Spalpeen

This is one of the primary reasons that I believe representative-based politics isn’t the right system to run Governments by. Why should $500 million need to be spent to find the next president, why should any money be spent finding a leader? That money could and should be used on actually improving the lives of people in America. OK, so some will argue that the money will improve America by supporting a worthy candidate, although I’d be willing to argue that the majority of that money is about garnering influence over the representative. Each presidential candidate will be hosting events where you’re expected to pay money to attend, and the pay off is an audience with the candidate, and therefore the potential to influence policy.

It’s the same situation with lobby groups. The same group of rich people have an unfair influence over the process of running a Government. Why should money be the yardstick by which a country’s agenda (via powerful and well funded lobby groups) is set, and the barrier to entry to a politician hearing what you need to say (via rich donors)? The answer is that it shouldn’t.

Strict deliberative democracy doesn’t have representatives. Even a mild form of deliberative democracy that exists within a representative liberal democracy could have the effect of reducing the influence of money over the process of Government.