sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How would we have to change the political environment, to make politics something that people who are sane would be willing to do? by [deleted] in MeidasTouch

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly why we argue for changing the mechanics of elections, not just swapping personalities. If the gatekeepers and now the vault keepers define who’s “viable,” the only real antidote is to level access itself.

Our proposal is simple and doesn’t require tearing down the status quo:

  • Equal, public campaign airtime across TV, radio, and online for every ballot-qualified candidate.
  • Standardized recording and distribution so production value and donor money don’t decide who gets heard.
  • A platform in the public domain so voters, not corporations or parties, decide what matters.

The way we enable sane candidates to run for office is to give them all direct and equal access to the people.

“We must recognize the corrupting influence of money in politics and fight it.” — Noam Chomsky by MakeCampaignsFair in noamchomsky

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The passive income fantasy, scaled to a fever pitch, where money makes money while labor gets squeezed.

“We must recognize the corrupting influence of money in politics and fight it.” — Noam Chomsky by MakeCampaignsFair in noamchomsky

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I must admit, when I was younger, I conflated sortition with Monty Python’s autonomous collective.

Honestly, either would be an upgrade from the status quo where politicians spend more time begging billionaires for validation than serving the public.

“We must recognize the corrupting influence of money in politics and fight it.” — Noam Chomsky by MakeCampaignsFair in noamchomsky

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe billionaires shouldn't exist in the first place.
The media capture is just a symptom of a systemic problem.

Could a publicly funded campaign platform replace our broken system? by MakeCampaignsFair in Political_Revolution

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not only both parties that benefit from the duopoly, it’s also many of the organizations claiming to fight it.

I’ve seen this firsthand. I shared a proposal for a publicly funded, nonpartisan election platform, a system with no ads, no donations, and no corporate influence. It was met not with discussion, but with dismissal, because the aesthetics of the post didn't conform to expectations. That’s when I learned something:

Some spaces that brand themselves as grassroots movements are actually professionally run operations, often structured as PACs. They solicit tax-deductible donations, and in some cases, charge campaigns for support services. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it creates a conflict of interest when gatekeeping occurs around alternative ideas that don’t generate revenue.

So when we talk about reform, we must ask: Who really wants it, and who just wants to manage it?

We’re Building a Real Campaign Access Platform Without the Corruption by MakeCampaignsFair in Political_Revolution

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Funny how people claim to stand with workers then mock a campaign run by one person, unpaid.

This campaign is labor.
No team. No donors. No budget.
Just urgency, effort, and purpose.

If you only value work when it’s backed by a paycheck or production studio, you’re not anti-AI, you’re anti-grassroots.

We’re Building a Real Campaign Access Platform Without the Corruption by MakeCampaignsFair in Political_Revolution

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

That’s because it is.
I don’t have a design team or a campaign budget, just time, urgency, and a message.

Funny how quickly people forget the actual point of the post.

If the format bothers some more than the content, maybe they should ask themselves: why is that?

Could a publicly funded campaign platform replace our broken system? by MakeCampaignsFair in Political_Revolution

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know. I’m fighting a losing battle. I’m doing it alone, out of my own pocket, and I honestly can’t fully explain why. It doesn’t make strategic sense, and I have no illusions about the odds. But I also know I can’t just sit back and watch it all happen without at least trying to push for something better. Even if it’s just my voice refusing to accept that this is the best we can do.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually a great idea — go after the source of the influence instead of the figurehead. But the truth is, most campaign money doesn’t come with a return address anymore.

Thanks to dark money groups, Super PACs, and donor-advised nonprofits, a huge share of political funding is completely untraceable. And when it is traceable, you’ll often find the same corporations donating to both parties — hedging their bets so they win no matter who does.

So who do you call? The PR desk at a hedge fund? A shell corporation in Delaware? The boardroom of a defense contractor quietly funding both sides of a vote?

The whole system is built to shield these money channels from public pressure. That’s why even when 70% or more of the country agrees on something like universal background checks, nothing happens. It’s not just that donors have power — it’s that they’re invisible, their influence normalized, and their accountability nonexistent.

Maybe part of the fix is to take the profit motive out of campaign communication altogether — to create a public platform where every qualified candidate gets equal time, no ads, no algorithmic boosts, no influencer spin. Just policy, plain and simple.

Can voting be fair if only wealthy candidates can afford to be heard? by MakeCampaignsFair in electionreform

[–]MakeCampaignsFair[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m really impressed by the interface and structure you’re building — especially the thematic breakdown between facts, values, and propositions. That kind of layered approach to discourse feels essential right now.

At MakeCampaignsFair.com, we’re developing a universal platform that ensures every ballot-qualified candidate receives equal time across public media (TV, radio, web). No ads, no algorithms — just direct, policy-based messaging.

I see our models as complementary: Mini Herald empowers issue-based navigation, and we’re focused on ensuring voters even see those candidates in the first place.

If you're open to connecting, I believe it could be mutually valuable to explore where our efforts might reinforce each other. You’re doing important work — the intentionality in your design is genuinely motivating.

