What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
72 Comments
- Cutkomp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+79They need a lot of money because they have become little more than special interest shills. It costs money to slang more mud and buy more votes than the next douchebag.
- inactive, on 11/10/2007, -8/+29I agree. If no special-interest money was given, and if the popular vote (as opposed to the electoral college vote) elected the president, then people would vote in good, honest men and women who are true public servants. Our current system is a farce and an insult to individual liberty and freedom.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Don't lie to yourself. Nobody cares that you don't vote.
- kbillar, on 11/10/2007, -17/+34You're so right, because the average citizen is so well informed! Mob Rule, the only way to govern!
- mattxb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13They need so much money because the news media doesn't do its job well. Major news channels are to intelligent politics what MTV is to good music, its all hype and garbage.
- Vicissidude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9They need this money so they can spam cable and the airwaves with their political commercials.
- danconia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You gotta admit that the founding fathers may not have known exactly how difficult it would be to create and maintain a fair democratic system. As per usual our government is full of corruption and there appears to be no way to fix it. We just need to get over the bi-partisan system.
Or just vote Ron Paul... - fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Even worse, has anyone else noticed that we have entered "all election all the time"? No sooner was the last election over than the campaign for the next began.
- Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"Mob Rule, the only way to govern!"
Even when you put it like that, it sounds a hell of a lot better than the current setup, where you have the tiny percentage of America that makes up the greed-driven corporate elite exploiting the rest of the population. - InFlamez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14them prostitoots aint cheap ya know
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16The popular vote isn't "mob rule". The government should is suppose to be by the people, for the people. Shouldn't each persons vote count? It doesn't with our current electoral system.
- InstantRamen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why do presidential candidates lie so much. and never answer questions head on.
- LarianLeQuella, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4They need all that money, so they can rub it in our faces that we don't have it, and can feel perfectly justified in being totally disconnected from us little poeple.
Those other reasons are good too. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7You know, I always thought America had more people than that...
- rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In presidential elections where candidates don't really have the constitution in mind, and protecting the laws of the nation, you need tons of money to "sway" the people to your side. Just like the article mentioned they will be chartering planes to all parts of the nation with large staff, hotel bills, food bills, and huge ad campaigns.
On the other hand if you have a candidate, lets say, Ron Paul, who has been protecting this country, and always has the best interests of the nation in mind, all he has to do is get his word out. The problem is that he is getting drowned out by these fake useless candidates who simply buy the people with whatever tricks they are doing. If you tell the people what they want to hear, then of course people will start raising money for you.
When you want to buy an election, you need large campaign funds. When you want to run the country the way the constitution suggests, you simply need the will of the people. Money will happen automatically, and you don't need very much of it. - LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agree on the special interest , no way on the popular vote. Country would be run by politicians elected by the more populace states .
founding fathers knew what they were doing. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How exactly would the popular vote not mean every citizen is represented equally in the election then?
I find it pretty funny that someone would decry the idea of people counting actual votes as "mob rule" and be dugg up for it. - richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Heres a crazy idea how about they aren't allowed to have million dollar campaigns but rather hold more then a couple of worthless debates as they do now. Republican or Democrat, Left wing or right, there isn't any great politicians, some decent ones but there all the same wind bags full of empty promises and false change.
There needs to be a serious change in the current running process, theres too much corruption with the politicians from all the funding they receive from various lobbyists and corporate backing. - swanny89, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually the electoral college was intended to ensure that the decision would eventually go to the House, with each state getting a single vote. Since the electoral system requires a majority, having more than 2 parties means that it would be very difficult to win the election electorally. After the election the two candidates with the most electoral votes would go before the House a have a run-off. Because we now have a two-party system, we now use the electoral college as it was never intended.
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm generally for publicly funded elections to address this, but does anyone else think that there is something to the argument that money in a market tracks speech? If I support a candidate, and I give them money, isn't that a tangible form of free speech?
- felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You americans are weird. Please explain to me:
Each state has votes for the electoral college that are proportional to the state's population. So, I guess more people, more votes, correct? So, how come does the electoral college protect you from "the country being run by someone elected by the most populous states" ? Why the level of indirection?
