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

California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 275 posts

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#171

Post by specialist »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #23
legulere wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European I ask myself why there’s no proportional voting system at all in the US. The states should be independent enough to introduce one for themselves, and there are also referendums.

A switch to proportional voting could require constitutional changes in most places. Also, proportional voting introduces all kinds of unnecessary problems like not having districts and thereby constituents having their votes diluted and not having a specific representative. Which is one things the American system gets right. What we really need is a switch from "first past the post" to approval/score/range voting, w…

To your point, in my state, reformers have been able to change our laws to allow RCV, a much easier lift.

> ...we really need ... approval/score/range voting

Agreed. That's been my long time position.

That said, per The Democracy Nerd podcast, I'm newly curious about multi-member seats. Which might be a smaller lift in a lot of places.

https://xraypod.com/show/democracy-nerd/saving-democracy-in-...

"... Kristin Eberhard from Sightline Institute discusses her proposal to eliminate the state Senate, along with other ideas to save democracy in Oregon."

(Sorry, no timestamp.)

Eberhard claims that prior to eliminating multimember seats, Illinois' legislature was far more productive, constructive.

FWIW, I'm strongly in favor or unicameral legislatures at the state level, and I'm chewing on the notion for the federal level.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#172

Post by AnthonyMouse »

specialist wrote: post #171
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A switch to proportional voting could require constitutional changes in most places. Also, proportional voting introduces all kinds of unnecessary problems like not having districts and thereby constituents having their votes diluted and not having a specific representative. Which is one things the American system gets right. What we really need is a switch from "first past the post" to approval/score/range voting, w…

To your point, in my state, reformers have been able to change our laws to allow RCV, a much easier lift. > ...we really need ... approval/score/range voting Agreed. That's been my long time position. That said, per The Democracy Nerd podcast, I'm newly curious about multi-member seats. Which might be a smaller lift in a lot of places. https://xraypod.com/show/democracy-nerd/saving-democracy-in-... "... Kristin Eberh…

The purpose of a bicameral legislature is to have a process for placing them in office that sufficiently differs as to allows the bodies to represent distinct interests in the legislature.

The US Senate was originally appointed by the state legislatures and intended to represent the interests of the state governments at the federal level -- representation that they no longer have, leading to a massive federal takeover of government. Compare the ratio of tax revenues collected by the state vs. federal governments before and after the 17th amendment. There was a drastic, immediate, permanent shift.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#173

Post by [deleted] »

cosmodisk wrote: post #154
Kapura wrote: post #123

It feels like I live in a country where every level of government is unbelievably corrupt, but also completely unfixable. How are you supposed to address the sorts of issues that lose $200,000,000 of state money if the people who try to do so get fired? I don't see a way out of this mess, and it makes me want to move somewhere... better.

The problem is there is no better. Countries,names and organisations may differ, but it's more or less the same everywhere

[deleted]

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#175

Post by gedy »

novok wrote: post #159
gedy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the 5th largest economy in the world, ahead of even India, and with 2% of the population to take care of. Must be all Prop 13's fault, no waste here behind the curtain. /s

Prop 13 incentivizes cities to reject new housing because it is net revenue negative compared to commercial properties. That and it disincentivizes old people to politically advocate for affordable housing, because they don't have skin in the game / are free riders and thus do not feel the pain like everyone else. They end up ferociously protecting their boomer bank account (house value) because they cannot see beyon…

My comment was about lost revenue and how Prop 13 is blamed for all money ills, not the points you are addressing.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#176

Post by corytheboyd »

cosmodisk wrote: post #154
Kapura wrote: post #123

It feels like I live in a country where every level of government is unbelievably corrupt, but also completely unfixable. How are you supposed to address the sorts of issues that lose $200,000,000 of state money if the people who try to do so get fired? I don't see a way out of this mess, and it makes me want to move somewhere... better.

The problem is there is no better. Countries,names and organisations may differ, but it's more or less the same everywhere

This. If you have the chance, talk to people, real people, from other countries. At least in my case, this is exactly what they all told me.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#177

Post by m463 »

Kapura wrote: post #123

It feels like I live in a country where every level of government is unbelievably corrupt, but also completely unfixable. How are you supposed to address the sorts of issues that lose $200,000,000 of state money if the people who try to do so get fired? I don't see a way out of this mess, and it makes me want to move somewhere... better.

