When Lobbying was Illegal • Hacker News Board

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#61

Post by wildmusings » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:14 AM UTC

Alphasite_ wrote: post #57

entee wrote: post #15

Perhaps the least understood view of lobbying that really informs how perverse the system has become is that as a general rule people believe the lobbyists are calling the congresspeople to offer them money. In reality, it's the congresspeople, desperate for campaign cash, that are calling the lobbyists for money. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/27/145923803/the-f... The cost of congressional elections has…

Why not do what is done in the UK and put spending limits in place?

Because ultimately a spending limit boils down to "you're not allowed to air this film" because you already spent too much. In fact, that's exactly what the Citizens United case was. We have a Bill of Rights which guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#62

Post by wildmusings » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:16 AM UTC

tomp wrote: post #38

BurningFrog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious solution to this is to make it easier for politicians to raise money. Instead everyone is demanding to make it harder. The lack of Economics instinct is costly for our society.

Advertising, in any market, is a race to the bottom (to the top, really, in terms of cost). If everyone spends 100% on advertising, only the advertising platforms benefit, not the advertisers themselves. It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them.

>It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them.

I can make up my own mind for who to vote for. I don't need or want anyone to protect me from persuasion. I can't think of an idea more insidious to a free society, that the government needs to control the expression of ideas to protect people from "manipulation".

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#63

Post by bostik » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:17 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #43

aaron-lebo wrote: post #5

This is very selective reading of history. Politics were probably more corrupt and lobbying was even more dominant (just in different forms) in the 1800s. Obviously, the train has gone off the rails at this point, but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896, when many of the same issues were at play.

> but we aren't at a fundamentally different place politically than we were in, say 1896 I really don't think you should say that like it's a good thing. It's like saying "American is less corrupt than North Korea!" . That's not saying much.

I've been saying something similar for years.

Background: I am Finnish. The country routinely tops the world corruption perception index as the least corrupted country in the World. (Not every year, but you get the point.)

In my mind, that tells diddly squat about how well things are in Finland. It only highlights how wretched the situation is even in the runner-up country.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#64

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:22 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #55

newjersey wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller congressional districts could also help decrease the effect of gerrymandering. This is interesting. On the other hand, will we make ourselves even more vulnerable to "grassroots campaigns" like the tea party and lobbies like Alec? I'm not an expert but there are mathematically and sociologically sound alternatives that are better than what you and I can prescribe. I'd prefer one of those.

There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would b…

I still find the nonmonotonicity of instant runoffs problematic. Something seems wrong about a system where you can lose by gaining votes. I'd expect instability to be higher than a similar system that is monotonic.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#65

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:26 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #62

tomp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising, in any market, is a race to the bottom (to the top, really, in terms of cost). If everyone spends 100% on advertising, only the advertising platforms benefit, not the advertisers themselves. It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them.

> It would be much better to ban all lobbying, so each candidate would only have a very small amount o fmoney to spend on elections, and people would be less manipulated into voting them. I can make up my own mind for who to vote for. I don't need or want anyone to protect me from persuasion. I can't think of an idea more insidious to a free society, that the government needs to control the expression of ideas to pro…

I find the idea that a few powerful people have such enormous influence that nobody else's ideas matter to be more insidious than the idea of a government that tries to level the playing field.

Edit: I wanted to add that I feel like money being treated as speech is the same as running an organization that goes with whatever the loudest man in the room has to say, rather than the best ideas. Have you ever been in a meeting where someone with a big voice and a small brain steals all the airtime by never stopping talking?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#66

Post by throweway » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:31 AM UTC

entee wrote: post #59

danieltillett wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is to actually increase the number of politicians so that each district is small enough that you don't need money to get elected (you need districts of about 25,000 voters). The crazy thing is it doesn't even cost anymore money because as you increase the politicians you take away their staff. If you want to know more about this idea see [1]. 1. http://www.thirty-thousand.org

I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters turn out for primaries. Even if you reduce gerrymandering, it's hard to eliminate entirely. On the other hand, in smaller districts the electorate will be more likely to share opinions and interests so maybe that counteracts the problem?

How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#67

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:33 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #64

danieltillett wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would b…

I still find the nonmonotonicity of instant runoffs problematic. Something seems wrong about a system where you can lose by gaining votes. I'd expect instability to be higher than a similar system that is monotonic.

You never lose by getting more votes - the nice thing about instant run offs is it simple (just rank) and it is close to the ideal outcome. It is not perfect, but it is not too bad.

In regards stability it is better than proportional voting which tends to splinter the electorate. With instant run offs the candidate that is close to the consensus tends to win.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#68

Post by DanBC » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:37 AM UTC

throweway wrote: post #66

entee wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea. One thing though, this won't work unless people vote. A major reason the system doesn't work well today is because only the most extreme voters turn out for primaries. Even if you reduce gerrymandering, it's hard to eliminate entirely. On the other hand, in smaller districts the electorate will be more likely to share opinions and interests so maybe that counteracts the problem?

How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia

In England the defaced ballots would win many seats. That would embarass politicians.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#69

Post by johnchristopher » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

entee wrote: post #15

Perhaps the least understood view of lobbying that really informs how perverse the system has become is that as a general rule people believe the lobbyists are calling the congresspeople to offer them money. In reality, it's the congresspeople, desperate for campaign cash, that are calling the lobbyists for money. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/27/145923803/the-f... The cost of congressional elections has…

In France and Belgium the total amount of money you can spend on your campaign is regulated and financed by the state. Which of course leads to another kind of problems.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#70

Post by danieltillett » Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 9:39 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #56

danieltillett wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are defiantly better voting systems than first past the post (I have a soft spot for instant run offs), but having smaller congressional districts should make the system more resistant to lobby groups. The campaign process would move to a more personal reputation based system where the representatives know most of the voters in their district. You might get extreme candidates in some districts, but they would b…

I like the idea. My fear is that a lot of the legislation may not directly affect people in my district but I'm supposed to vote on them as well. Also I'm not very familiar with the work of committees. Would they grow larger? Would they become even more powerful and stay the same size?

If you were the representative of a small district you would face exactly the same problem as with big districts. You would still face the interest trading that all politicians face.

I would imagine that committees would get bigger. Hopefully with more politicians you would get more people who actually knew about the area that they were on a committee for. The main thing is once you got rid of the need for money the desire to be on a powerful committee would decrease.