Live data from Hacker News

Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

washingtonpost.com

121–130 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#121
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

I think you're right. And I think that's why so many people are calling for the electoral college to elect Clinton rather than Trump.

Larry Lessig is probably the most prominent person calling for this. He has an op-ed in the Washington Post about this right now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitution-let...

Also, Dave Winer mirrored it here: http://scripting.com/2016/11/25/lessigOnTheElectoralCollege....

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That they would try to appeal to all Americans and not just a handful in a few states? I think that is a better system.

No, they would try to run up the numbers in big cities and large media markets, and ignore the rest.

> run up the numbers in big cities and large media markets

You mean they would campaign where the people are.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#123
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you trust five unelected FCC commissioners, who are quite technically incompetent, to regulate the internet for 330 million Americans? Frankly, I'm quite weary.

The FCC commissioners are appointed by the elected president. Stating that they are unelected seems disingenuous to me, as it is diverting from the fact that they are doing their work on behalf of the elected official.

FCC commissioners are also confirmed by the United States Senate.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#124
post #108
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

Are the UK and Canada republics or democracies?

They're both, as is the US. They aren't pure democracies, though.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. Also, the founding fathers weren't all supporters of the electoral college. Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely becom…

> The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. This begs for a source. Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words? Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that at the time the U.S. was foun…

> the individual states were essentially their own countries with individual governments and leadership

The debate over the scope of the federal government dates back to before the end of the revolutionary war, and was a central topic of debate in the drafting and ratification process for the Constitution.

Remember that our first attempt at forming a country erred toward a weaker federal government, and was more-or-less an abject failure.

> Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words?

Federalist 68, in which almost every argument makes literally no sense when compared to direct democracy.

That paper is mostly arguing for the electoral college over e.g. the "Governors" or "congressional" plans, leaving the infeasibility of direct election as a foregone conclusion.

A lot of founding fathers would've preferred a direct vote. See for example Anti Federalist 72. Using google you can also find quotes from Madison, for example, arguing that a direct vote would obviously be best.

Which begs the question: why not just do the obvious thing?

> The only way they could make the deal work with all of them was to ensure that no one state could "overrule" the others

Why don't we come out and be explicit about it -- the only way to make it work was the make sure that slave states were comfortable that they'd be able to retain political power while continuing to subjugate a huge portion of their population.

> If smaller states could be bullied by larger states, the term "united states" loses a quite a bit of its meaning.

Larger by what measure?

The slave states that were opposed to direct election and are today characterized as "rural" weren't actually significantly less populous than the northern states. Virginia -- a slave state -- was the most populous.

It's just that a huge number of their men were black, and so didn't count in a direct election.

So, the whole "rural / less populous states need a voice in presidential elections" thing is complete and utter horse shit. The actual issue was that "very populous states that choose to treat a big portion of the population as sub-humans need a vote controlled by whites but with power proportional to their entire population".

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#126
post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too. Utter nonsense. Under a popular vote-based system, each person in a non-coastal state would have exactly as much say as each person in a coastal state. To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they…

No, the point of the United States is to unite the states into a manageable single government. It is not to provide a direct action democracy to the people.

We give states a base number of votes for being a state,2 , then add them based on population. This means that smaller states get a boost in power vis a vis larger ones but that larger states still matter more. This is not a bad thing.

States provide the basic block upon which Government in the US rests. It is in our interests to provide states with more equal power at a national level than population would dictate.

If you pass a constitutional amendment to adjust voting laws you can enable exactly whatever you like though, for any of your more hyperbolic suggestions you would need to override many of the existing protections as well but if you wanted to be an asshole along with the rest of america there is no reason we could not do so using our existing legal framework.

The argument is not about rural versus urban but about the relative power of small versus large states. This isn't a historical issue but a simple legal one. States actually matter in the United States.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#127
post #114
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be good business for the incumbents. But bad for the regular users, startups, freedom.

How is it bad for those things, especially freedom? Regulation takes away freedom, by definition. An ISP start-up offering services which discriminate traffic now can't exist, and therefore can't give consumers more options. This is why I'm against net neutrality. I also believe that even with NN, companies will do what they want if it's worth the risk of being caught.

Regulation takes away freedom is simplistic libertarian drivel. According to that malarkey the 13th Amendment took away the freedoms of slaveholders:

  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
  punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
  convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
  place subject to their jurisdiction

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#128
post #57
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

Not to endorse either candidate, but you're making a common mistake. If the election were a popular vote, the candidates would campaign for that. They'd focus more on big cities etc. There's no guarantee Clinton would have won the popular vote if that had been the case. Edit: If you're downvoting could you explain why?

[deleted]

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#129
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

>That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. Exactly, and it is supposed to be. We are a republic and not a democracy. The founders strongly opposed democracy. One of the reasons being that minorities would have no representation if your government is by majority rule only.

The founders also strongly opposed people who didn't own land from having a vote either. They're also all dead and have been for a couple hundred years.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#130
post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too. I would prefer that the lesson were: "Gosh! The President has too much power!"

Maybe I'm not understanding this fully but I don't follow the people saying that Clinton should have won because she got the most votes. If the rules said the winning party is the one with the most votes, the campaign strategies of each candidate would have been completely different. It sounds like moving the goal posts to me. It's like you agreed the team with the most goals is the winner beforehand but then after you lost you want to argue you should be the real winner because you had more possession of the ball.

Post reply on HN