What it actually looks like, from someone looking from outside is that the people in power are a) scared to give more direct power to the people or b) afraid that removing the electoral college the difference between each state gradually vanishes, no longer the state per se mattering but the country as a whole instead.
Regarding b) I think that many americans, despite being proudly from the US of A, wish their state to be independent and think of it as such. Therefore the danger (?) stated by someone of civil war. But are the USA still in the same place, as a country, as before? Aren't you more, let's say, united? - Ogopogo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I won't vote for anyone that spends $40M to get a job that only pays $400K per year. Someone's getting ripped off...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There is a damn good reason for the electorial college: a reason that adds to our stability as a country.
The electorial college prevents the big population states from running over all of the average population states in the presidential races.
The electorial college and the way that the house and senate are designed [House = states voice is porportionate to the population, Senate each state gets two] are essential checks and balances that keep regional and sectional interests in balance.
The last time this balance was disrupted, the result was the Civil War so it is probably not a good idea to f**k with it.. - nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ TenebrousX
it's actually more like the reason each state has 2 senators, no matter the size, but also a number of representatives based on its size at the same time. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Make sure to get your disinfectant guys, we're going to have ourselves a dirty election year on your hands.
- JustinCase18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The electoral college prevents politicians from ignoring large areas of people for quick easy votes. When our country was founded a candidate could campaign in Boston and Philadelphia and win without bothering to listen to the rest of the country. Now, it's almost the same if you look at LA, Chicago, New York, etc. Some candidates joke about the "Flyover" states. If a natural disaster hits California or Florida, you see all sorts of tax dollars to the rescue, but states like Oklahoma and better look to their neighboring states for help.
Each region of the country has issues that may only affect them. If you base your elections solely on a popular vote, many of these issues are ignored. For other countries that are smaller than our states consider this; would you allow a popular vote in the United Nations to control your future? Where people from China, Russia or the United States could dictate directly (not through financial persuasions, etc.) how you live? - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
- Oracle95, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Advertising costs money. Unfortunately the main stream media has stopped just reporting the news and insists on manipulating it. Anyone who isn't one of the "chosen few" has to create a campaign to battle not only their opponent but the media itself. Once upon a time that was one of the reasons why it was so difficult to unseat an incumbent, they had the benefit of being in the news every day. But now when so many newscasters don't know the difference between the "News" section and the "Editorial" section, the problem is only compounded.
Besides how else are the news giants like Gannett supposed to return their 25 - 30% profit margins without gauging for advertising? - Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why the large $$$ amounts? MEDIA MEDIA MEDIA MEDIA!!! Online, radio, TV and everything in between all costs money.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Using the electoral college to protect "state's rights" and to prevent a "state" from being "disenfranchised" is a red herring. States are just lines on a map -- an abstraction, if you will, for the sake of convenience. States don't hold opinions, nor do they have a subjective sense of enfranchisement. Only people do.
So let's make it simpler, and say there are five states. One is big, and has 500,000 people and 5 electoral votes. The other four states (we'll call them "Two," "Three," "Four," and "Five," respectively) are small and have 100,000 people and 1 electoral vote each. State One has 300,000 people who vote Republican, and 200,000 who vote Democrat. Two through Five all vote unanimously Democrat. So, 300,000 people voted Republican and 600,000 voted Democrat, a ratio of 2:1. The Republican wins with 5 electoral votes to the Democrat's 4.
Who was just protected from what?
So the next time you trump the electoral college for protecting state's rights, just remember: you're protecting state's rights from people's rights. Not too smart, eh? - Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most elections are bought and paid for by corporations.
The wealthy corporations give money to ALL candidates who have any chance of winning, on both sides.
The winner is indebted to the corporations, or they get no more money and a few years later they are gone.
The corporations (lobbyists, etc.) pull the winners strings and get what hey want, i.e. more government money,
laws that allow them to do what they want and protection from government regulations.
George W. Bush is owned by large corporations - mostly his Dad's friends. He's clearly not smart enough to do the things he does on his own. He is controlled.
Always follow the money trail and you will find the answers. - unsolicited, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because it costs money to convince people to vote for them.
