Discussion: The Electoral Process of a United States President

[iNow]

Why does money determine who becomes president of the United States instead of ability, vision, and leadership?

 

If you disagree with my opening premise, that’s fine, but I am opening this thread with that as a maxim, so please do treat it as a given.

 

Money, or more accurately, the ability to raise lots of it, determines the final list of 2 or 3 from which the citizenry can choose when entering the ballot box.

 

On several occasions and for too many years, when I have arrived at the local high school or community college to place my vote, I have felt disheartened knowing that I was not choosing the best person for the job, but I was instead choosing from the lesser of two evils which had been presented me.

 

There will never be a perfect candidate, I concede that. There are too many individual differences across the US populace for one human being to satisfy the desires of all with a voting card. We all have different backgrounds, different hopes, different desires… to which no one human can completely cater. However, I know we can, and must, do better.

 

There are a lot of points above about which we could haggle and polarize, but really what I’m most curious about as I post this is… Why does money determine who becomes president of the United States instead of ability, vision, and leadership? Then, as a follow-up… why do we let it?

[bascule]

Why does money determine who becomes president of the United States instead of ability, vision, and leadership?

 

Because money is the simplest and most straightforward way to garner mindshare

[Sisyphus]

I guess you have to ask why those particular candidates are the ones people give money to. Often it's those who will benefit a particular private interest, but those kinds of donations are usually spread around to anyone who will accept them, which is generally everyone. There are differences between the parties, yes, but between, say, one Democratic candidate and another, what makes the difference is who the donors think have "ability, vision, and leadership." No, it's not particularly democratic (obviously those who can afford to give more have a bigger say), but it's also not unrelated to real merit.

[Pangloss]

Why does money determine who becomes president of the United States instead of ability, vision, and leadership? Then, as a follow-up… why do we let it?

 

Money doesn't determine who gets to win office in the US, any more than Hollywood, the "elite media", "conservative talk radio", Jon Stewart, Christian Conservatives, or special interest groups do. If any of these things were the single ultimate factor, quite a few recent elections would have gone a different direction. It's still up to the people, and the people are still capable of surprising analysts. That's why they still hold 'em.

 

This also touches on a personal pet peeve of mine, though I readily admit it wasn't stated in the OP so I don't mean to suggest a hidden agenda there -- this is just something related that often comes up when that statement is made. Saying that money shouldn't be a factor is often another way of saying that people need to be told how to vote by a different group of people -- a group which feels it doesn't have as much money (another perception that doesn't always match reality -- just ask Geoge Soros).

 

But I do agree with the OP that it's reasonable to wonder about the influence of money on politics -- I don't have any problem with the question. Drawing that conclusion, though -- I stop short of that.

[iNow]

If any of these things were the single ultimate factor, quite a few recent elections would have gone a different direction.

Can you give us a "for instance?"

 

Saying that money shouldn't be a factor is often another way of saying that people need to be told how to vote by a different group of people -- a group which feels it doesn't have as much money (another perception that doesn't always match reality -- just ask Geoge Soros).

Hmmm... I'm not sure I follow. I didn't say that money shouldn't be a factor. Regardless, you raised a seperate point so I will ask, what else dictates the final list of 2 or 3 candidates from whom we can choose?

[john5746]

Money, or more accurately, the ability to raise lots of it, determines the final list of 2 or 3 from which the citizenry can choose when entering the ballot box.

 

I agree with Sisyphus, that the act of raising the money does speak somewhat to the validity of the candidate. The amounts are staggering though. I would like to see where their money goes. It is interesting the people who run primarily on their own money seem to build a national momentum, but lose in the primaries. Probably because they didn't have to "earn" the money from the voters.

 

I know these people are all wealthy, but it would trouble me more if every President was just another billionaire that bought the office. On occasion, even that wouldn't be bad IMO, just not all the time. Do I want a middle class person in office? If they are able to raise the money needed, maybe there is something good about them.

