For the past few years, we've been seeing youtubers using their platform to give a voice to 3rd parties, flyover country, cultural differences, etc. People like Dave Rubin even have had political players such as Gary Johnson, Roseanne Barr and even recently John Kasich. Ben Shapiro gets requests to run for an office all the time. And just now, I saw Styxhexenhammer666 is going to be a write-in candidate for governor of Vermont:

While he certainly doesn't look like he just stepped off of Wall Street, he's got some pretty good ideas. I don't believe that he actually thinks he has a shot at it, but maybe his ideas will reverberate enough in his state to initiate some productive change. He certainly has enough of a following to make some noise in his state at almost a 1/4 million followers. 

So, are we seeing a rise of a new system that people can gain access to public attention and therefore votes? Do you think other youtubers will follow suit at some point? Would you be willing to vote for somebody from that "sphere"?

While I can't state too much familiarity with this guy (and probably will never take the time to watch a 16:36 video of a guy running for office in a state I have no connection to), I do think the concept of people using media such as YouTube to connect with potential voters is an intriguing idea. Politics is basically nothing more than a money game, where how much you can spend on advertising and campaigning is such a huge part of getting elected, so being able to reach people via popular sites like this is a way for people who aren't necessarily wealthy to get and keep their name in the mix.

And, let's be real -- for any actual, legit "swamp draining" to happen, people like that need to find a way to have more of a voice in the system than they do now. Whether it be crooked career politicians or crooked businessmen, they all come with their built-in swamp designed to reward their cronies. Anything that changes that is at least worth looking into.

posted by Heretic

While I can't state too much familiarity with this guy (and probably will never take the time to watch a 16:36 video of a guy running for office in a state I have no connection to), I do think the concept of people using media such as YouTube to connect with potential voters is an intriguing idea. Politics is basically nothing more than a money game, where how much you can spend on advertising and campaigning is such a huge part of getting elected, so being able to reach people via popular sites like this is a way for people who aren't necessarily wealthy to get and keep their name in the mix.

And, let's be real -- for any actual, legit "swamp draining" to happen, people like that need to find a way to have more of a voice in the system than they do now. Whether it be crooked career politicians or crooked businessmen, they all come with their built-in swamp designed to reward their cronies. Anything that changes that is at least worth looking into.

I agree with your whole post, but most particularly what I've bolded. I see nothing necessarily wrong with YT campaigning. And they can livestream, taking questions directly from people without having them screened and not have any of the costs of security and the like. They will still have to make public appearances, but YT will do fine for the spaces inbetween.

Problem is, it requires effort and time to watch a Youtube video (assuming Youtube continues to allow these people the platform).  Long before youtube, these people have had websites outlining their ideas and agenda.  The average voter is just too lazy to bother.

Now, more people DO watch the debates, but on the national level the FEC sets the rules that makes it very difficult for a third party to get on the stage.

The good news:  You get to see and hear viewpoints that you were never going to hear

The bad news:  You get to see and hear viewpoints that you were never going to hear