- jeanette3654, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They need ***** loads of money to make it easier from them to go down. Because almost all of them are scumsucking whores!
EXCEPT FOR RON PAUL. VOTE RON PAUL IN '08 - Numarx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They need to adjust it so corporate media doesn't control the amount of time a candidate can receive on TV. That bottleneck of control is causing the most issues right now. As other problems show themselves we could easily adjust rules again to make it a more even playing field.
I don't think we'll ever get that though. Once in control it'll take a revolution or something to get it back. I cannot think how a small minority of people that know this are going to make a difference. This is the biggest way they control the government is by promoting people who they are okay with. You feel like you have a choice, but you don't because the people who truly support your issues never get on TV. The ones on TV says so much and do so little when they get into office. Things sound great but, after they pass them into law it gets hijacked by corporate companies abusing it. If someone who really does care about American issues gets on TV, they are considered an alternative and even the news leads in saying that on their 30 second spotlight. - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People vote for whoever has the most ads.
Its not like people necessarily believe the ads.
It's just that people recognize the name and vote based on
who's name they recognize more. - trer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so they can more efficiently and effectively break campaign promises.
- flymulla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nancy Pelocy wears green dress when she is Syria and Bush does not sigh the Kyoto Protocol . The lawyers nee to cool them both.
- emjaymj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's an awful idea SnakeO
I think what would be best is a publicly financed system. Yeah, taxpayers will grumble but I feel its really important for the future of the country. With the current system, Cletus might save a buck, but does he really?
It is impossible to win an election in America without the backing of a significant chunk of corporate interests. There's no getting around that, and in this way there is not much difference between a republican and a democrat - they both owe more to corporate America than John Q. Public. With a publicly funded system, elections would no longer be about money but about ideas, unhindered by the special interests of a small portion of the population, and that's what the country really needs. - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That only explains where the money comes from, not why they need it.
The reason they need it is the same reason you need marketing and advertising dollars to get anything to the top - people cant vote for candidates they cant see. - flymulla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pope sees 'nothing positive' in Iraq
Death penalty, war protested at Easter Mass
I agree there is nothing to see these days in the Movies just the Zombies and the Tom and Jerry and the lousy news of deaths daily. And sad no one wants to stop this.
What is more they come as BREAKING NEWS BREAKING what records of deaths? - hallnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd like to see an independent candidate make it using the net. If s/he is any good, word will get around quickly and without all the corporate domination.
- hogfoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yes they have exceeded past fund raising...but in the scheme of 'marketing' a major brand even 25 or 30 million isn't that much. things have changed...tv commercials are expensive.
- SnakeO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just an idea: http://www.indieed.com/temp/index2.html
- watoowatooir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Vote! Ron Paul
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so how many millions of these dollars are going to fill their bank accounts.
- hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2SnakeO, while I respect the fact you are trying to propose an alternative to the status quo, I don't agree with the proposal.
First off, the peoples' money is already the money that fills the war chests of the various campaigns. It may filter in through national committees and corporations, but it is our money.
But more important than that is the general question: how much money _should_ it take to be elected President of the United States? And in my estimate the answer to that question is vastly less than it actually does take. It is a sad state of affairs when we shell out a billion dollars to convince ourselves that someone should be our leader.
Even worse, these are the people that must propose a federal budget for our nation every year they are in office. Are we so blind to think these people will be fiscally responsible when they just spent millions upon millions of dollars to get the job? I'm not.
So my mind is made up and I'll vote for Elmer Fudd before I vote for a candidate that spends that kind of money to campaign. I don't care if the choice is between Jesus Christ and Joe McCarthy or Gandhi and Hitler. Enough is enough and no candidate, I repeat: no candidate, that spends that kind of money on their campaign is worthy to lead anyone, much less what we all want to believe is the greatest organization on the face of the earth. - youpidou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1France have presidential elections this year, and they have simply limited the campaign budget of each candidate to a maximum of 21.6 million euros. That's enough when the other candidates have the same legal limit...
- warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Especially since it has led to the US democracy really breaking down into what is much more like aristocracy, only the rich can afford to run for office so only the rich minority can be elected, and even if they aren't themselves rich they have been bankrolled by the rich few.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is