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

Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#121

Post by a-priori »

hugh3 wrote: post #102
grellas wrote: post #75

Great political ideas come, not from committees or from random samplings of the uninformed or semi-informed masses, but from intelligent and forceful leaders who can think them through thoughtfully, who can articulate them in a way that resonates with people, and who can set out an agenda to carry them into effective action. None of this is easy to do and it takes exceptional people even to make a credible stab at it…

Great political ideas come, not from committees or from random samplings of the uninformed or semi-informed masses, but from intelligent and forceful leaders who can think them through thoughtfully, who can articulate them in a way that resonates with people, and who can set out an agenda to carry them into effective action. Great leaders? Resonating with the masses? That sounds more like a primer on how completely a…

I agree. For a democratic system that is completely at odds with the US or UK one, take a look at Switzerland. While in most ways it operates as a republic, for their executive branch, they don't have one head of state. They have the Swiss Federal Council, which meets weekly, in secret, and has not been replaced since it was formed in 1848 (individual members have retired and been replaced in that time, of course).

They also have direct democracy, where any citizen can trigger a referendum if they gather enough signatures in a certain amount of time.

This sounds like a recipe for disaster, yet Switzerland has one of the most stable governments and most prosperous economies in the world. It works because they are stubbornly conservative (little-C conservative, in the sense "if it ain't broke, don't fix it") and slow to change. In general, it works for them, even if it has some anachronisms. Women only got suffrage in 1971, for example, and there's no guarantee of religious freedom (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerl...)

tl;dr - there's more than one way to run a country, and it's better to err on the side of not changing what works. But if you take this approach, you have to be mindful that just because you suppressed certain peoples' rights in the past doesn't mean you should in the future.

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#122

Post by tokipin »

sethg wrote: post #59
hugh3 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying politicians shouldn't listen to the people when developing policy ideas? If people actually used such a website in good faith then it could potentially produce some useful ideas and allow them to percolate upwards to party policymakers. They shouldn't blindly pick whatever ideas turn out to be popular on their website, but it might bring up some things they hadn't thought of before.

I would not trust any politician who says “I have no idea what policies I should be proposing once I get elected, so I want to hear your ideas.” Such a politician is either an idiot or a liar. A politician with intelligence and integrity would say something like “If I’m elected, I will try to get the government to do X, Y, and Z. If you have any particular ideas about how to accomplish these goals, or if you want to…

i'm pretty sure the site is just the republican congresspeople's attempt at looking like they have any policy-making clout whatsoever

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#123

Post by jimbokun »

tsally wrote: post #108
michael_nielsen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An almost exactly analogous argument could be used to "prove" that Wikipedia would entirely fail [1]. Replace "Great political ideas" by "High-quality encyclopedia articles" etcetera. I don't personally think much of Republican policies, but I'm glad they're at least giving things like this a go. I could wish, however, that they'd spoken with more people who have real insight into how social websites work. They could…

If only coming up with a great political idea was as easy as writing a high quality encyclopedia article. Quantitatively there are several orders of magnitude more article authors than great political thinkers. If we place all activities on a continuum based on intellectual difficultly, there's a point where crowd sourcing stops working. I think it's pretty clear where political thought stands compared to writing enc…

"If only coming up with a great political idea was as easy as writing a high quality encyclopedia article."

Coming up with a great political idea is probably pretty easy. The difficulty comes in convincing lots of people to make the sacrifices and compromises necessary to implement the great idea. That's why they call it politics, no?

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#124

Post by dskhatri »

grellas wrote: post #75

Great political ideas come, not from committees or from random samplings of the uninformed or semi-informed masses, but from intelligent and forceful leaders who can think them through thoughtfully, who can articulate them in a way that resonates with people, and who can set out an agenda to carry them into effective action. None of this is easy to do and it takes exceptional people even to make a credible stab at it…

A good point and it seems to be validated in studies involving new democracies: http://www.technologyreview.com/article/25048/

"Unexpectedly, the civic decisions--often involving road, sanitation, and water projects--were nearly identical whether made by majority vote or village elites. Giving power to the people, it seems, does not automatically lead to tangible material changes. Yet when people were allowed to vote, they expressed greater contentment with the results."

