Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Lobbying was Illegal

priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#71

Post by danieltillett »

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?

Once you make the connection between the representatives and the votes more personal you will increase the likelihood of voting. As a voter you are not voting for someone you don't know, but for "good old joe" who you speak to every couple of months.

The idea is to not solve every problem with democracy, but to remove the corrupting influence of needing to raise money from vested interests to spend on advertising so you can get elected. This is the major problem.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#72

Post by nxzero »

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…

Irony is that Congress could just pass a law providing the funds to run a campaign and ban lobbying.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#73

Post by danieltillett »

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

Technically it is not compulsory voting, just compulsory turning up at the polling station and put papers in box. If you don't want to vote you don't have to.

I do agree that it is a very good idea, but compulsory voting doesn't solve the corrupting effect of large districts.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#74

Post by sirsar »

kbaker wrote: post #34
kbaker wrote: post #33

This article kinda just glosses over any causes of lobbying, and then complains about the symptoms. There is one incredibly interesting video I have seen which lays out a major root cause of corruption in the US, and the rise of lobbying and corruption since the 1970s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY (Cardboard Box Reform) It is long, but well-reasoned and supported by a lot of evidence. Definitely worth…

TL;DW (sorry, this is still long, the video is an hour!): Something happened in the 1970s which caused a major shift in a number of indicators in the US, leading to a general decline and increase in corruption in Congress. Lots of media kinds of sees this trend happening, but none of them have found a cause. The author was in Africa, thinking about how E-voting could help to reduce the costs of voting. Which sounds g…

Sorry if this is naive, but:

Don't we want intimidation/vote buying of members of congress, in a sense? As a voter, it's important to be able to verify that the people I voted for actually represented my interests, rather than just paying lip service in the campaign. A citizen at the polls has no constituency.

Doesn't seem to me like there's an easy answer, although I'm open to the idea that closed votes are the lesser issue.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#75

Post by aninhumer »

danieltillett wrote: post #67
nitrogen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You never lose by getting more votes

Yes you can. Basically the scenario is that by gaining votes from other parties, you can change who is eliminated in the first round, which changes distribution of second round votes.

You can argue about how likely this is to happen, but on some level it doesn't matter. If people can't feel absolutely confident that voting for who they actually want won't reduce their vote's impact, many will continue to vote tactically.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#76

Post by nitrogen »

danieltillett wrote: post #67
nitrogen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm drawing my conclusions from the visualizations here: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ (search for "nonmonotonicity"). Maybe I should have said public opinion. Shifting public opinion closer to your position can make you lose in IRV; I'm not sure if there's an actual vote count increase as well.

From those visualizations and my reading elsewhere it looks like approval voting is the closest to a Voronoi-style partitioning of the opinion space without being subject to strategic voting.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#77

Post by [deleted] »

nitrogen wrote: post #65
wildmusings wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 me…

[deleted]

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#78

Post by gnopgnip »

danieltillett wrote: post #48
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…

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

What would the financial impact of having 20x as many representatives be after benefits and pensions and reducing staff?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#79

Post by shwouchk »

nxzero wrote: post #72
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…

Irony is that Congress could just pass a law providing the funds to run a campaign and ban lobbying.

Right, and who says who is eligible to run a campaign?

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#80

Post by nxzero »

shwouchk wrote: post #79
nxzero wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irony is that Congress could just pass a law providing the funds to run a campaign and ban lobbying.

Right, and who says who is eligible to run a campaign?

Are you asking how it who be decided who gets the money? I would suggest opening it up to both public debate and research; meaning we would need to learn what works best, and very possible there maybe no single right solution; for examples, cities and non-city area are different in my opinion.
Post reply on HN