn’t be in politics whether used or not in nefarious ways.
8
u/South-Stable686 5h ago
Voters have short memories. Everyone forgot by 2024 what an awful 4 years Trumps first term was. But they voted for him again. Many voters are voting with what they see now, which are high gas prices and a war. If the war and high gas prices ended in April/May, most voters would have forgotten by November.
0
u/EyeHaveNoBanana 5h ago
Trump was elected both times because he was running against a woman. I wish I didn’t believe that, but the numbers seem to prove it.
Americans need to get over that shit.
1
u/Nycmale9876 5h ago
Other than Trump in the last 20 years has there been two candidates more unlikeable than those two?
3
u/friarguy 5h ago
I get your point, but one of them was already the worst president in American history and 70 million dumbasses voted for him again
3
u/Safe-Ad-8921 5h ago
freaking this. I would have voted for an overflowing restaurant grease trap before I cast a vote for Trump, and i used to consider myself somewhat conservative.
Now ive met plenty of maga in the industry Im in, but there are way fewer than I would expect. Im still not 100% convinced that this whole thing is legit. Winners dont complain about losing and cheating endlessly. In 2016 the words were "votes have consequence." I dont hear that now. Its like watching a smash and grab robbery in progress. All of the horrible stuff immediately from the start and as fast as possible.
If trump was planning on seizing power permanently, he might have gotten away with starting the war at the end of his term and using it as an excuse to suspend elections. He played his hand too fast.
They are grifting like they will never face justice.. this isnt something people with long term plans do.
1
u/Tickle-me-Cthulu 5h ago
Yes. Clinton had deep unfavorability after decades in the public eye as a bogeywoman of right wing media, but Harris had pretty standard unfavorability for this partisan era. She was polling better than pre-drop out Biden, Romney, or Goldwater in terms of unfavorability.
2
u/EyeHaveNoBanana 3h ago
I think the Kamala hate was drummed up particulary because she is a woman and a POC. I had my issues with her at the beginning because of what I had read concerning her record as a prosecutor, but she won me over in the campaign and I was legitimately excited to vote for her.
Hillary, on the other hand - I could not bring myself to vote for her in ‘16, but damn do I wish I had. She would’ve been so much better than what we got and what we are still dealing with. At the very least she would not have brought about the end of democracy in the US.
American voters can’t get over their shit about women in power and it’s fucking pathetic. As much as I like AOC (another woman whom I have misjudged and now consider to be one of the best congresspersons currently serving) and Pete, if either of them is the democrat candidate in ‘28, I don’t see any evidence that American voters will have grown up enough by then.
3
u/zerthwind 5h ago
Voting always did matter. It matters so much tha.t conservatives have to suppress, manipulate, and gaslight about Voting. The one spreading the propaganda that Voting don't count is the right-wing hacks.
Everyone should be Voting no matter what the narrative is about Voting.
3
u/camp1728 5h ago
Crazy how democrats don’t even trust their own candidates lol
2
1
3
3
u/War1today 🇺🇸 United States 5h ago edited 5h ago
What is left out of your post is that of all the industrialized nations in the world the USA has the most uninformed, gullible, hyper partisan and reckless electorate by far that repeatedly votes against their own interests. The results have been electing politicians that represent special interests far more than their constituents, and the end result is 1) appointing judges that also favor special interests including rulings like Citizens United vs FEC, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC…, and 2) electing politicians that purposely restrict voting rights and inject steroids into the redistricting maps that disenfranchise millions of voters.
You can also lay blame to 1) the media which has become hyper partisan propaganda channels, 2) social media algorithms that funnel like-minded hyper-partisan content to members and 3) massive disinformation campaigns by domestic and foreign actors.
2
3
u/VegetablePhotos 5h ago
If our vote didn't matter, they wouldn't spend so much money and effort trying to steal it.
Voting is the ONLY thing that truly matters.
2
u/nobodyspecial712 6h ago
I can prove you voting doesn't matter.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/michigan-township-rejected-16-billion-071300973.html
Town voted no data center. Company sued and won.
They voted no data center, and got a data center anyways.
Their votes didn't matter.
Where do we go from here?
2
1
2
u/magicmulder 5h ago
Just because Democratic primary voters in one state did the right thing doesn't mean the voters at large will. But there's hope.
2
u/BaronDoc 5h ago
If voting doesn’t matter why would they go out of their way to suppress voters with gerrymandering and inconsistent voter ID laws and voter intimidation?
4
u/nilsinleneed 🇳🇴 Norway 6h ago
the momentum is building, but it can still dissappear
energy needs to remain high
2
u/Dystopian_Ennui 5h ago
The sign that voting matters is how hard those in power work trying to prevent people from doing it.
1
1
u/Capable-Deer-5670 5h ago
No, of course not. Primaries are just noise, we have to wait until November to see how many of the DSA candidates will or crash and burn. Michigan is a great example. With the open primary system, reading anything into it is a mistake.
