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

Larry Lessig: I'm All In

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#141

Post by qrendel »

toyg wrote: post #72
aidos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is, until there's funding reform, climate reform doesn't stand much of a chance. Similarly, once the funding reform is done, climate reform will get promoted.

The problem is, everyone has his personal list of priorities topped by "something without which everything else does not make sense". * campaign reform: "how can you discuss anything when your counterpart is crooked?" * climate change: "how can you discuss anything if your house is underwater?" * fracking: "how can you discuss anything when people are causing earthquakes?" * poverty: "how can you discuss anything whe…

The Democratic nomination has basically always been guaranteed for Clinton. Sanders, though I certainly prefer him over her, is basically a sideshow to make it look like the Democrats actually support liberal issues and aren't just a moderate deviation from the one-party system. If they didn't run anyone besides Clinton many people would consider supporting a third party or independent candidate, but having Sanders around keeps them identifying with the DNC until he finally gives up the campaign and endorses Clinton.

Support for people who aren't likely to win the general election at least shows what issues are important to voters, forcing them to give some concessions to those issues in order not to lose their base to third parties and independents. That's the real power of supporting people like Lessig and Sanders, even though they clearly won't win. Supporting someone you disagree with more just because they're likely to win is truly "throwing your vote away" - it's working against your own policy preferences to give more votes to someone who doesn't even need them.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#142

Post by EGreg »

chillwaves wrote: post #41
EGreg wrote: post #10

Oh boy. Looks like he'll have to show he can be president to get his reform passed... and otherwise his campaign hit a wall, what a surprise. My response: http://magarshak.com/blog/

response to your response: it's a good idea but would there be margin of error? Would have to be. And how could you do a recount on close issues? What makes more sense is to allow online voting (with appropriate safeguards) and then restructure the process so the votes actually mean something, i.e. break the two party system as a start.

Well, that's the Buridan's ass problem. You simply don't change course unless the majority is large enough. For example unless clearly over 80% of the country votes a certain way, you keep the status quo. If you are unsure, you keep the status quo.

In the Buridan's problem the solution is a timeout: if you haven't made a decision and can clearly see that the timeout has passed, you pick a certain predetermined decision (in this case the status quo).

Polling also prevents sybil attacks, ballot stuffing etc. and is impervious to voter turnouts.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#143

Post by JackFr »

jjoonathan wrote: post #132
JackFr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to keep corporations from giving money to politicians, the only effective way to do it is to stop politicians from giving corporations money. Limiting the scope of government is not ideological -- its pragmatic and practical.

And what about politicians who give money to corporations by limiting the scope of government (see: deregulating energy markets -> Enron buys up capacity and shuts it down -> rolling blackouts and $$ in their pockets as prices spiked)? Regulations aren't the only cause of friction, perverse incentives, and exploitative business models. They're also pretty much the only tool we have against tragedies of the commons. D…

I am not against unreasonable regulation, rather I'm in favor of broad principled regulation that takes the form laws passed by Congress and interpreted by courts. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 is a good example as was Glass-Steagall.

A law like Dodd-Frank on the other hand is an example of rent seeking by banks while Congress gets bought off while they act under the guise of 'reining in the banks.'

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#145

Post by jellicle »

chillwaves wrote: post #38
jules wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $5k limit is irrelevant. PACs can funnel an unlimited amount of money into campaigns as long as they are "independent". Besides, average Joe certainly does not even have $5k to spend on a campaign, so yea if it were true that the $5k limit is relevant then the politician would have to reach out to thousands of rich people. But even that isn't true.

The government should issue everyone $5k to spend on politics (and only politics), then it would be democratic.

Congratulations, you've invented Larry Lessig's idea. He noted that $50 per voter would be enough to swamp the contributions from the billionaires.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#146

Post by Bud »

humanrebar wrote: post #118
Bud wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amendment process isn't relevant here. Republicans were completely opposed to any version of Obamacare; amending it wouldn't have fixed matters for them. They were opposed in principle to any large new federal system to make it easier for citizens to buy health insurance. Are you perhaps referring to Constitutional amendments?

Yes. Constitutional amendments require two kinds of super-majorities just for this reason. Even if technically an individual mandate didn't require a constitutional amendment (I believe it did), the spirit of the amendment process indicates that you should get 2/3 support to propose and 3/4 support to ratify fundamental changes to our government.

The Supreme Court, with a 5-4 majority of conservatives, ruled otherwise. So apparently, it didn't require a Constitutional amendment. At all. A law was plenty.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#147

Post by Zelphyr »

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…

Yes, letting the media decide was a problem. But is letting the ultra-wealthy decide any less of a problem?

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#148

Post by comex »

rayiner wrote: post #120
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.

Yup. Citizens United wasn't a "is money speech case?" It was a case about whether the government could ban an unflattering movie about one of the leading candidates in the election. Its core political speech and always has been.

So where do you think we should go from here? Honestly. I share your misgivings about regulating political speech, but then we get things like

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/20...

Whether or not you agree with the slant of that article, it is a fact that Super PACs have enabled a massive centralization of political contributions - which, even if there's a limit on how much advertising can accomplish in general (cf. Trump), is still fundamentally undemocratic, and should be fought. We probably can't just go back to how things used to be, so how do we go forward?

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#149

Post by webXL »

jacobolus wrote: post #2

> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…

> That works if you’re a billionaire with universal name-recognition like Trump

Ben Carson is #2 though. But that's probably also due to the "weak"* candidates.

* I think you mean relatively unknown compared to a former first lady.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#150

Post by zeckalpha »

Bud wrote: post #82
zeckalpha wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, the PAC he started does the candidate support, but he can't be associated with it while running as president.

Great. I agree with that, of course. And perhaps if he wasn't wasting millions of dollars of donor money on running for President, his PAC could do more good. What if Lessig actually won? It wouldn't matter at all . You think the Republican Congress is going to pass sweeping campaign finance reform? Jesus Christ could return and be President and he wouldn't be able to make that happen, either. Lessig surely understan…

What would he need congress for? Some people run just to change the conversation, not to win.
Post reply on HN