So it seems like the solution would be to have a democracy with hard term limits for each position'. Then throw in a bidding and contract system that doesn't allow for graft and then kill the lobbyists. Then you have to back this up with strict laws on campaign finance. Hell you could even put caps on funds available to politicians.

I can't really disagree with that, but it has to be said that the issues that are not brought up are distinctly non-partisan--that is, the issues that are not brought up are the ones that are disadvantageous to both parties.

For instance, no one talks about gerrymandering anymore. It clearly benefits both parties, but it is destroying our political system by creating disincentives to working across the aisle with the other party.

In my view, there are three major structural reforms in the US government that need to be addressed: 1) Gerrymandering 2) Campaign finance and 3) regulatory capture. Of these three, only the second one is addressed by either candidate, but not in a satisfying way.

We need major reforms in healthcare and economic wealth distribution, and we need to prepare ourselves for certain worldwide economic changes due to technological innovation and globalization, but until we deal with those three major issues, we won't be able to make any headway.

That was a nice discussion about buying the election. I think that possibly the worst fact in the world is that marketing works. On everybody. If you spend enough money, you will influence more than enough people to do pretty much anything. The only defence - and what stops this from literally being 'buying an election' - is the other side spending money on marketing too.

In my opinion, two things need to change. 1) campaign financing, and 2) replace First Past The Post.

Having said that, I'm in Ireland, and we do have a good voting system, and reasonable (if not great) campaign financing laws, but it's still messed up. I've voted in every election I could, but have only ever voted against candidates, never for (i.e. I order my vote from least bad to worst). I've only seen one candidate I'd vote for, but he wasn't in my constituency.

The difference is, at least if/when a good candidate or new party comes along, we can vote for them without losing our voice.

This American election cycle has been the best ad for these facts that I've ever seen.

I doubt he'll be remembered as anything other than a massive disappointment

Edit: Re-reading that, it came across harsher than I had intended. I think Obama was a good guy with mostly good intentions (still not keen on his policy of murdering brown people in other countries without due process).

But his healthcare was half-assed, he did nothing about gun control, and he STILL hasn't closed Guantanamo. Meanwhile, privacy rights have further eroded under his watch, and whatever legislation he apparently put in place around Wall Street is clearly not working. I'm not sure he's even looked at campaign finance reform.

Granted, a lot of that is down to an increasingly intractable (read: borderline retarded) republican congress, but the fact remains, he didn't achieve nearly as much as was hoped for.

Your video, Bernie Sanders On Campaign Finance Reform, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Campaign finance reform IS a major political issue of the day, not a personal attack.
Hillary can't defend her actions on this issue, so she's attempting to deflect the focus back at Bernie for simply bringing up her public record/actions as related to this serious political issue.
That Hillary wants to characterize it as a personal attack shows clearly which side of the issue she's on and how deeply she's invested in that side, and it's the wrong side. There's absolutely no way to think she'll do anything meaningful about campaign finance reform when she benefits so much from the status quo.
If addressing this issue, one that dramatically effects ALL other issues and candidates, is meaningful to you, there's only one candidate for you, and it's certainly not Hillary or any Republican.

In Canada, this is considered an unusually long election campaign. The governing Conservatives have timed the campaign this way deliberately. They used their majority to change the rules and eliminate public campaign funding. This helps them as the right-wing business party that attracts the most donations. With a bigger war chest to spend than anyone else, they plan to exhaust the other parties' treasuries while they still have lots left to spend on a big ad blitz close to election day.

They are taking lessons from the way things are done in the U.S., which is not a good thing for Canada. Campaign finance in the U.S. is just unreal. It costs US$2 billion and climbing to elect a president, to say nothing of all the other races. It is literally the case that members of Congress spend half their time on the phone raising money rather than serving their constituents. I hope the American people wise up and do what it takes to reclaim their government from the political class. It will make things better for my country as well.

Other than campaign finance reform this guy is a nut job.

@dannym3141

Broadly speaking, I tend to subscribe to the view that capitalism is the worst economic system anyone ever invented, except for all the others. There are plenty of problems with it but also practical solutions that could be implemented. Pining for a better system is great, but this quasi-vague revolution that Brand is espousing is as almost guaranteed to be as direction-less and short lived as the Occupy movement.

Take campaign finance reform, of what I'm familiar the Mayday PAC in the US is proposing a voucher system where either (1) each voter is given and limited to a set amount tax refund they can spend on campaign contributions or alternatively (2) there is public finance for something like a 10 to 1 matching system for smaller donations. That seems like a good solution to the problem. It's not perfect though, as speech via the media (TV, internet) would still be wielded disproportionately by those with power. But it's a start. More transparency on where donations are coming from would also help.

