Quote:
Originally Posted by llama64
I'm not being clear.
I'm not talking about the actual people holding the office. It's obvious that elites are going to hold the highest offices. After-all, we do want our supposed "best" to be in those lofty positions.
What I'm saying is that this move only solidifies their control, while degrading the control of everyone else. And this shift is anti-democratic.
People are making a jump in logic to equate fundraiser power with a governing mandate and support for the people. I'm arguing that the two don't correlate. In a system that equates the two (as the Conservatives are attempting to implement), the rich and powerful will gain a greater share of governing. I see this as a bad thing.
|
More money does not equal a good campaign. Even if your own personal worst fears come true and this legislation passes, the liberal base does not bother to donate to support their cause and the conservatives receive twice the amount of money as the liberals... so what? Does this mean that the conservatives will run an inherently better campaign? There would be no better advertisement for your party than to say you managed to run an equal, if not better, campaign on 1/2 the budget of your opposition.
If the liberals (or any party for that matter) managed to do something like that - it proves they can work effectively under a tight budget and they'd probably get my vote as long as they weren't completely out to lunch on social policy.