This may have already happened, it's really hard to say.
Things like Uber, AirBNB, even Google Waymo are all examples of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
Jay Foreman does another great video on the very weird situation with the House of Lords:
Edit: I did a bit of research below, and 4% definitely does not seem accurate. I have no idea where the source for that 4% was :/
That's extremely common for local elections. For all the talk of money in politics, neither party could afford to fund opponents in every district.
> With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday, the State Board of Elections shows 27,826 registered Democrats cast votes in Tuesday’s primary in New York’s 14th District. With 235,745 registered Democrats as of April, according to the BOE, this comes out to a turnout of around 11.8 percent.
NYT shows roughly 150,000 votes in the 14th precinct for the actual election: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york-house-dis...
The population of the district is around 712,000 https://ballotpedia.org/New_York%27s_14th_Congressional_Dist...
So, the actual percentage is indeed higher than 4%. Even still, it's quite low.
The number of votes cast in New York's 14th Congressional District election, 2018 was 141,122: https://ballotpedia.org/New_York%27s_14th_Congressional_Dist...
That's approximately 20% of the total population. I can find no info on what percentage of that 691,715 is eligible voters, but the 4% claim appears pretty ridiculous.
We’d get the most pro-business candidate every time. Not that any candidate has been anti/business, but can you imagine, it’d be pro-business on steroids. Schultz, One of the Waltons, corporate raiders?
I think it gets complicated but the decision had merits, I think. Obvs, the SCOTUS believes it did.
In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President.
The federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the United States Constitution.
They were prohibited from airing ads 30 days before the election. The decision in terms of effects and scope was terrible. It was a broad decision and had a very wide effect.
The repercussions may be wider than anticipated or liked, but the decision to not allow them to advertise and show it because it wasn’t by an established entity seems spurious.
>In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.
If the relentless (Media) attacks of DJT are an indication, there are few "outsiders" who are going to get involved in the future. And isn't that exactly what status quo'ers like the DNC and GOP want?
Consider the possibility that he isn't being attacked. That his actions/statements are being reported on. That what you call an attack is indicative of the nature of the man. When you cause George Will to leave the party then....
My benchmarks are these:
1) The USA went to War in Iraq over over lie. Thousands died, gazillions were spent, etc. as a result of that lie. The Media barely noticed. People who believe Trump is the worst thing ever clearly never understood who and Dick Cheney was. Trump is a pussy cat compared to Cheney.
2) Not only did BHO renew the (so called) Patriot Act but he expanded its depth & breadth. The Snowden revelation also came to light on Obama's watch. Again, the Media barely noticed. Real journalists would find both of these troubling. Instead, BHO was our first BuzzFeed POTUS.
--
I am by no mean a fan of DJT but the truth is nothing he has done to date comes close to either one of those. He's got __a lot__ of work to do to top either one of those. The Media is bending over backwards to discredit DJT because:
1) It's a favor to the DNC. It lets the DNC off the hook because ppl are too distracted to ask the DNC what should be asked. That is: "How negligent and incompetent do to have to be to lose to DJT? And what heads are going to roll for your debacle? We want names!!!"
2) The GOP doesn't like him either. He stepped in on their dance, made all their candidates look like the fools that they are, and made it to the Whitehouse. That's not how it works.
3) Neither party wants to see another outsider do what DJT did, and they will, by any means necessary, make sure it doesn't happen again any time soon.
4) Trump is good for the Media's business. They love the "outrage". They love the "controversy." As long as it draws eyes and clicks - cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-chaig - they're happy. The media finally discovered that giving Bush #2 and Obama free passes didn't help pay their bills. For the Mainstream Media DJT is like printing money.
That is the context. That's how W.DC operates.
George Will has been a solid conservative for decades and written numerous books lauded by conservatives. Consider the possibility that it was precisely his integrity that caused him to abandon the party. Perhaps it's possible that Trump represents a part of the party that a reasonable person with some sense of moral and intellectual consistency wants nothing to do with. How far right does the party have to go before you will question the state of affairs? Trump called Ted Cruz a liar. He implied Jeb Bush is a wimp. He implied that Ted Cruz's wife is ugly. He implied that Rand Paul is ugly. He said that McCain is a loser because he was a POW. He was a loser for getting captured. Trump agreed that his own daughter is a nice piece of ass. This was on the Howard Stern Show. How far does the man have to go to lose credibility in your eyes?
To be fair, was he wrong? How many career politicians do you know that aren't liars, especially Republicans?
>He implied that Ted Cruz's wife is ugly.
Again, to be fair, I just did a google search and he's not wrong, IMO. Yes, it's in poor taste to make remarks like that, but Trump is a populist, so he's basically playing the "I call it like I see it" card, which gets votes from his base.
>How far does the man have to go to lose credibility in your eyes?
The things you're complaining about are positives in the eyes of Trump voters. That seems to be the problem you're having with understanding. They don't want another regular politician; this is why populists come to power now and then. It seems to me that the biggest problem that both parties have, and is shown by your post here, is a completely inability to comprehend the appeal of someone like Trump to low-information, low-class voters.
If we had an alternative voting system (there are several good ones), people could actually vote _for_ someone rather than just _against_ someone, and there would be some criteria for voting other than who can put out the most inflammatory campaign commercials.
But again, the status quo would never go for it, and I suspect most voters wouldn't go for a system that can't be explained on a bumper sticker. I'm not trying to insult the intelligence of the average voter, just their attention spans.
Oh, I really think it could.
So basically a "house of lords" for America, but instead of bishops and lords it's tech CEOs and celebrities? :)
And lest I forget to mention the lobbying that happens everyday.