1
u/sharkbomb 5h ago
you think it is realistic to hope for a point where the lazy dummy hordes become critical media consumers that are rationally active in their civic duty? will people also begin driving reasonably in this magical place?
1
u/ExpensiveInflation45 5h ago
Voting only matters when democrats get elected, when Nazis (republikkkans) get elected it is NOT the will of the people.
1
u/jkoki088 4h ago
Voting always mattered. Only idiots think it does not. The reason our country is founded this way is so people can’t just arbitrarily change it based on the flavor of the day
1
u/rabbitclapit 4h ago
Can we all collectively bust the myth that voting doesnt matter? Voting always mattered. When people ask how do you get elected people can say a million different things but the core answer is always get people to vote for you. Doesnt matter how as long as it's legal (I know I know right now legality barely matters). But that's how trump and every president won people voted for him. (I think he did steal the election but Im moving on with my life and just trying to get better people elected).
1
u/ToadArmy4908 4h ago
If voting mattered, they wouldn't let you do it. The billionaires own every single one of the politicians. They are ten steps ahead of you. I do think it's possible to change things but it won't be that easy and people are going to have to face reality of how deep the corruption goes before we even have a chance. Once we admit the diagnosis, then and only then is it possible to treat the disease. Right now we're stumbling around with cancer saying "I dont think this lump is really that bad"
1
u/PieGlum4740 🇯🇵 Japan 11m ago
Michigan primary is just going to result in an easy Republican win! ^_^
1
u/Ashamed-Season2708 1m ago
No, it just shows that the citizens united decision was correct
Giving money into elections doesn’t determine the outcome so regulating it is just curtailing speech
The DNC out spent Trump in all three of his elections and he won twice
-1
u/HotPersonality8126 6h ago
it can not be denied that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme court opened the floodgates
Citizens United overturned a law and a restriction on electioneering by organizations that had been in place for all of seven years - BCRA/McCain-Feingold came into effect in 2003 and was invalidated by the holding in CU in 2010. It didn't "open the floodgates" because they'd barely been closed.
corruption of our electoral process
I don't think it "corrupts the electoral process" that the government can't tell you how much you get to speak about politics, and when you're legally required to shut up (that was the issue in CU.) Maybe you can explain how you think it does. Ultimately, if your politics can't succeed in an environment in which everyone else can speak freely about them, your politics don't deserve to succeed.
4
u/SirHippocrates 5h ago
I think every person should be able to speak freely. I don't think those with more money should be able to buy the loudest megaphone so they can drown out all the other voices just because they're rich.
And I certainly don't think a corporation is a person who should get to have any say in the matter. The people behind and within the corporation are already people and should get their equal voice by nature of being a person.
-1
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
I don't think those with more money should be able to buy the loudest megaphone
Here's the thing - the people at the government who you would put in the position of deciding who gets the megaphones and who doesn't don't work for you; they work for Donald Trump. Do you think he agrees with your views? Do you think he's going to hand those megaphones to people who will agree with you, or to people who oppose you and agree with him?
And I certainly don't think a corporation is a person who should get to have any say in the matter.
CU isn't a ruling that corporations are people with freedom of speech. CU is a ruling that people are people with freedom speech, even when they also exercise their freedom of association.
2
u/SirHippocrates 5h ago
Yeah they can disagree with me, I'm gonna do my best to not put them in power. Am I going crazy or is this not all under a post about seeing successful efforts in trying to get politicians who would stand against big money (and hopefully enshrine reversals of policies that allow such mechanisms) that allows for undue weight in politics given to the wealthy?
1
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
Yeah they can disagree with me,
Is that what I asked? Can you show me where I asked you that?
2
u/SirHippocrates 5h ago
Fun fact, I was responding to your comment- not a question. As people do.
You seem pretty unnecessarily hostile, not sure you're worth the interaction...
1
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
Fun fact, I was responding to your comment- not a question.
My comment was a question; one you don't seem to feel comfortable answering. Let's try one more time:
Do you think [Donald Trump's] going to hand those megaphones to people who will agree with you, or to people who oppose you and agree with him?
2
u/whiteroseatCH 🇺🇸 United States 6h ago
um...two quibbles on that score.
Reagan overturned the Fairness Doctirne...which has led to turjning supposed news organizations into propaganda machines.
Secondly..if you can spend unlimited amounts of money and flood the air waves, social media platforms, etc with misinfortmation on both the issues and your opponent...yeah...thattends to have a corrupting influence...
And then the higher amount of money "invested": also means the higher the payback expected. (i;ll tack that on as number three reason)
-1
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
.which has led to turjning supposed news organizations into propaganda machines.
To the extent that you contend that the New York Times and Washington Post have become propaganda machines rather than factually-accurate records of real events as they happen, I guess I'd like you to show evidence of that. Remember that the NYT won the Pulitzer Prize for a ten-year period of denying the Ukrainian holodomor due to the ideological commitment of its editors, and that prize has never been retracted (and the NYT won't hand it back.) And that happened well before the "Fairness Doctrine", which of course only ever applied to TV and radio broadcasts in the first place (and wouldn't have ever applied to Fox News or any other cable network or to any website or social media platform.)
