Every demographic trend is the United States is in the Democrats favor immigrations, birthrates, and demographic shifts are increasing the demographic groups that vote overwhelmingly Democratic and shrinking the percentage of votes who would even consider voting Republicans. . There will come a time in the near future that more than 50% of the voters will automatically vote for Democrats. When that happens, the Democratic party will be the dominate party.

> If the Democrats will wait a few years, they will
> be winning the vast majority of elections without
> taxpayer fiancing.

Why do you say this? Is it because of elderly
Baby Boomers and the Democratic Godzilla of
the federal government, Social Security and
Medicare (associated with the Democratic Party)
and increasing reliance on these in old age,
the extension of Medicare to everyone within the
next few years (again, associated with the Dems),
the continued dumbing down of education and
rising ignorance among younger people, or the
increase in the fraction of new citizens who will
not have skills that pay and will lose more than
ever relative to those who have them? (All are
credible explanations. So is extending the
franchise openly to all immigrants, but that is
not necessarily likely any more than annexing
Canada, which would give the Dems a huge
advantage that would probably be permanent.)

Increasing reliance on entitlements, is that it?

Not really. They do expose (again — *sigh*) an
all-too-familiar pattern. The legislation should fail.

If someone could explain having one functional politicalparty and having elections decided in what is generally close primaries, then maybe they could explain how taxpayer financing of election would fix anything.

Taxpayer financing is designed to give NGO such as PIRG and tremendous increase in power. How does that “fix” anything.
If the Democrats will wait a few years, they will be winning the vast majority of elections without taxpayer fiancing. I guess that the politically powerful NGO do not want to share with the middle class.

They are focused on party power, instead of the legitimacy of our system of government.

Do we have to bet on which party will attact the most from special interest groups? I hope we can rise above that kind of narrow focus to address what’s best for the country as a whole.

> Considering who is pushing for “public financing� it is obvious that the Democrats
> believe that they will benefit from it.

1. More government replacement of what should be from the true public (private individuals and organizations) is a step backward, not forward.

2. If lately the true public (private individuals and organizations) are not attracted to, or even repelled by, the Dems and what they desire, then substitutes must be made.

3. It’s a potential conflict of interest even more disturbing than bribery-style private campaign contributions, in addition to the parasitic nature of it.

Feingold’s attempts to violate the First Amendment are additionally offensive.

Considering all of the other advantages that the Democrats have, why do not push for this one.

Publish financing of election will quickly mean that the Democratic Primaries will be the only meaningful election in the U.S. just like the state and local elections are in places like Mass, DC, etc.