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

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#121

Post by specialist »

DanBC wrote: post #68
throweway wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about compulsory voting? We do it in Australia

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

Adding "none of the above" to every race is one of my favorite fantasy ballot reforms. If no candidate wins, the contest is a do-over, with a new slate of candidates.

The second benefit, for election integrity activists, is preventing the "under vote", where down ballot races which are left blank, and potentially filled in by helpful administrators.

Note that in the US, ballots in metro areas can easily have dozens of races. Sheriff, judges, schools, water district, city, county, state, national, referendums, levies, etc.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#122

Post by yolesaber »

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…

One solution is to replace elections altogether and instead institute a lottery system pooled from the general population with term limits at various levels of government.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#123

Post by davidivadavid »

johnchristopher wrote: post #87
emn13 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as? I'd say that's the bare minimum starting point for something that deserves the name democracy. That doesn't mean it's a panacea.

On the top of my head: - Some parties/candidates spend more than they are allowed and try to hide the difference and that can only be done illegally (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1085... ). - Also there can be some voting(?) threshold you have to reach to be eligible for the reimbursement of campaign costs (5% for the french presidential I believe) so small parties are gambling a lot by…

That still leaves a little bit of an issue: taxpayers financing campaigns for parties they will never vote for.

As a French citizen, I can't figure out a good reason why I have to give a cent to some nutjobs just because they woke up one morning and decided they were fit to rule the country (Jacques Cheminade, far left/right leaders, etc.).

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#124

Post by vkou »

nhaehnle wrote: post #109
cm3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they all hate it if this video is any proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk Why do countries like Germany make do without these huge fundraising campaigns, while a having a more balanced parliament, and the US is just Rep or Dem (binary) plus a huge show on a tour bus across the country, instead of doing real politics? I mean, what's the cultural difference in the US population that facilitates the c…

I can't speak much for other countries, but for the Germany I suspect that a big part of the difference ultimately derives from a different voting and representation system that is much less focused on individual politicians, and therefore has a much lower tendency to devolve into a popularity contest. (It's still a popularity contest, but much less so.) The unit that really matters in Germany is the party, and the m…

This is very similar to the Canadian system - the main problematic outcome in it is when the Inner Party takes control of the agenda... In contrast to the interests of the rank and file.

We're seeing it happen right now in the US, with Clinton and the Democrats, and we're also seeing it happen in Canada, with the debacle that is the NDP / Mulcair.

For non-Canadians, the NDP is supposed to be Canada's socialist party - it was responsible for putting senior security, national healthcare, student issues, unions, etc on the table. Over the past ~15 years, it has shifted so much that it's almost entirely to the right of the big-business-friendly Liberal party. This has largely happened behind closed doors - with no input from their grassroots supporters. Most of my socialist friends are very close to tearing up their memberships.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#125

Post by studentrob »

In This American Life's episode on "Take the Money and Run for Office" [1], Barney Frank said,

> If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money's rear end any time. I've never met a politician-- I've been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now-- who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn't go with the district. [2]

A lobbyist is just a person seeking to influence decisions made by government. Another way to say this is a person who educates Congress. Education is just a nicer sounding word for society's desire to influence its upcoming generation.

Congress is made up of lawyers. They don't know everything about the industries they need to regulate. Drug companies are trying to get away with using unknown substances which they proclaim are safe. Some are life saving, some aren't. Banks are constantly coming up with new financial products. Some help the economy, some don't. We need people to debate these new drugs and market dealings. The people who debate them should be experts. They should publish findings which can be replicated by independent parties. These experts and independent parties often come in the form of lobbyists. One of the EFF's jobs is to lobby.

Lobbyists aren't inherently evil, and while I think we should further restrict money in politics, you're never going to completely remove it.

Fortunately, as Barney pointed out, we have the ability to fire our elected officials. The problem lately is not just with lobbyists. It's also that we're not turning out to vote during primaries and general elections. If we want to get better representation we have to study up on the issues and candidates, debate the issues with each other, and vote.

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

[2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#126

Post by studentrob »

emn13 wrote: post #82
wildmusings wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they'll never learn. The folly of those who think they can engineer a perfect society is boundless. "If only there was a rule..."

I don't disagree - but this sentiment can easily mislead. While it's folly to think any set of rules will be perfect, it's also folly to conclude that just because a rule has absurd corner cases that it therefore has no value overall. Ironically (given the complaint Mr Ackerman voiced) one way to encourage imperfections in rules is to allow lobbying, which biases the decision making process towards small, focused gro…

> Ironically (given the complaint Mr Ackerman voiced) one way to encourage imperfections in rules is to allow lobbying, which biases the decision making process towards small, focused groups that have a lot to gain by affecting the rules over large, general benefits.

Yeah, it's difficult to perfectly take advantage of an imperfect system, and that's a good thing.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#127

Post by Gravityloss »

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…

There's going to be problems as long as money gives such a big boost towards being elected.

Could candidates have standardized, free/fixed low price advertisement? At least some portion of it?

There they would get to state their goals and views, and people could make an informed decision on who to vote.

There are "voting advice applications" where a voter can answer a web quiz and then see which candidate answered closest to them, with explanations, comes closest. We have a few of those, by broadcasting companies, newspapers and magazines here, and I believe they have some effect at least on candidate discovery. Then they can go to the candidate's web site to learn more. I'm from a country that has a multi party system though. As far as I know, it doesn't cost anything for the candidate to participate (answering the quiz), and the money comes from ads / general visibility to the quiz host.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_advice_application

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#129

Post by aninhumer »

danieltillett wrote: post #107
aninhumer wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 impa…

That is not how the system works for in example Australia. What happens is the votes for the lowest ranked candidate are given to all the second choice candidates and the process repeated until you get a candidate with 50% of the vote. There is no way that placing your preferred candidate first can ever result in your vote not being given in the order you choose. If you prefer candidate X above candidate y then candi…

Yes, I understand how IRV works, and indeed I used to believe it was flawless.

>There is no way that placing your preferred candidate first can ever result in your vote not being given in the order you choose.

No, but it can end up harming your second choice, by eliminating them early, so your vote for them doesn't matter. This is called Favourite Betrayal, and it's a serious problem with IRV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ

And as a quick worked example, if you have 4 people voting A>B>C, 4 people voting C>B>A and 3 people voting B>A>C, then A wins. If one person voting C>B>A changes their vote to B>C>A, then B wins. So by putting C first, they were harming their second choice B.

Re: When Lobbying was Illegal

#130

Post by specialist »

danieltillett wrote: post #108
e12e wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how much effect it has on turnout. I one looks at the "VAP" ("The voter turnout as defined as the percentage of the voting age population that actually voted") , it seems Australia is a somewhat higher than the UK, and around the level of eg. Sweden (neither of which have mandatory voting). Mexico doesn't do too well, but apparently mandatory voting isn't enforced. http:/…

The trouble with the Australian 'VAP' number is Australia has a very large percentage on non-citizens. It seems from the data that they have divided the votes by the total population rather than the number of Australian citizens.

Good eye. Noting that VAP is appropriate for international comparisons. Domestically, it also informs policy, like enfranchisement thru citizenship.

Radicals like me believe no taxation without representation. I support enfranchising pretty much everyone, especially for local issues.

Post reply on HN