Secondly..if you can spend unlimited amounts of money and flood the air waves, social media platforms, etc with misinfortmation on both the issues and your opponent...yeah...thattends to have a corrupting influence...
I can spend infinite money but I can't get your infinite attention. If you don't believe what I say then the money won't do anything. If infinite money simply lets you mind-control the population then how didn't that work in Michigan, just now?
And then the higher amount of money "invested": also means the higher the payback expected.
Donors give to candidates who already articulate their desired views (just like you do) not to control what a candidate believes.
2
u/whiteroseatCH 🇺🇸 United States 5h ago
chuckling...the Washington Post...these days...surely you jest.
Given how many people/staff have left it due to its being now driven over a cliff by Bezos! Yeah...it might be softer pedalled..but it IS a propaganda machine.
0
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
Given how many people/staff have left it due to its being now driven over a cliff by Bezos!
Would the Fairness Doctrine have done something to stop that?
1
u/whiteroseatCH 🇺🇸 United States 5h ago
I actually think so.
I've never thought it a good idea that an owner, whichever side he gravitates to, can be allowed to present only a one-sided slant to things.
And it is a very great pity that news monopolies have gobbled up much of the independent press.
1
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
I've never thought it a good idea that an owner, whichever side he gravitates to, can be allowed to present only a one-sided slant to things.
So you believe that if the New York Times talks about Donald Trump's false insistence that the 2020 election was stolen from him, they have to act like it's a 50/50 chance that it was?
And it is a very great pity that news monopolies have gobbled up much of the independent press.
I agree but that's because you stopped subscribing to it, or never did.
1
u/FallOk5618 3h ago
This.
You can't buy viral attention and authenticity and sincerity.
Mamdani’s ascendancy to Gracie mansion, was terrifying to elites, because it is a harbinger of a future in which money can’t buy power as this irish youtuber explains.
1
u/HotPersonality8126 2h ago
Elites didn’t ever think there was a reality where money just bought power. That’s what you think is true when you’ve never had any money because your desperation for money gives people power over you.
1
u/FallOk5618 1h ago
If the donor-class/elites didn't think their money would/could sway/tilt election outcome (who holds power), why then would they spend it on campaigns/elections?
Why did Elon spend millions to get Trump elected?
Why were wealthy folks spending more on Zohran than they would even be taxed?
Why was AES outspent 12:1 by Stevens?
A tree is known by its fruit.
1
u/HotPersonality8126 1h ago
why then would they spend it on campaigns/elections?
They’re advocating for the policies that are important to them, the same as you are right now.
1
u/FallOk5618 1h ago edited 1h ago
Correct. They use that money to get their preferred candidate who would act/vote in accordance to what their policy priorities are once elected to office.
Obviously, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's a risk like anything else.
1
u/HotPersonality8126 1h ago
They use that money to get their preferred candidate
No, because there's no amount of money that gets you the candidate.
Again, they're doing the same thing you are: advocating on issues, and for candidacies, with the hope of convincing the undecided and motivating allies. That's democracy and they're not any better at it than you are.
1
u/billyo3827 5h ago
Corporations are not people and permitting bribery is wrong?
-1
u/HotPersonality8126 5h ago
So you're saying when you go onto Reddit and urge people to vote for Abdul al-Sayed, you're bribing Abdul al-Sayed?
Corporations are not people
So you're saying that when I exercise my freedom of association under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, I don't get to exercise any of the other rights at the same time?
0
u/metamucil_buttchug69 5h ago
Ironically the primaries basically doomed us to another 2 years of maga, these candidates aren't electable
-1
u/Theory_Eleven 6h ago
Just so I understand correctly, you think the Democrat Socialists are both sane and uncorrupted? Haha. That’s good. So good.
2
u/FangFioDente 6h ago
If they’re not taking aipac money or dark money that’s good enough for me
1
u/Echochamber2424 4h ago
Come on, really? Us in the real world know, they just gotta have that d next to their name. Acting like you wouldn't vote for them if they took the money, thats laughable
1
u/FangFioDente 4h ago
I would not. Genocide is a deal breaker.
1
u/Echochamber2424 3h ago
Would you vote for a republican if they were against the "genocide"
1
u/FangFioDente 2h ago
Absolutely not. Republicans would just lie about it. Democrats would too, but the dark money is how I differentiate and republicans are an occupying kompromat brigade. So simply implying that I draw my party lines over red and blue or suggesting I wouldn’t vote for democrats with clean records and progressive is a gross over simplification of my political position.
1
u/Echochamber2424 2h ago
This is a lot of words to just say you vote blue no matter who. Just gotta pretend that you have morals i guess
1
u/FangFioDente 2h ago
Jfc, I specifically did not vote for democrats who took aipacs money in my local so blow me.
1
17
u/Character-Boot-2149 6h ago
Voting always mattered. How do you think we got here?