NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider these points before answering the poll.

1. Democracy: This form of government should always guarantee that a minority will never rule against the interests of a majority.

2. Corporations: Ownership of these, through a majority of shares, is a luxury for a small minority of the population.

3. Political parties: In the last decades, corporate donations have become their main source of income.

So, if democratic governments must represent a majority, while corporations represent a small minority, doesn't political party dependency on corporate funding pose a threat to their freedom of action, thus a threat to Democracy?

In a virtual 2-party system, yes. If there is no viable alternative to a corporately funded political party, then the corporations sponsoring those parties will always dictate the terms to our politicians.

In multi-party systems, it is theoretically possible for a grass-roots party to obtain funding from non-corporate sources and win an election.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'the will of the majority' either. Canada and the US in particular are still using the 'first past the post' method of determining the winner of an election. In multi-party systems, this often results in a majority of power concentrated in the hands of a party that a minority voted for. This is even worse if the party is largely funded by corporate sponsorship as well.

In multi-party systems, it is theoretically possible for a grass-roots party to obtain funding from non-corporate sources and win an election.

in theory maybe, but in practice this rarely if ever happens because the major corporate funded parties have more money to create slick and persuasive advertising campaigns prior to elections. they saturate the advertising space so much that people forget or don't even notice that smaller parties exist until they see their ballot card. unfortunately, these days, election success are more about who has the slickest marketing rather than who has the best policies.

in theory maybe, but in practice this rarely if ever happens because the major corporate funded parties have more money to create slick and persuasive advertising campaigns prior to elections. they saturate the advertising space so much that people forget or don't even notice that smaller parties exist until they see their ballot card. unfortunately, these days, election success are more about who has the slickest marketing rather than who has the best policies.

A government could always put limits on donations. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the route Canada is currently embarking on. And it's possible for grass-roots parties to have electoral success. In Canada, both the Reform Party and Bloc Quebecois rose to power more on grass-roots then on major campaign-contributions.

Good luck with that in the US though.

A government could always put limits on donations. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the route Canada is currently embarking on. And it's possible for grass-roots parties to have electoral success. In Canada, both the Reform Party and Bloc Quebecois rose to power more on grass-roots then on major campaign-contributions.

Good luck with that in the US though.

yes, i think canada is the exception to the rule. it's a great step forward and it may happen in the uk with all the recent scandal about undeclared loans and whatnot but i too cannot see this happening in the us without a radical shake-up of government... which would likely require a smaller, left-leaning party gaining power - no hope then :headbang:

In a society where 5 percent of the population controls 95 percent of the wealth, it is obvious to me that corporate and/or public donations do not represent the majority, rather the minority; and therefore, the minority does overrule the majority in this case.

Consider these points before answering the poll.

1. Democracy: This form of government should always guarantee that a minority will never rule against the interests of a majority.

2. Corporations: Ownership of these, through a majority of shares, is a luxury for a small minority of the population.

3. Political parties: In the last decades, corporate donations have become their main source of income.

So, if democratic governments must represent a majority, while corporations represent a small minority, doesn't political party dependency on corporate funding pose a threat to their freedom of action, thus a threat to Democracy?
Yes. Abso-f*cking-lutely.

Perhaps.. But not all the time.
Some democracys are strong enough to be alright. But yea, I can see it becoming a real problem in the future.

The root of the problem is that governments, even Western so-called "limited" governments can poke their noses into anything they like. They can compel, regulate, tax, subsidise, and prohibit whatever takes their fancy.

In such an environment, what corporation wouldn't try to corrupt the process? It is almost akin to the payment of protection to organised criminals.

The solution is limited government that confines itself to protecting individual liberties.

I voted Yes, at a slap knee reaction. Glad to see I wasn't alone.

I hope your knee heals soon.

How can you make such a libelous accusation?
Shame shame shame on you!

*camera-cut*

The President of Bogmarsh then went on to WeOwnTheWorld-corporation, and received his barrel of porkmoney...

In such an environment, what corporation wouldn't try to corrupt the process? It is almost akin to the payment of protection to organised criminals.Except the government is not nearly as well organized ;)

Absolutely...

Except the government is not nearly as well organized

LOL!