The Instigator
Vogel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LatentDebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Equal amount of money to each candidate campaigning for US government position

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 768 times Debate No: 29554
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Vogel

Pro

When running for a United States government position in Congress, The Senate, President, or Governor, a candidate should get an equal amount of money to campaign with as each other candidate running for the same position; to use as he decides it should be used.
This would keep only the rich from running for office and make it possible for more, and different, people with different ideas to run because the economic advantage that would normally be present will no longer be a factor.
LatentDebater

Con

USA is a capitalist nation and this goes against its own political ideology.
Debate Round No. 1
Vogel

Pro

Thank you, LatentDebater, for excepting my first debate!
Yes, America is capitalistic. I'm not saying that citizens would have their income distributed evenly, only the people who are in a government position. The Congressmen, Senators, President, and Governors. They are public servants after all. In the United States, the richest Congress in US history has been voted in to term recently. When someone runs for these positions, they look for donations. And where do they go to get the donations? They go to people like Donald Trump. Nothing against Mr. Trump. My point is they go to places and people who have money. They go to companies for their money donations. Now, why would a company just give hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone without any benefit to themselves? They won't. So a candidate goes to an Oil company, for example, and says "I will support drilling into US oil reserves." Well, the Oil company agrees. Now the candidate is going to have to do what he said he is going to do, or that Oil company won't donate to that candidate again. And then other companies will know whether or not this candidate will keep his promise to them. If the candidate does not do what he says he is going to do, then no company will donate to him, and he will not be able to run because no one will give him money. And in this way, companies decide the elections. They hold the money that the candidates need to campaign for office, and they only donate to the people who support their interests. Because the candidates want to be elected, they promise to do things for companies But, if you were to evenly distribute money to the candidates running for the same office, then they all have an equal amount of money for them to campaign with and companies won't influence elections anymore. Now the candidates have more freedom to do what they think is right for our country.
Top contributors are shown here along with how much they donate: http://www.opensecrets.org... If you click on a name you'll see how many more companies contribute to elections.
If you look here, you'll see the other sources of a candidates' money: http://www.opensecrets.org...
You'll see that the top Presidential candidates get more money, while the less known candidates receive much less money. This is a completely unfair and undemocratic way in which candidates get elected. It undermines our entire system! We cannot, and I stress this, allow this to happen. America is also a nation where anyone can do anything, even lead America itself. But because of the unleveled playing field on which candidates campaign, it is the richest who get elected, not the best, and that dream of being able to be anything you want to be is simply non-existent now. So now the people can not be truly represented.
In fact, this many presidents went to from Harvard: http://ezinearticles.com....
Now, that's not a bad thing. Harvard is a great place to go and a great school. We want Presidents with who are educated, but how many are able to get into Harvard? And another thing, if you look at the Presidents' number, which says if they are the 44th or 35 president, you will notice that Presidents who go to Harvard are more common. Again, this goes into the richest man gets elected, not the necessarily best. And there are many great presidents who did not go to Harvard. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. Some would say Clinton wasn't a good president, but he is one of the only Presidents to balance the budget. Prime Minister Winston Churchill went to a military school, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Not an academic institution.
And here is an interview explaining why great leaders don't need to have a lot of experience, funded and ran by the Harvard Business Review. http://hbr.org...
So why do candidates with higher levels of education get elected? Having educated officials is not a bad things on its own. But then companies like candidates who have higher education, and so people who get really high education, higher than most people can afford to get, catch the eye of companies. Remember the links to the top contributors and how the more famous politicians are the ones who have more money? Well most of that money comes from companies. It all connects. So because of this, the richer candidates get elected, not the best.

It comes down to this. Companies donate most of a candidates money, which is why I stress so heavily on them. That money is used for campaigning to be a Congressman, Senator, Governor, or President. Companies donate to candidates they like. The candidates who have the highest education, usually at a level most people in the United States can't afford to have. Because most people don't have the money, they don't have a chance to run. What we now see happening is that one class of people are being elected. The upper class. Why is this bad? The US government represents the people. So now that only one group of people are being elected, we cannot have fair representation for all. And only that group of people, the upper class, is in government. Working for their own needs, representing themselves. You have to understand, I'm not saying education is a bad thing. Its is a wonderful part of America that should always be cherished. But when it is used as a tool so only the richest get elected, then it is used badly. And I'm not saying being rich is bad, but when you use your wealth to make it so others don't have a chance, then it is used badly.
When you make it so that every candidate running to be President, or running for the same Chair in Congress or the Senate, or to be Governor of the same State gets the same amount of money to run with, then the best people to represent us and lead us, with the best ideas, and best plans, are going to be elected by the people.
LatentDebater

Con

So because large corporations fund them... It is inherently bad? No.
So because it's a system where only the spoilt kids can grow to succeed it's bad? Firstly this claim is false, Obama knew poverty worse than most and also it is because the political world has no choice but to only allow the most officially qualified and well-established of the political world to stand up for president. This is simply because allowing a poor man, who couldn't afford high level of education, to be president will probably leave them dumbfounded since they have no formal training on how to deal with the issues a president has to.

"You'll see that the top Presidential candidates get more money, while the less known candidates receive much less money. This is a completely unfair and undemocratic way in which candidates get elected. " Being president is the top job in parliament rank-wise and is EXTREMELY stressful. If you honestly think that anyone would be truly motivated to take on such a tough role if they get the same money lower down the chain you haven't fully understood why communism fails. There has to be a clear hierarchy of income in order to motivate people to work harder for promotions since if the higher ranks don't get paid more, there's no motivation to be one or if you are one to bother being an efficient one as a demotion wouldn't financially harm you at all. If anything it would be both wrong and stupid to allow equal distribution of payment.

"We want Presidents with who are educated, but how many are able to get into Harvard?" Herein lies your problem. We want the most educated and Harvard only lets the most educated into its university in the first place and then on top of that offers the highest standard of education across USA. It is simply undeniably the best option for a president to pick a Harvard candidate.

Your system of paying the same to all would require someone ABOVE THE GOVERNMENT to ensure this occurs... Unfortunately no one is above the government. Additionally, if you did create new ranks and impose party-neutral regulators of this then how can you justify to Mitt Romney that he suddenly should give up all his hard earned cash to OBama simply because Obama is more poor and hasn't manage to earn as much in his life. This undermines the very reason people bother to get rich and work their a$$ off in the first place. In that case no one in congress should bother working hard anymore, you earn the same down the chain as up it.
Debate Round No. 2
Vogel

Pro

Vogel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Vogel

Pro

Vogel forfeited this round.
LatentDebater

Con

LatentDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Vogel

Pro

Vogel forfeited this round.
LatentDebater

Con

LatentDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.