Larry Lessig: I'm All In • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#101

Post by marincounty » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 1:50 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #71

I realize I'll probably get downvoted in this thread for saying this, but allowing more money into politics is actually giving people more choice in elections, and Lessig is becoming a victim of the problems with the system before Citizens United. Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President. We have more choice than ever. Why? Because these individuals can afford to do so, and don't need to rel…

Actually, I don't know what an election, without money, would look like. The rich have been telling the poor/middle class what's good for them forever? Or capitalizing on fears/ignorance of the average voter; to get their guy in?

"Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President."

That really isn't a lot of people considering our population size? The allowance of large swaths of money just widens the pool of Wackadoodles we are forced to pick from. Yea, the candidates eventually show off too many warts, and we are stuck voting for a person who seems slightly better than the other guy?

With money, we sit back and are spoon fed these candidates.

Without money, I wonder if we would really take these elections/candidates seriously? Would their be popular websites devoted just to candidates? Would we be up late debating one candidate, over the next? Or would be at some fun website? Probally the fun website? Maybe we haven't had it bad enough to really care?

I just don't know.

I look at it this way; would medical researchers be a lot father along curing real illnesses, and diseases if drug companies weren't allowed to advertise to the idiots?

I believe--yes. These drug companies would be forced to look beyond the quick dollar curing a limp weenie, baldness, or pimping a happy pill that's slightly better than placebo in bad studies.

Without advertising Doctors(trained, educated people in alleviating serious disease) would be calling the shots. Trained doctors would be telling researchers what their patients need, not the other way around?

Maybe this is not the best analogy? I really don't have an answer.

I just don't feel money and politics need to go together.

We got luckey with Obama, but that was a fluke. (yea, I know a lot of you don't like the man, but I feel like he tried. He originally tries to do the right thing, but is/was derailed by politicians controlled by big money. His original health care bill was great, until the Rebublicans got their hands on it. He was forced to change it, or we wouldn't have anything.)

Bye-I'll try to get some sleep. Or, wish I could sleep well.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#102

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #99

throwaway13337 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more a problem with vote distribution. The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different. Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats. This is not the case in all d…

But we have primaries, where we get to choose who those candidates will be. It makes sense to winnow down choices from a larger group until you get to the top 2, and then choose between the top two. You still have lots of choices if you look at the process from the beginning, not just from the very last part of the selection process.

Appointing electors is universally FPTP in the United States, sans a couple of states. Do primaries use a Condorcet method, or...?

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#103

Post by Chathamization » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

jensen123 wrote: post #39

AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. Why do they do this? Because the politicians who spend the most money on advertising generally win the elections, right? I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is the failure of democracy with universal suffrage. Most of the voters don't seem to be independent thinkers. They could have voted for politicians who haven't been "bought". But they don't. For ex…

Pretty much this. In this day and age, it's easy for people to ignore the advertising and simply search online for the candidates positions, their history, which groups support them, etc. This probably takes less than an hour.

Granted, most people don't, and most people probably don't even know the names of the people running besides those in the biggest races (they might know the presidential or mayoral candidates, but they often don't know the state senate or state party candidates).

I disagree about third parties though - it usually makes much more sense to try to make changes during the primary, then trying to make them with a third party (there are a few exceptions, of course).

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#104

Post by littletimmy » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

Gotadime wrote: post #15

jacobolus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance. The most likely way to impro…

Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…

That's false, because the Democratic party today encapsulates both the old Republican and the old Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is essentially an Eisenhower Republican (if you place her into any European country she's in their conservative party), and Warren/Sanders are the left wing group.

The republican party of today is essentially a business lobby masquerading as a party. Place it into any European country, and it will be a far right extremist group.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#105

Post by jroseattle » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:03 PM UTC

This notion that "outsiders" are what it takes to reform government is a popular campaign theme, but has never succeeded. The basis for justification is essentially one of "the system has made others corrupt, but not me" -- it's a play on principles rising above the temptation for personal gain in order to achieve reform. Aside from being untrue, we've actually seen how this plays out.

Many of the far-right members in the House of Representatives that identify with the Tea Party are also highly principled. Listen to their campaigns and you'll hear how they'll "fix Washington" and such. One may or may not agree with those principles, but many of those members are steadfast in their beliefs, and govern based on those beliefs.

And what has been accomplished? To quote Admiral Stockdale - Gridlock!