I found the book "the honest truth about dishonesty" by Dan Ariely very illuminating as to how dishonesty works, how it survives and when it goes away.

I suspect this article has done a good job of shining a spotlight on a situation where accountability has disappeared.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#178

Post by bennysonething »

Kapura wrote: post #152
AlwaysRock wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much feel the same way. Unfortunately it is not easy to move to another country long term and work there. Also obviously every other country also has its own issues, many that one likely wouldnt discover until after making a move.

Fortunately, I am blessed with friends who have already made the jump, in many different directions, so I have firsthand testimonies of the pros and cons of moving to a variety of different countries. Japan sounds nice.

Just don't get arrested if you move to japan:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-51129580

There was a piece on BBC radio 4 about this. Stuck in a cell and not allowed to lean on walls had to sit up right the whole time horrendous.

Usa has its problems, it also has a constitution and the first amendment. Sadly here in the UK we do not.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#179

Post by everybodyknows »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #137

Someone needs to explain both sets of accounting practices to the public. Its public money we are talking about. Californians pay tons of little taxes on utilities to fund improvements and service for the less privileged - we expect that money to be put to use and not to line the pockets of utilities. Its quite obviously that our utilities have completely failed when it comes to maintenance and improvements. What are…

> money to be put to use and not to line the pockets ...

How about this example:

https://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/ot-...

> $11 million in grant funding ... 740 unserved households

First project on the list:

https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M355/K...

> up to $7,603,656.30 ... 1,000 Megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1,000Mbps upload to 588 unserved households.

So, gigabit Ethernet, at a cost of only $12,931 per household.

>According to the California Interactive Broadband Map, the area only has access to dial-up service.

According to my search of that very same site just now, three competing cellular providers serve data to Williams, with T-Mobile claiming minimums of 9/4 Mbps.

https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov/

> residential and low-income broadband pricing plans ... for two years starting from the beginning date of service. ... 25 Downstream(Mbps)/25 Upstream(Mbps) - $25/month

Wondering how many of those 588 households are behind on their monthly bills just now? How many would, if given the choice, prefer to have the CPUC pre-pay for them a couple of years of cellular hotspot service, and simply refund the remainder of "their" $12,931 in cash, so they can all be assured of making their rent or mortgage payments for a while? About 588 households, I would guess.

My theory: It's a subsidy program for the broadband landline industry. Regulatory capture, as usual.

Re: California Public Utilities Commission fired director who exposed missing $200M

#180

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A switch to proportional voting could require constitutional changes in most places. Also, proportional voting introduces all kinds of unnecessary problems like not having districts and thereby constituents having their votes diluted and not having a specific representative. Which is one things the American system gets right. What we really need is a switch from "first past the post" to approval/score/range voting, w…

> A switch to proportional voting could require constitutional changes in most places. Less places than you might think. It especially wouldn't for Congress (so long as it was proportional by a method similar to STV within state delegations, or within some subset of state delegations), as the only barrier there is a statutory prohibition on at-large districts for delegations greater than 1, adopted to head off the us…

> Proportionality doesn't dilute votes

It causes your vote to be mixed with a larger number of other votes, which is the definition of dilution. By giving the candidates more alternative constituents to win over in order to stay in office, your vote is less important to them and there are more ways they can screw you over and still stay in office.

> the more proportional a system is the more efficiently it allocated votes to give them maximum effect.

That isn't inherently true. Suppose you have a state with two districts. 60% of the state are religious conservatives, 30% are libertarians, 10% are socialists. With proportional representation the socialists get disenfranchised because they don't get their own candidate. Even the libertarians might get disenfranchised if the religious conservatives manage to get two representatives. But with range voting, you end up with a candidate who has to make all the interests in their district as happy as possible because anyone who comes along and can make them happier would defeat them in an election -- so nobody gets disenfranchised because every victor needs to make everybody happier than anybody else.

Proportional systems also fail in the same way but worse when forming governing coalitions. Suppose you have a White party and a Black party and the White party voters are 70% of the population. Then proportional representation gives them 70% of the representatives, they form the majority coalition and the Black party representatives lose every vote.

Compare this to range voting where if you so much as have a White party, they lose even in many majority-White districts against a moderate candidate who can earn the support of both White and Black constituents. It promotes the election of moderates with broad appeal over the election of extremists who fight to gain a majority coalition that can steamroll over anyone in the outgroup.

Post reply on HN