[jimmywanger]

> Every country that has a functioning democracy that money is not speech.

You missed a verb. And in case you missed it, every democracy has elections, and in that case, money is equivalent to speech. Good luck in getting airtime/a platform without paying money.

> Have more money than someone else? Well, tough shit, your vote shouldn't be worth more.

In a company, that's absolutely not the case. Taken to the logical extreme, should I have the same say in the operations of Exxon, even though I have no financial interest in them, rather than a shareholder with 3% of the stock?

[pikzen]

>You missed a verb.

As if I such a thing. Thanks.

>Good luck in getting airtime/a platform without paying money.

Funnily enough, I was talking about that in a previous HN thread. You'll have to explain to me how my country (France) functions then, giving equal air time to candidates, no matter their size, or funds. We even have communists! The state pays part of the campaign, and to give you an idea, the 2012 campaign cost a grand total of 227 million euros (or 400, depending on what you count in). That was with fifteen-ish candidates, let's say five major ones and 10 smaller.

For an entire month before the election, each candidate has equal air time. No matter their budget. No matter their size.

>In a company, that's absolutely not the case. Taken to the logical extreme, should I have the same say in the operations of Exxon, even though I have no financial interest in them, rather than a shareholder with 3% of the stock?

If I have one share and you have ten, you have (or can be assumed to have) more money than me, and your vote is worth more. Exxon is an easy example because their actions have a very visible impact on society through, let's say, global warming to only give one example. In that case, you bet I should have the same say. Let's take a normal company. Let's also take a more reasonable amount of shares for a major shareholder, such as 40%. (See how Facebook distributes its shares, for example, and the end result is not far from it).

* If that shareholder decides that he wants to submit to a vote taking all that you're earning through your share and redistribute it to him, should you not have the same say as a shareholder? If no, why? Because he invested more money? And that allows him to get even more money?

* If that shareholder decides to dump their waste in the local river, should you not have the same say as a resident of the town this river goes through? No? You didn't invest enough, so society gets to suffer this person's actions?

[jimmywanger]

> You'll have to explain to me how my country (France) functions then, giving equal air time to candidates, no matter their size, or funds

Is this article true? https://www.thelocal.fr/20170309/rules-of-the-game-what-rule...

In that case, you'll have to get 500 signatures of elected officials. That seems even more chilling, because then you're on record for having supported a candidate, and if you're backing the wrong horse, there should be repercussions.

Also, it seems that now your airtime is proportional based on your performance in the last polls and election.

> Let's also take a more reasonable amount of shares for a major shareholder, such as 40%.

That is not more reasonable. Major shareholders for most large public company (pension funds etc) have percentages of the company in the low single digits.. Here's GM for example. http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-majo...

Most tech companies are relative newcomers and outliers. And they also seem to be outperforming older companies in the market. Perhaps centralization of control based on money and equity has its upsides?

> If that shareholder decides that he wants to submit to a vote taking all that you're earning through your share and redistribute it to him, should you not have the same say as a shareholder? If no, why? Because he invested more money? And that allows him to get even more money?

That's a good point, and it's addressed in "world on fire" where strict property rights and strict democracy always clash. Like it or not, most societies have a pyramidal society when it comes to power/wealth distribution. They're almost fungible - in communist societies, the powerful become wealthy and in capitalist societies, the wealthy become powerful.

The example you bring up (vote taking all that you're earning and redistribution); how is that any different from voted taxation? The vote of the masses is voting to take away the wealth of a small percentage of very wealthy people to "redistribute" the income.

[pikzen]

>Is this article true? https://www.thelocal.fr/20170309/rules-of-the-game-what-rule....

>In that case, you'll have to get 500 signatures of elected officials. That seems even more chilling, because then you're on record for having supported a candidate, and if you're backing the wrong horse, there should be repercussions.

Yes and no. It's missing a few details.

First off, elected officials that can give their support can include our 36000ish mayors, and around 10000 other servants. The repercussions come from your own electors, yes. But don't be too afraid, unless you're cosigning on the FN's project (in which case you will most likely be a FN mayor yourself), repercussions are limited. You have to face your electors with the fact that you signed on for a particular candidate, but this is almost universally seen as part of the regular flow of our elections, and very little as partisanship.

>Also, it seems that now your airtime is proportional based on your performance in the last polls and election.

This is an absolutely terrible decision that we're fighting the best way we know (which, you guessed it, is protesting), but bear in mind that it only applies to legislative elections, for the national assembly. And since it is based on previous year's results, Macron's party gets something like 5% of airtime, compared to the PS which gets 30ish percent. It seems to be pissing off enough people that things will probably change.

However, I do agree with you, this particular law is utter crap, and should be removed.

>how is that any different from voted taxation? The vote of the masses is voting to take away the wealth of a small percentage of very wealthy people to "redistribute" the income.

The key difference is the mass. Yes, that's tyranny of the majority. But I prefer that to a single person having the voting power of many.

[jimmywanger]

> You have to face your electors with the fact that you signed on for a particular candidate, but this is almost universally seen as part of the regular flow of our elections, and very little as partisanship

To the electors perhaps, but aren't there unspoken repercussions from party leadership on not toeing the line? Also, if a particular party/ideology controls the media, it's very easy to enforce conformity with the party line.

> But I prefer that to a single person having the voting power of many.

You're fundamentally going to have that anyways. No matter what, if you have power/money, you're able to influence great quantities of the electorate by throwing around that power.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-idUSBRE...

If the ruling party/entrenched elite is able to influence the elctorate like that, the tyranny of the majority is absolutely terrible. Sure, TVs were really cheap for a few days, but now no TVs are ever imported again.