Andrew Brown
@polibrown.bsky.social
Political Scientist || Data Scientist || Buffalo Sports || Cat and Dog Enthusiast || Lift Heavy Things and Inhale Computer Duster
Education
46%
Political science
28%
“Ur my kinda dude”
Awww they’re gonna kiss
Awww they’re gonna kiss
not replacing the idiots who cave is how you get Trump, actually. Ironically, your strategy is getting us more Trump!
In Congress, they're formally negotiating. That does not fit the definition of bribery. A campaign is not meant to negotiate with the other, unless it's post-election (coalition building) or pre-election (swapping endorsements).
Every single Democracy with a Constitution has had a Constitutional violation of some sort. The number and severity of these violations decide whether the Democracy essentially fails.
In the U.S., our party system is uniquely unrepresentative.
In the U.S., our party system is uniquely unrepresentative.
Again, Democracy isn't binary, it's an index.
Yes, every single democratic country has this occurrence. Democracies can contain anti-democratic practices (all of them do).
I'm saying the way U.S. campaign finances work, this is more egregious here than in other democracies.
Yes, every single democratic country has this occurrence. Democracies can contain anti-democratic practices (all of them do).
I'm saying the way U.S. campaign finances work, this is more egregious here than in other democracies.
No, I'm not conflating the two. I am using a colloquial definition, though it is not in the pedantic context you provided, but moreso, "this SHOULD fit the legal definition of a bribe, it's just not." There are plenty of things that are technically legal but still bribery, see Clarence Thomas.
"I think it's quite illuminating, actually - he mentions all these things about how the elections are unfair, but polling shows that surname recognition, party connections, etc don't really get you very far on their own"
So we have:
A) big money interests influencing elections is totally democratic
B) political parties making consistent legal changes to prevent competition and splice electorates in their favor is totally democratic
C) it's not bribery to offer benefits in exchange for suspending campaigns
Amazing
A) big money interests influencing elections is totally democratic
B) political parties making consistent legal changes to prevent competition and splice electorates in their favor is totally democratic
C) it's not bribery to offer benefits in exchange for suspending campaigns
Amazing
right? it's absolutely asinine for someone to suggest political parties don't successfully influence primaries. it must have been so illuminating for you to realize this!
lol, yes
please, look up the definition of bribery
please, look up the definition of bribery
"I think it's quite illuminating, actually - he mentions all these things about how the elections are unfair, but"
I notice elections is plural - so please tell me how you were talking about one election and not the broader subject of the comment you were responding to?
I notice elections is plural - so please tell me how you were talking about one election and not the broader subject of the comment you were responding to?
if you offer a cabinet position in exchange for someone suspending their political campaign to your advantage, they're securing a governmental position just by being personally beneficial to you.
that's a bribe.
that's a bribe.
if in exchange for the suspension of someone's political campaign you offer them advantageous resources like political and financial connections, that is a bribe
that is the definition of a bribe
that is the definition of a bribe
pssst
if you're offering someone a cabinet position in exchange for their suspension of an electoral campaign, that's bribery
if you're offering someone a cabinet position in exchange for their suspension of an electoral campaign, that's bribery
define bribery
Yes, it does. It demonstrates that parties regularly do decide candidate success.
You said, based "on polls" (which doesn't make any sense) party support doesn't have much of an impact.
This is not refutable. That is the subject of the book.
You said, based "on polls" (which doesn't make any sense) party support doesn't have much of an impact.
This is not refutable. That is the subject of the book.
By connections I mean essentially financial access to other orgs/donors, which is bribery.
This occurs regularly in our political system and the earlier books I cited show this.
This occurs regularly in our political system and the earlier books I cited show this.
Offering someone financial/career rewards in exchange for not running = bribery
Threatening someone with attacks/opposition support, using vast sums of campaign finance if they don't drop out, = coercion
you're free to look up the definitions of these words
Threatening someone with attacks/opposition support, using vast sums of campaign finance if they don't drop out, = coercion
you're free to look up the definitions of these words
coerced as in their opponents will get the political favors, and they'll get money run against them.
you're okay with political parties, fundamental institutions in the U.S., essentially using money to decide the financial viability of office-seekers? that's undemocratic.
you're okay with political parties, fundamental institutions in the U.S., essentially using money to decide the financial viability of office-seekers? that's undemocratic.
"Voters are free to respond to the efforts of political consultants"
This is a silly statement. Voters don't see the consultants. They don't see 99% of this because they cannot.
This is a silly statement. Voters don't see the consultants. They don't see 99% of this because they cannot.
she didn't lose her seat "as a result", she settled a lawsuit.
you think that, as long as you win election afterwards, bribing is okay?
you think that, as long as you win election afterwards, bribing is okay?
1. we will give you support/financial resources/assignments/jobs/connections for other races/responsibilities if you fuck off
2. we will do all of this for your opponents if you don't fuck off
that is a regular occurrence
2. we will do all of this for your opponents if you don't fuck off
that is a regular occurrence
Yeah that's called mixed membership, half of their MPs come from direct elections the other half are voting for the party. it's not a change or a deviation from how the system fundamentally works.
I didn't say "forced off the ballot" by a state election law. Again, please look up what an invisible primary is.
pal, that's my argument, if all it takes to make your claim bunk is *reading the fucking title* maybe you should get a carbon monoxide detector
I don't understand what rule you're referring to, there are deadlines in UK elections where you cannot be removed from a ballot if you're already on it.
First off, the entire precondition which makes third parties unviable is both systemic and already present, so... this is meaningless.
Regardless, I'm not EXCLUSIVELY talking about third parties. Again, party behavior INTERNALLY is often anti-democratic.
Regardless, I'm not EXCLUSIVELY talking about third parties. Again, party behavior INTERNALLY is often anti-democratic.
One of the papers is literally called "The Party's Primary," are you sniffing markers right now?
What if several other potential candidates were either functionally bribed or coerced not to run, and the media apparatuses unequally supported Eric Trump while ignoring/demonizing rival candidates, while Eric Trump acquired vast sums of political resources and consultancy?
that is correct, the question specifically asked both. 51% say they "previously supported her" but no longer do (hence the word PREVIOUSLY) and 14% say they never did.
What does it mean when you don't currently support someone?
What does it mean when you don't currently support someone?