I totally agree. But also the media has the same interest in dividing the people. They get more viewers that way. But how does ending FPTP, which I assume is first past the post voting, going to solve that. I have heard some say it would help move caddies to the center some. But I am not convinced it would move them much in most states.

They will have lots of funds from all the savings on ads.
Anyway, I am starting to think random people secestered or something. Maybe it is only a couple of months at a time. They vote on some legislation, then work on new legislation for the next group to vote on.

Lol, reddit making laws. I mean at least the names of the laws would be interesting. Lawy McLawFace

I think spending on political campaigns is just one way to provide support to a politician. And I don’t think it is the strongest. A promise of a well paying job after thier term is up would sway a lot of randos. Or even cheaper, parties and “speaking” engagements that are really fancy vacations would probably do the trick even while they are in office.

I hear what you are saying, but that isn’t campaign finance reform. Redefining what is protected speech seems like a prerequisite to campaign finance reform. And that does sound like a good idea. It certainly would help. But can it be leveraged to deal with the media which makes money polarizing the issues? If you don’t fix that too I am not sure the problem will really be solved.

Not sure the US can limit private advertising unless the Supreme Court changes it’s interpretation of the 1st ammendment (free speech). I am guessing that in the UK and Australia that free speech doesn’t cover advertising. Maybe that is the lynchpin.

Well polarization can be used to measure how much the nuances affect things. Like the border bill that Biden tried to put up. The nuances were ignored in favor of what was good for the party. Bills that would be passable 20 years ago as bipartisan thanks to those nuances can’t pass now because the parties have driven more people to ignore the nuances and just vote for one party or the other no matter the platform. And thus anyone who crosses the line fears they won’t get reelected. And yes, money drives it as well. But not only directly. The media makes money portraying politicians as extremists to. So they help drive it as well. I don’t think the money can really be controlled, so I think we need a different way to pass legislation that can somehow negate it’s effect. I just don’t know what that is.

Yeah, it’s a hard nut to Crack. Maybe it is just impossible to get the money out of the process.

Can you elaborate?

Random cost less to buy than congress people.

Not much would stop special interests from influencing the random. IT would probably cost less even.

Hm, interesting take on the random group. The US has citizen initiated referendum. Just takes signatures. But the money spent on advertising for or against has a massive impact. I had to look up the uk campaign finance laws. They limit 3rd party spending, but I don’t see that as stopping someone from spinning off hundreds of organizations that each buy like one Comercial or something.

Nah, unless you suspend the 1st ammendment, you can’t really fix that enough. People will always be free to pay for an ad supporting thier opinion.

Hm, I do agree that if you have too many people, things go down hill. But what if one commune decides to use all the water heading to another… or decides their personal values are that other commutes should serve them.

IMO anything with a direct vote of the people will end up as spending wars between special interests with the funds to advertise.

Hm… I can’t see voters being able to understand metrics enough to choose what is in their best interest. Also, anything where everyone votes will be dominated by special interests that have the money to advertise.

You kinda sound like a bot. I didn’t ask any questions

It is well know that isreal supported hamas to weaken the Palestinian authority.
https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-funded-hamas-claims-eu-top-diplomat-josep-borrell/ That’s just one link. You can find many others, even ones predating the current situation. So your full stop is more like a california roll at best. The world has very few absolutes.

Did you read what I wrote? Seems like you are just looking for someone to argue with. If I attack a guy and he pulls out a gun and shoots me, he still committed murder, but I share some of the blame. It’s not just one or the other. In the middle east it is more like Isreal goaded hamas into attacking it, then pulled out a bazooka instead of a gun. Hamas gets the blame for attacking civilians, and for knowing it would cost it’s own civilian lives. Also for letting Isreal goad them into it. Isreal gets the blame for everything they are doing in response, which is of course a lot more. Anyone intentionally targeting civilians is simply not okay.

Are you replying to the right comment. No one on this comment thread has said that there wasn’t large scale destruction or that any of this was okay.