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#125

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #120
jbooth wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, pretty sure most democrats are much more nuanced than the description in your first graf there. Also, unless you were outraged for the entire Bush term of office, and I mean really outraged to the point of voting for Kerry in 2004, you're not a libertarian, you're a Republican. Sorry.

I'm pretty sure most republicans are much more nuanced than the morons who post on americaspeaksout.com. I know it's convenient to believe that your political enemies are all stupid and evil, while your allies are mostly pure, good and smart. Go ahead and feel that way if it makes you happier.

Sorry man, but I didn't piss in your oatmeal this morning and I certainly didn't say any of that stuff.

I complain about oversimplifications and demonization and you come back at me with even more of it?

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#126

Post by jbooth »

mynameishere wrote: post #110
jokermatt999 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We should not allow Muslims to enter the country." Is this statement a troll, or what someone actually believes? There's enough wrong with it that I could believe it's a troll, and yet I've honestly met people who would be completely sincere in saying it. Browse around a little more, and you'll find many other statements like it. Part of me hopes it's just idiotic trolls ruining what could have been constructive dia…

Should Persia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Spain, the Balkans, etc, etc, have allowed Muslims to enter their respective countries?

Heh.

Don't beat around the bush, man. Spell it out for us. What're you saying here?

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#127

Post by hugh3 »

Osiris wrote: post #112
hugh3 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great political ideas come, not from committees or from random samplings of the uninformed or semi-informed masses, but from intelligent and forceful leaders who can think them through thoughtfully, who can articulate them in a way that resonates with people, and who can set out an agenda to carry them into effective action. Great leaders? Resonating with the masses? That sounds more like a primer on how completely a…

> The US constitution was just a somewhat refined offshoot of the British system. I think it's important to point out that there is, in fact, very few similarities between the U.K. government, especially at the time, and the U.S. government. The U.K. uses a parliamentary system of government without a written constitution. There is a single, essentially all-powerful, legislative body with no separate executive. They…

Oh, I think there are other important similarities. You've got to remember that the UK was (basically) a representative democracy at a time when the number of representative democracies in the world was... what, three-ish? Important similarities include:

1. A bicameral legislature (commons + lords vs house + senate)

2. The idea that representatives should represent individual districts

3. Most importantly, the whole "common law" thing

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#128

Post by chbarts »

kljensen wrote: post #36
hugh3 wrote: post #11

They seem to have underestimated the speed at which trolls can ruin everything. This, of course, is why we can't have nice things.

Right. An intern doing a "sanity/troll" moderating would make it a respectable effort.

However, how do you moderate for "sanity" without just moderating for "ideas we already like"? Maybe they honestly want a self-reinforcement echo chamber, but that doesn't seem very useful to me.

It's the old problem of how you know if someone's being honest, which is hard enough to do when you have face-to-face contact with full nonverbal clues. Are there ideas nobody holds honestly?

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#129

Post by metamemetics »

Some of the current top posts for each section:

Job creation:

"We should invent and patent more colors. Like fuchsia, but not that because it's already been invented."

Fiscal responsibility:

"Nationalize production of "Arrested Development" and reap the profits of the show owning."

American Values:

"Did Glenn Beck assault a young girl in 1990?"

National Security:

"Americans die in hurricanes and tornadoes. It's time to declare a War on Weather."

Speak Out:Start Your own Debate:

"1500 characters maximum is hardly enough to explain the extent of failure that this website has enabled."

Re: Republicans' new Web site not exactly what they hoped it would be

#130

Post by metamemetics »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #55

Honestly, this kind of depresses me. I'd love to see an honest dialogue between government and citizens with well thought out ideas and respect from both sides. However, that's just not happening here. Between the massive influx of immature trolls and the Poe's Law style comments, it seems doomed from the start. The server creaking under the massive weight of traffic certainly isn't helping either. I think a system l…

>I put the blame as much (if not moreso) on the people trolling the site as I do the nutjobs adding sincere comments.

So you'd have more sympathy for someone who is sincerely racist and xenophobic than someone who isn't just because of their sincerity? Why not "put the blame" on the Republican party for being a complete joke.

Post reply on HN