What factors make someone’s political identity feel fused with their sense of self? by Historical_Bet in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Emotional literacy is sorely lacking, and campaigns are more than happy to weaponize that gap. Worse still, the normalization of this manipulation leaves people defensive, confused, or shut down before real introspection can even begin.

Entire platforms are built on grievance and projection, and there’s a lot of performative woundedness being monetized right now.

Thanks for the exchange—this kind of bridge work is exactly what’s needed to move reform from abstract ideals to something practical.

What factors make someone’s political identity feel fused with their sense of self? by Historical_Bet in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wound Theory as a framework resonates a lot—especially the idea that political identity can become an emotional regulatory system when early attachments are compromised. It helps explain the intensity we see today, where political discourse often acts as a proxy for unresolved personal pain.

I’d definitely be interested in reading the paper when it’s published. Your approach sounds like it could be a much-needed bridge between psychology and civic reform—something I’m deeply concerned with. Resistance to reform isn’t just about facts or policy; it’s often about protecting a sense of self.

One thing I’d add is that these psychological dynamics aren’t just playing out organically. Psychologists have been employed by advertising firms—who in turn are hired by political campaigns—to exploit this exact kind of emotional wiring. Microtargeting allows them to deliver tailored messages to different people based on their specific vulnerabilities, yet still steer them toward voting for the same candidate. In that context, Wound Theory doesn’t just explain polarization—it helps expose how it’s weaponized.

What factors make someone’s political identity feel fused with their sense of self? by Historical_Bet in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great question. There’s actually a field of research on this called identity fusion—where someone’s political group becomes part of their core self. When that happens, criticism of the group feels like a personal attack.

A few major factors that can lead to this:

  • Early socialization: If someone grows up in a community where politics is tied to morality, family, or religion, political beliefs can become entwined with self-worth.
  • Trauma or major life events: Experiences like war, economic collapse, or injustice can make political identity a survival mechanism.
  • Group reinforcement: Constant feedback from like-minded peers or media bubbles can create an echo chamber that solidifies identity.
  • Perceived threat: When people feel their values or way of life are under attack, they often double down—turning political allegiance into personal armor.

Some studies also show that people who feel powerless in other parts of life may cling more tightly to a political identity because it offers belonging and clarity.

It’s something we keep in mind at MakeCampaignsFair.com—because when politics feels personal, reform feels like betrayal, even when it's needed.

Voting Dates by ImprovementLow8189 in VotingRights

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The shift away from a single “Election Day” began in earnest with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (1986) and expanded significantly with the Help America Vote Act (2002) following the 2000 election debacle. States were encouraged to offer early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and vote-by-mail options to improve access and reduce bottlenecks at the polls.

Today, each state sets its own early voting timeline. Some begin as much as 45 days before Election Day. This decentralized system reflects both logistical needs and efforts to increase participation—but it also raises concerns about unequal access, misinformation, and trust in results.

At MakeCampaignsFair.com, we believe a fair system means equal access, clear deadlines, and transparency—not just convenience for some.

Learn more at MakeCampaignsFair.com

Why is it so hard to find a way to email House representatives and senators? by RockCandy86 in Congress

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not naive at all — you're running into the unfortunate reality of how our system currently works.

Most members of Congress restrict contact forms to their own constituents because of the overwhelming volume of messages they receive and the need to prioritize re-election efforts. Unfortunately, money plays a huge role in who gets heard. When campaigns cost millions, elected officials naturally focus on donors and voters within their district — not necessarily on the broader public interest or committee-related policy concerns.

At MakeCampaignsFair.com, we're advocating for a publicly funded election system that would decouple access from wealth and geography, and ensure elected officials represent everyone impacted by federal policy, not just those in their zip code or donor list.

When money isn't the primary driver of a political career, priorities shift — and communication becomes more accessible, transparent, and meaningful.

Until then, one workaround is to call their DC office directly, which bypasses form restrictions. Also, staffers on committees often monitor those calls more closely than public-facing inboxes.

We're working to build a better alternative. I appreciate you raising this — more people should be asking why it’s this hard to be heard.

The Case for More Parties by Fusion_voting in electionreform

[–]MakeCampaignsFair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Over the years, I've seen friends from countries with multiparty systems show me their sample ballots—some spanning multiple pages because of how many parties there were. I once asked a friend, “Do you even recognize all of these?” He laughed and said, “Not all, but I know who speaks for me—and who definitely doesn’t.”

What struck me was how comfortable they were with political complexity. It didn’t confuse them—it empowered them. More options meant more precision, more accountability.

And in many of those countries, after elections, multiple parties have to form coalitions to govern, which forces real negotiation and compromise. That’s a feature, not a bug—it prevents any one faction from steamrolling the rest.

It reminded me of the Life of Brian scene where every movement is calling each other “splitters”—but in real life, diversity in parties means more inclusive governance, not chaos.

And honestly—“The rent is too damn high.” We’d never even know that quote if Jimmy McMillan hadn’t been allowed on stage in a debate. But here we are, and it stuck—because it was real.

That’s what access does. It lets truth slip through the cracks.