election funding

[vidcc]

Your country will be having elections in the not too distant future. If (insert a country not noted as friendly to your country) started funding one particular party not in power to hopefully beat the incumbent which is not popular in the outside country of your choice, would that make you less likely to vote for that party to give the "finger" to the interfering country ? Assuming you are not a devout follower of that party and would never ever ever vote for the opposition of course.

Example:

If North Korea funded one or the other US parties

[JPaul]

Why would North Korea wish to fund one of the parties in a UK general election. Or indeed in a US election as you suggested.

Even if they did, why would they support the Conservatives in the UK and the Democrats in the US.

What sort of Machiavelian plot did you have in mind.

[Barbarossa]

Has this ever happened? :unsure:

[vidcc]

Why would North Korea wish to fund one of the parties in a UK general election. Or indeed in a US election as you suggested.

Even if they did, why would they support the Conservatives in the UK and the Democrats in the US.

What sort of Machiavelian plot did you have in mind.


Exactly, maybe you should try thinking about stuff.

Give it a try, you might like it.

Perhaps the interfering county feels the foriegn policy of the incumbent of your country isn't in their best interests

[manker]

Perhaps the interfering county feels the foriegn policy of the incumbent of your country isn't in their best interestsI think everyone got that, vid.

The problem with this scenario (I'm presuming it's hyperthetical) is that the opposition party would realise that any election funding received from the hostile country would lose them votes - especially a country like N. Korea donating to the Democrats in the US. National pride would ensure that.

So they wouldn't accept the donation.


It seems clear to me, but having said that - I'm wondering what the point of this thread is. Has a precedent already been set?

[vidcc]

The problem with this scenario (I'm presuming it's hyperthetical) is that the opposition party would realise that any election funding received from the hostile country would lose them votes - especially a country like N. Korea donating to the Democrats in the US. National pride would ensure that.

So they wouldn't accept the donation.


It seems clear to me, but having said that - I'm wondering what the point of this thread is. Has a precedent already been set?
It doesn't have to be NK it could be France
I put it as a hyperthetical to see how we would react if another country tried this with us (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18174419%255E2703,00.html) And if it would backfire with us, why would we think it would work if we tried it with them?
The reason for holding back on the story is because I wanted to see if it made a difference in opinion if it is happening to us.
After Bush was re-elected even those that didn't vote for him took offence (to some degree) about the opinion of the rest of the world. During the campaign a big thing was made about "we don't want other countries telling us how to run our affairs"

So in the hyperthetical I am trying to get an idea of how such a policy may play out. Would it work or backfire ? You appear to think as I do that it would help the incumbent.
Patriotism can be a funny thing.

[Cheese]

So it would probably be better for the North Koreans to attempt to donate to the party they did not want to win. :dabs:

[JPaul]

So it would probably be better for the North Koreans to attempt to donate to the party they did not want to win. :dabs:
Ah, now I get it, it's a thread about reverse psychology, that makes sense.

I agree with vid.

[vidcc]

Timing is a funny thing as well. I just read this story


Bush Says Bin Laden Tape Aided Re-Election
Newspaper Reports on Excerpts From Upcoming Book
Reuters
President Bush says there were "enormous amounts of discussion" within his campaign about the Oct. 29, 2004 tape.

WASHINGTON (Feb. 28) - President Bush said his 2004 re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry was inadvertently aided by Osama bin Laden, who issued a taped diatribe against him the Friday before Americans went to the polls, The Examiner newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Bush said there were ''enormous amounts of discussion'' inside his campaign about the 15-minute tape, which he called ''an interesting entry by our enemy'' into the presidential race.

Bush's comments in the Washington newspaper were excerpts from the new book ''Strategery'' by Bill Sammon, a long-time White House correspondent.

''What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?'' Bush told Sammon of the bin Laden tapes. ''Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect.

''I thought it was going to help,'' Bush said. ''I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush.'' Reut09:46 02-28-06source (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060228130209990002&cid=2194)

So if the administration can see this, how does it play with their plan in Iran.

[Rat Faced]

Its because they cant get it through their thick skulls that there is a culture difference?

People have to want democracy for it to work for them.

In Iran especially, looking at the history vis a vis the Shah and earlier... the Religious Extremism they have now is the 1st type of Government that they actually chose for themselves... the Dictators beforehand were put in place by and large by the US.

They arent going to forget that in a hurry.

Propaganda here should be aimed at the young (those that didnt live through these eras) and be suptle... but thats something that the "Now" people of politics wont do.

[j2k4]

So it would probably be better for the North Koreans to attempt to donate to the party they did not want to win. :dabs:
Ah, now I get it, it's a thread about reverse psychology, that makes sense.


I wonder if, by donating heavily to the Democratic party, the Chinese were secretly hoping the Republicans would win in 2000?

Makes sense, doesn't it? :D