Reform will never happen with a single leader. It will take the right people in all levels of government to make it happen.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#106

Post by woah » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #75

humanrebar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. I'd argue it has been destructive to our country. Specifically with the way healthcare reform was passed. All democrats by the slimmest margin. Absolutely no wider support for one of the biggest changes in our country in a long time, as far as domestic policy goes. The result? More fighting than before.…

Huh? 60% support in Congress plus the support of the President plus the support of the Supreme Court (when the ACA was tested there) plus the overwhelming support of the American people wasn't good enough for you? Under what circumstances, then, WOULD you be able to accept that health care reform was a good idea and a good thing to pass? The constant infighting caused by Republicans is a result of their corporate mas…

Racism? The runner up in the republican primary is a black man. When you accuse anyone you dislike or disagree with of racism, you cheapen the term and devalue the experiences of those who are actually suffering from it.

Also, in general, you seem extremely partisan and basically want to treat politics like a soccer match. People like you are the reason that we have a corrupt 2 party system. You can't conceive of any possible higher goal than rooting for your team.

I know you'll respond to this with another laundry list of how the republicans are the root of all evil. Thanks in advance for proving my point.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#107

Post by Chathamization » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:19 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #102

Chathamization wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we have primaries, where we get to choose who those candidates will be. It makes sense to winnow down choices from a larger group until you get to the top 2, and then choose between the top two. You still have lots of choices if you look at the process from the beginning, not just from the very last part of the selection process.

Appointing electors is universally FPTP in the United States, sans a couple of states. Do primaries use a Condorcet method, or...?

Well, I'm saying that general elections in the US tend to be functionally the equivalent of run-off elections in many other places. For instance, in France you generally have candidates that weren't in a competitive primary run in an election, then have a runoff with the top two candidates (the Socialists seem to be introducing primaries for presidential candidates though). So you have an election, then the top two candidates compete in another FPTP election. In the US we have a (primary) election, then the top two candidates from each side (except for in places like California) compete in a FPTP election.

In the US, this differs state by state (California has their jungle primary system, some cities have IRV) and in Europe country by country and party by party (as I mentioned, the French socialists seem interested in have presidential primaries).

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#108

Post by wyldfire » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #92

humanrebar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unlimited corporate spending on political advertising is considered protected speech Probably an unpopular opinion in this thread, but... It has always been protected speech. The Supreme Court just declined to make a distinction between The New York Times and an arbitrary group of citizens (or even a single citizen) doing a one-off publication.

And people should really be thinking twice about the consequences of suppressing core political speech from those they don't like, be it a single citizen publishing a book (in oral arguments the government admitted that fell into the McCain-Feingold ban), an arbitrary group of citizens producing and distributing a video about a public figure running for office, or the eeeeevil NRA with its five million members amplif…

I agree with your all of your concerns. But what if all campaigns for office were funded with public money instead of private money?

Seems like it would solve some of the stated problems without arguing over what some would call a "loophole" but others would recognize as "free speech."

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#109

Post by jensen123 » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:22 PM UTC

techdragon wrote: post #81

throwaway13337 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more a problem with vote distribution. The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different. Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats. This is not the case in all d…

A big part of the problem is voter turnout. If you make voting a requirement, like paying your taxes. It changes the environment around an election. You spend less time and money trying to convince apathetic voters to take time out of their work day to vote.

Isn't voting a requirement in Argentina? Look at the politicians they're electing...

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#110

Post by hownottowrite » Sat, Oct 17, 2015, 2:30 PM UTC

jack9 wrote: post #73

hownottowrite wrote: post #70

I admire Mr. Lessig's convictions and his ideas, but frankly the concept of a self-resigning President is half-baked. It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the Presidency in United States politically and socially and image it projects to the world at large. The United States isn't a startup. You can't have a Minimum Viable Presidency focused on a single issue.

> It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the Presidency in United States politically and socially and image it projects to the world at large. Your comment is ironic to the core. The role of POTUS is not to serve the current system of contributors after the fact. That's the nature of the problem. The idea that POTUS is sancrosanct or even in a different class (projects to the world at large,…

It's hardly ironic. It's realistic, and your defense is simplistic at best.

What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if war breaks out? What if a natural disaster strikes putting millions of Americans at risk? We have no idea because his Presidency is not about governing towards a better future but rather tearing down a system he doesn't like.

Noble as his idea may sound on the surface it is a childish proposal which does not take into account the complexity of the system it intends to address.