Independent far right candidate?

[Gustaf]

Well, that's the point, you buy an election by taking up all ad-space, hammering through your message to an extent that your opponent can't. This means that the voters are less informed than they should be when they vote, they know more about one candidate than the other. Also, someone with money can hire campaign workers, and don't have to rely on people actually supporting him. Sometimes the side with the money lose anyway, though, it happened in Sweden recently, when one of the most expensive campaigns in human history got beaten resoundingly. It's about using the money smartly, not just have it.  

Yeah how do you have any election outside of the very local level without money?  It takes money to get your message out.  

Sadly how much it really takes though.

Using money to win elections
[don't respond. I know that it's very common in the US etc]

Well, it would be dumb to use money to LOSE elections.

As long as votes aren't bought, I don't see anything immoral about.  It takes money to do everything.

[Gustaf]

Well, that's the point, you buy an election by taking up all ad-space, hammering through your message to an extent that your opponent can't. This means that the voters are less informed than they should be when they vote, they know more about one candidate than the other.

The same (empty) argument could be made for any advertiser of any product or idea.  Advertising (speaking to an audience) is not buying people.  Advertising (speaking to an audience) is not immoral.

Now, if you want to talk about a candidate pandering against his core beliefs, then I would agree that is immoral.

I don't think voting is th same thing as buying a schampoo. Of course advertising is not immoral, I don't think I called it that. But you don't dispute the fact that the voter's choice is less informed if one side has all the money. I agree that someone who buys a particular kind of chocolate might be vadly informed too, but it matters less.

[Gustaf]

I don't think voting is th same thing as buying a schampoo. Of course advertising is not immoral, I don't think I called it that. But you don't dispute the fact that the voter's choice is less informed if one side has all the money. I agree that someone who buys a particular kind of chocolate might be vadly informed too, but it matters less.

It is NOT the candidate’s job to inform the public of both sides of an argument.   A candidate advertises to get his viewpoint across, not the viewpoint of the opposing candidate.

Educating the citizen to both sides of the argument is the responsibility of the CITIZEN, not the candidate.

I didn't say that a candidate should advertise for his oponent. That would be ridiculous, and I find it strange that you would think, or pretend, that I advocated that. That still does not change the fundamental issue; it is a problem if only one side can get their message out, and that will give that side more voters.

[Gustaf]

I didn't say that either.  I was saying that we want the democrats to get out their message!

Was joking when I said the GOP should just run ads for the Dems.  but partly true

I know, I wasn't quoting you, and thus not responding to you! I just let your joke pass without comment...