The Left Ideology and Vote Buying

[Whiteronin]

The ideology of the Left emphasizes protecting the weak. Initially this was a continuation of European humanism,  but now this has become exaggerated (a reason why the Right constantly criticizes the Left).
The Left appeals to various groups of people, whom it calls hurt by "white supremacists," and promises to force these supremacists to pay compensations to these minorities. Thus, leftist governments pay all sorts of subsidies to ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and disabled people; to some extent, the Left also includes all women among these hurt groups (feminism). The final result is that white working men are forced to pay money to all these minorities. If we think about it, this is nothing more than vote buying—the Left simply buys the votes of these minorities. And these minorities collectively become the majority.
I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

[passwordnow]

I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

Even if there's a ban on vote buying, it still happens for some reasons. People are being bought when money is already in front of them and they think it's an easy money for which they only have to vote the one who bought them. While I'm not sure if this is possible in the US, those countries that have the electoral system that involves a different type of election that includes all people and not a block voting type, they can easily feed people with this kind of strategy especially in the poor countries.

[InCap Live]

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." ~George Bernard Shaw

If your aim is truly limited Government then an even bigger challenge lies in how far left the traditional conservatives have now become. Is anyone who reads this aware of a single place on Earth with a relatively benign and almost friendly central government?

[caroasi]

This concept was first known to be an issue by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a 1700's to 1800's Scottish historian: “Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasure." That was then misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, but he never seemed to actually say in the records. This issue is considered a Molochian twisted incentive system under game theory as a negative sum game. (ref https://www.lesswrong.com/w/moloch)

True or false: Positive societal outcomes can come from an unethical foundation?

Where I disagree with Tytler is that democracy has to have any voting at all to have such a twisted incentive structure. I specifically advocate for a Cooperative Republic because there is zero ability to simply plow over minorities and ignore them with voting systems. Every emancipated person chooses anyone of their choice to represent them. So, everyone is always represented. As it stands today, most people go unrepresented entirely because if someone votes for a candidate, and their vote fails, then they contradict 100% of their wishes on all issues.

One of the biggest problems with modern society by a very wide margin is the attitude people have that the government should lie, cheat, steal, and kill, but just re-name what they are doing to other things so it sounds less bad. Lying becomes "national security. Cheating becomes "subsidies",  stealing becomes "taxes", and killing becomes "war". All of these things should all result in someone going to prison, not being celebrated as a leader or authority.

[Whiteronin]

This concept was first known to be an issue by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a 1700's to 1800's Scottish historian: “Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasure." That was then misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, but he never seemed to actually say in the records. This issue is considered a Molochian twisted incentive system under game theory as a negative sum game. (ref https://www.lesswrong.com/w/moloch)

True or false: Positive societal outcomes can come from an unethical foundation?

Where I disagree with Tytler is that democracy has to have any voting at all to have such a twisted incentive structure. I specifically advocate for a Cooperative Republic because there is zero ability to simply plow over minorities and ignore them with voting systems. Every emancipated person chooses anyone of their choice to represent them. So, everyone is always represented. As it stands today, most people go unrepresented entirely because if someone votes for a candidate, and their vote fails, then they contradict 100% of their wishes on all issues.

One of the biggest problems with modern society by a very wide margin is the attitude people have that the government should lie, cheat, steal, and kill, but just re-name what they are doing to other things so it sounds less bad. Lying becomes "national security. Cheating becomes "subsidies",  stealing becomes "taxes", and killing becomes "war". All of these things should all result in someone going to prison, not being celebrated as a leader or authority.

I have seen some sayings that the opponents of democracy in 19th century stated that democracy inevitably leads to socialism, and that this statement was supported by a wide historical data on antique and medieval times. Maybe you know other such authors besides Tytler? Maybe you want me to find and post here this information, if it seems interesting?
But anyway, I believe that the problem is not with democracy itself, but with modern so-called "representative democracy" which is in fact a kind of autocracy. Currently in the western world, the politicians say that "people are too  incompetent to vote for tax spending", but in fact this is a lie which helps the financial aristocracy to gather more and more money for themselves. I am sure that people in the western countries would never have voted for such tax distribution if they were asked at a referendum. And the receipt of making a happy society is very simple - very big amount of referendums (at least 4 referendums a year as in Switzerland).