I'm no fan of inequality either, but it's a far more difficult issue to grapple with. If you approach it with taxes, the problem is you need global coordination. A single country raising taxes will just see incomes shift elsewhere particular the highest percent who are the most mobile. There needs to be some kind of standard on taxation globally as to whether it is incurred where it is earned or where the company is registered, otherwise you have companies like Apple paying next to nothing because they avoid it in both countries (known as the double Irish, although this has now been eliminated it's a good example).

Should investment income be taxed higher? Probably, I'm not too well informed on this subject but it certainly entrenches established wealth. Should there be an estate-like tax of sorts that limits wealth passed on through generations? Perhaps, but it seems like a band-aid of sorts and a double dipping on what should really be collected through income tax in the first place.

I'm all for public services where it makes sense to provide them publicly. I don't like political cronyism either. But solutions need to be practical. Eliminating tax avoidance by multinationals is good policy because otherwise these companies paying virtually no tax intrinsically sets up barriers to entry to smaller competitors which is terrible economically and leads to monopolistic behaviour and higher prices. Targeting finance with a specific tax probably isn't. Business will just shift globally and countries like the UK will lose out more than they gain.

I suppose they will never upload the campaign finance video......sigh...that would be a choice sift.

@newtboy

> "You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right."

Yes we disagree. But I do not owe my right to disagree to anyone, thoughtful or otherwise. That is my natural right. Some may want to violate that right, but that's a different issue. No one can take away my right to disagree or force me to agree/disagree.

> "It worked for them, it can work again."

Who are you talking about? The slave owning "founders"? Politics often (though not always) works for the elites, sure. But again, I wish you good luck with that -- and in making it work for you.

> "Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results."

I know. You have hope/faith that the process can and may at some point give you the results you like. I say, good luck. It may or may not happen, depending on what will satisfy you or not.

> "The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done."

I think it's virtually impossible. If you prove otherwise, I may be the first to congratulate you (if you let me know about it).

> "I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you"

I'm not sure what you mean by "not dismissive". You are telling me what you believe, I understand that. I'm still responding.

> "and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me."

Good, I guess.

> "I am argumentative."

I can tell.

> "I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again."

Crippling? Wait, I'm not about to get into a therapy session here...

> "You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it."

Go ahead. Do it. Put the people in that are going to fix it. I know you don't want to dismantle it. That's my preference, not yours. I get that.

>"I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push."

We each have preferences and opinions. Go ahead and do it. I have little interest in that so I'll leave it up to you. We can't all be focused on the same things. And you should probably be happy that I have no interest in politics since I would work to dismantle the system. Not what you want. So my not being involved, not even voting, works to your benefit (in this sense).

> "True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)"

Like you said, and I agreed, you can dream. Nothing wrong with that. Carry on. Good luck.

Where do you live?

It may not work as well as one would like, but compared to the alternative, no input in the process, it's pretty good! You are welcome to disagree, thanks to thoughtful men voting to guarantee you that right. It worked for them, it can work again.
Being satisfied that the process can give good results is not the same as satisfaction with the current results.
The convincing I suggest is convincing those that already think like 'you' to vote the same (and put up reps to vote for that truly think the same). Easier said than done.
I'm not dismissive, I'm still discussing it with you, and never said you're not worth the discussion or 'it's time to ignore you', that was you to me. I am argumentative. I have admitted crippling personality flaws in the past, and will again. That's one. I try to do it respectfully (until intentionally insulted, then it can be ON!).
You misunderstood, my idea is to put people in that are going to fix the system, not dismantle it, and not just feed it.
It will never be perfect (there is no perfect), it can always be better, unless it's no longer existing. That's when there's no hope of improvement.
I wouldn't want clones of me in office, nor would I (they) want to be there. I would like people that want to fix the campaign finance system and get out, that's one main tap root of the problem in my eyes, one that's easy to fix with enough push. True enough, I'm not finding those people to vote for, usually. I can clamor for them though, maybe they'll turn up. (as I said before, my candidate rarely wins, I'm poor at finding the like minded.)
"My delusion", and who's dismissive?

part 2 (campaign finance):
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Extra-Credits-Incentive-Systems-and-Politics-Part-2

part 3 (gerrymandering and filibustering):
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Extra-Credits-Incentive-Systems-and-Politics-Part-3

In the end it all comes down to campaign finance reform. We need to remove legalized bribery from this equation. Overturn "citizens united". Nothing will ever change if your middle income voice is an unheard whisper amidst the deafening deluge of money flowing from major banks and multinational corporations (a.k.a "people").

Plenty of corporations make political contributions to either party, and if you work for those corporations, you're indirectly supporting those political contributions whether you like it or not. It's the same thing with unions.

For unrelated reasons, I favor campaign finance reform such that only real homo sapiens persons (not corporate or union entities) are allowed to make political donations, up to a maximum of $200 per person.