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

Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#21

Post by johnea »

DANmode wrote: post #20
johnea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about "closest", but I can name several people currently serving in the legislature off the top of my head: Elizabeth Warren Barbara Lee (actually from California, no longer in congress) AOC Bernie Cory Booker maybe Graham Platner (running for senate in Maine) Basically anyone with a platform based on logical progressivism, which is to say (sadly), no one that either party would nominate.

> which is to say (sadly), no one that either party would nominate. You’re missing the last step!

I'm not sure what the last step is, but here's another nice list of people that would make a good president, cosigners of a Sen. Ron Wydon letter, copied from a recent post to HN:

> The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs.

"The letter" was regarding the counter-intuitive aspect of VPN use being used as an excuse to surveil internet traffic:

https://www.techdirt.com/2026/04/03/senators-ask-tulsi-gabba...

Ron Wyden is maybe the most technically astute, and citizen advocating, member of the US legislature.

His constant advocacy for the people, in opposition to the federal "intelligence" agencies, is well known. The upcoming FISA renewal is one example.

p.s. Alex Padilla is actually from California

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#22

Post by DANmode »

johnea wrote: post #21
DANmode wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is to say (sadly), no one that either party would nominate. You’re missing the last step!

I'm not sure what the last step is, but here's another nice list of people that would make a good president, cosigners of a Sen. Ron Wydon letter, copied from a recent post to HN: > The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs. "The letter" was regarding th…

> I'm not sure what the last step is

Changing the vote from First Past the Post,

so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage, corrupted parties have us in:

“choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#23

Post by rkomorn »

DANmode wrote: post #22
johnea wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the last step is, but here's another nice list of people that would make a good president, cosigners of a Sen. Ron Wydon letter, copied from a recent post to HN: > The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs. "The letter" was regarding th…

> I'm not sure what the last step is Changing the vote from First Past the Post, so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage , corrupted parties have us in: “choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.

As someone who can vote in both "first past the post" and "50%+1" elections, I have to say the latter still has me choosing the lesser evil most of the time (edit: in the second round, usually).

Turns out when you have pluralities of garbage parties, the results are still pretty garbage.

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#24

Post by cindyllm »

DANmode wrote: post #22
johnea wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the last step is, but here's another nice list of people that would make a good president, cosigners of a Sen. Ron Wydon letter, copied from a recent post to HN: > The letter was signed by members of the Democratic Party’s progressive flank: Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, and Alex Padilla, along with Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Sara Jacobs. "The letter" was regarding th…

> I'm not sure what the last step is Changing the vote from First Past the Post, so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage , corrupted parties have us in: “choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.

[dead]

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#25

Post by johnea »

rkomorn wrote: post #23
DANmode wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what the last step is Changing the vote from First Past the Post, so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage , corrupted parties have us in: “choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.

As someone who can vote in both "first past the post" and "50%+1" elections, I have to say the latter still has me choosing the lesser evil most of the time (edit: in the second round, usually). Turns out when you have pluralities of garbage parties, the results are still pretty garbage.

OK, now that I know what "the last step" is, I do agree.

First past the post voting is a major impediment to actual democracy, since it makes more than two powerful political parties a near impossibility..

All the other options available in the US, such as ranked choice etc, are really just stopgap measures.

True proportional parliamentary stye elections are the closest thing I'm aware of to offering true choice to voters, and representing a broad range of policy positions.

This involves eliminating any kind of "districts", and voting for parties instead of people. I think both of these aspects are hard for a lot of Americans to envision.

But I do feel that an elected official should have to be voted for across the entire geography for which they can make policy decisions. This is especially true given the power of committees in the US national legislature.

I also like the aspect of a clearly defined platform statement that is presented by a running party, and is largely absent from individual people as candidates.

But I don't there's any practical hope of big changes in the US system, given the total wrap on power by the existing two parties. Both of which are primarily focused on maintaining their power base.

As far as I know, New Zealand was the most recent largish country to convert from first past the post to a parliamentary system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealan...

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/page/road-mmp

Re: Montana referendum to outlaw corporate campaign contributions [video]

#26

Post by DANmode »

rkomorn wrote: post #23
DANmode wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what the last step is Changing the vote from First Past the Post, so we can escape the full-Nelson these two garbage , corrupted parties have us in: “choose the lesser evil, it’ll be fine”.

As someone who can vote in both "first past the post" and "50%+1" elections, I have to say the latter still has me choosing the lesser evil most of the time (edit: in the second round, usually). Turns out when you have pluralities of garbage parties, the results are still pretty garbage.

It just means you folks had further to free-fall.
Post reply on HN