[Mhizlove]

I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

Even if there's a ban on vote buying, it still happens for some reasons. People are being bought when money is already in front of them and they think it's an easy money for which they only have to vote the one who bought them. While I'm not sure if this is possible in the US, those countries that have the electoral system that involves a different type of election that includes all people and not a block voting type, they can easily feed people with this kind of strategy especially in the poor countries.

I addition, I will say that poverty and lack of trust in the system can make vote buying very difficult to eliminate, when some people are struggling on how to meet up with their basic needs, some of them can focus on the immediate benefit rather than the long term consequences of their vote. That's why if they want to solve vote buying is not about making laws only. It also involves voters education, improving living conditions and building confidence that elections can actually make a difference

[juttsab@]

The ideology of the Left emphasizes protecting the weak. Initially this was a continuation of European humanism,  but now this has become exaggerated (a reason why the Right constantly criticizes the Left).
The Left appeals to various groups of people, whom it calls hurt by "white supremacists," and promises to force these supremacists to pay compensations to these minorities. Thus, leftist governments pay all sorts of subsidies to ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and disabled people; to some extent, the Left also includes all women among these hurt groups (feminism). The final result is that white working men are forced to pay money to all these minorities. If we think about it, this is nothing more than vote buying—the Left simply buys the votes of these minorities. And these minorities collectively become the majority.
I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

Vote buying involve offering money or some reward to the people in favour for vote which is illegal in any country, the political parties routinely proposes different type of policies that they believe will help the particular part of the society weather that mean cutting taxes, subsidies, healthcare or support for certain businesses.

Both left wing and right wing parties are doing this to attract their voters and courts generally see them as political decisions rather than electoral bribery.  The left wing may support different healthcare or welfare programs while the right wing support businesses  policies favoured by other.

There are absolutely no chances that US  court  would ban any type of political party  just simply for supporting welfare programs or police for particular social group.

[Ucy]

Both sides are ideologies from human minds that have one part darkened hence can nolonger see the full picture unless the minds are fully lightened up, at that stage they gain the whole truth and become free from the system .

The truth is this, it's the duty of everyone to protect the weak but do not take the extremist/wrong path when doing this duty. The weak should be assisted in whatever way possible, which is part of the reason our CREATOR established tithe. In the old,  people of Nation like Israel were told to give 10% of what they have to the poor/needy (animals, strangers from any race or ethnicity included), and this includes allowing them access to their farms. It's done in such a way that when your crop grows or is harvested, you leave 10% for the needy humans and animals to feed on. For example, back then someone could easily come to your farm and take whatever he likes: corn, fruits, vegetables,etc, and he is not accused of theft as long as he doesn't come with basket or container to fill up and take home. This was how they did that kind of tithing, the modern world should do better since they believe they are more enlightened than the ancient people.



Nevertheless, the poor were required to work and were not given too much than the giver can afford. In fact, the giving was voluntary rather than imposed.
No specific group was left out as long as being weak is concerned. In other words, you are not given because you are black, white, minority, etc, you are given because you are needy/poor.

In regards to minority rights, well, they should benefit from whatever is right, as that is their right, but we can't say that about what is wrong. So, the wrong should not be included.


Vote buying is the act of giving with the intention of getting voters to vote for you. If that can cause people to vote wrongly, then giving should be done anonymously or in the name of the state. No politician should promise to give when elected. That will be like a condition to be elected, or like "if you don't elect me you get nothing" . This is why giving should be voluntary and a private matter. Promises should be focused more on things that benefit the collective and workable/sustainable solutions. Whatever they promise that they will do should be proven right and sustainable. This will kind of make easy promises and givings difficult

[uneng]

I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

What matters, after all, is the interpretation of the law made by the ones ruling the judiciary and political systems. Depending the tendency of the moment, the practices you mentioned can be understood as vote buying or not.

Maybe in some decades or in a century people will look to this age and think how absurd the practices by authorities are, just like we look to past times and think how inappropriate those people were.

[BADecker]

If you vote Democrat, you are really voting for corruption in voting and elections... not to say that Republicans are perfect.

[Sim_card]

Everyone has their price if they're corrupt. Vote buying is what kills the beauty in elections because it will make the minority be in power after buying votes from the majority. This will lead to bad leadership and poor growth in the country economy because the new leader wouldn't care about the citizens as he bought his way in.