[geoguy]

I agree with Sisyphus, that the act of raising the money does speak somewhat to the validity of the candidate. The amounts are staggering though. I would like to see where their money goes. It is interesting the people who run primarily on their own money seem to build a national momentum, but lose in the primaries. Probably because they didn't have to "earn" the money from the voters.

 

I know these people are all wealthy, but it would trouble me more if every President was just another billionaire that bought the office. On occasion, even that wouldn't be bad IMO, just not all the time. Do I want a middle class person in office? If they are able to raise the money needed, maybe there is something good about them.

 

I agree with much that has been stated.

 

The exception is that the amount of money involved is large. It's actually peanuts in relation to how much a people value their democracy. 2 bucks every couple years per voting citizen? The USA spends more than that a week trying to establish democracy in Iraq. What's staggering is the amount of 'time and energy' that elected officials and other candidates need to spend in raising money to have sufficient funds to compete. Credible third party candidates are viable because they are billionaires and can fund their own campaigns....Perot, Bloomberg. true, however, if it was just money then a billionaire would be president. Money is a factor but not 'the' factor.

 

Another phenomenon is the 24/7 news network. Filler is need for all that air space. This is shaping politics more and more. Non stories become stories AND take on new importance. The funds raised by candidates becomes a story in itself...tracked as much as polls. Candidates gain or lose credibility by how much they have raised so they have to go out and raise even more just to maintain credibility. They can't step out and take another approach because the dollars at the end of the month are indicators of momentum...winning or losing....gaining or fading. I'm not a fan of John McCain but he got a bit of a bum rap and his campaign went down the toilet not so much when his support from Republicans dropped as much as when his fund raising numbers were anemic. If he had spent twice as much energy raising money in the previous month and less time in the in the Senate doing his job then he might still be viable.

[Pangloss]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I follow. I didn't say that money shouldn't be a factor. Regardless, you raised a seperate point so I will ask, what else dictates the final list of 2 or 3 candidates from whom we can choose?

 

You made two seemingly contradictory statements, and I chose to answer the latter. The above was one of them, and the other one was the one I quoted in my post. But if you've clarified your position to be the former, I have no problem with that. Consider my response more of an hypothetical, if you prefer.

 

To answer your confusion, the money issue is frequently used by the left as an excuse for their own bad behavior, which they feel is necessary under the old logical fallacy that two wrongs must make a right. Conservatives put too much money into politics? Guess we need to make Hollywood more vocal. This sort of thing happens all the time in politics. Conservative talk radio producing the response of Air America, for example.

 

The money issue is also sometimes used as a crutch by intellectuals for dismissing the behavior of people they don't agree with. The idea being that if somebody doesn't agree with you, they must not be as smart as you. Therefore they have to be told how to vote properly (i.e. my way). That takes money.

 

Let me know if you're still confused about any of this. I'll produce an infomercial for you. Just kidding, of course.

 

And like I said, there's nothing wrong with the question (or your opinion on it). I just think these points are a relevent aspect of the problem.

[iNow]

I wasn't actually confused, I was just clarifying that I hadn't said what you implied.

 

Also, to be clear, I appreciate your discussing other points. That's a big part of the reason I chose to open the thread... to open my own mind and achieve a broader awareness of the issue.

 

 

The idea being that if somebody doesn't agree with you, they must not be as smart as you.

So, you mean that this isn't the case? I've always considered this a perfectly valid approach to the universe.

 

 

[Pangloss]

LOL! Well I readily admit it's certainly *my* immediate, gut reaction when people don't agree with me. I usually assume they have been influenced by some crazy left-wing or right-wing host. After all, they don't call it "Listen Radio"! (grin) But then I usually calm down and remind myself that that's just the elitist snob in me clammoring for attention.

 

But getting back to the subject, I agree with part of what you're saying and I think the overall question about money influence is perfectly valid.

 

Are you familiar with this web site? I've used it in arguments here and elsewhere before, and you might find it helpful in analyzing the situation.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/

 

It's kinda the premiere money-tracking political site. There are all sorts of wonderful surprises in there from time to time, though it certainly supports your premise far more often than not.

 

You know what might form a better discussion point on this? Focusing more on the subject of money influence on less-well-known election races. I assume you've voted before judging from your posts, so I'm sure you're familiar with the... well, "familiarity issue". You go to the poll knowing full well whom you're going to vote for in the major elections, but what about the lesser ones? Judges, county and state officials, state legislature, sometimes even congress -- nobody knows who these people are or Fact One about their backgrounds! ALL you have going into the booth is the name on the ballot! How can anyone possibly make an informed decision? And yet these decisions are incredibly important! Arguably far more so than the presidential race!

 

So these races really are determined by money, and it happens so often that it's almost not even a debatable statistic. The winner is the man or woman whose name most sticks in the voters head at the voting booth. It's almost like a true/false test -- do you recognize this name? How 'bout this one? No? Well try this one. Good, well done voter! Have a lollipop and an "I Was a Sucker Today, Were You?" sticker!

 

Oh well. Enough cynicism for one day.

 

BTW, if you go through that site, one thing to look at might be the number of Republicans who lost in the 2006 mid-term election, in spite of much higher expenditures in many cases (e.g. E. Clay Shaw of Florida). That's the sort of thing I was referring to earlier; I know that's not a presidential race, though.

 

But even if you just look at presidential data, the money doesn't always seem to be completely indicative of the way the country will go. The left is so fond of telling us that Al Gore won the 2000 election, and yet Bush outspent him by something like 30%. Shouldn't he have gotten 30% more votes? But it doesn't seem to really work out that way.

 

Still, the predominence of the data does support the contention that most elections go to the candidate who spends the most money, yes.

[iNow]

I assume you've voted before judging from your posts, so I'm sure you're familiar with the... well, "familiarity issue". You go to the poll knowing full well whom you're going to vote for in the major elections, but what about the lesser ones? Judges, county and state officials, state legislature, sometimes even congress -- nobody knows who these people are or Fact One about their backgrounds! ALL you have going into the booth is the name on the ballot! How can anyone possibly make an informed decision? And yet these decisions are incredibly important! Arguably far more so than the presidential race!

 

So these races really are determined by money, and it happens so often that it's almost not even a debatable statistic. The winner is the man or woman whose name most sticks in the voters head at the voting booth. It's almost like a true/false test -- do you recognize this name? How 'bout this one? No? Well try this one. Good, well done voter! Have a lollipop and an "I Was a Sucker Today, Were You?" sticker!

You're hitting nails on heads with the above. Absolutely a major chunk of the issue. I will also explore the site you linked. It really does trickle down into the non-Presidential elections, and I suppose what frustrates me most is knowing that there are better people for the job out there (and even some who are actually willing to do it!), but if they haven't raised enough money then they don't even make it on to the ballot from which we all choose the ultimate winner.

 

 

You're a vegetarian? Well, you can choose from hamburger or chicken.

[iNow]

Perhaps I can go about this another way. What BESIDES money causes a candidate for the president of the United States to make it through the rigors of the election process?

[iNow]

Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?

 

 

 

If you say Ferris Bueller, you lose a testicle.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think we need to get rid of the "first past the post" system of voting before we can solve most of our election problems.

[ParanoiA]

I think we need to get rid of the "first past the post" system of voting before we can solve most of our election problems.

 

I completely agree. But with the two party system already in power, I don't know how we could make it happen. Interesting link, I hadn't read that before, but it makes total sense.

[Mr Skeptic]

I completely agree. But with the two party system already in power, I don't know how we could make it happen. Interesting link, I hadn't read that before, but it makes total sense.

 

Education. Lots and lots of education. If enough people demand it, it can happen.