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

Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 248 posts

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#201

Post by mch82 »

theli0nheart wrote: post #99
throwaway729 wrote: post #70

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…

Sources in my prior comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13039415

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#202

Post by CamperBob2 »

throwaway729 wrote: post #159
13years wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Although true, this is true as a point in time statement. In the end, they were convinced of the alternative argument.

As I said in my original post, "Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely become either irrelevant or reprehensible."

The fact is, the US's population distribution rules out direct democracy as a fair solution. We need the EC. It's true that the EC gives the hayseeds in the flyover states a disproportionate voice in government. But without it, the so-called coastal elites in a few large cities would be absolute dictators. If another civil war is what you want, that sounds like a good way to make one happen at some point.

Like the poster near the beginning of the thread said, the problem isn't really who wields Federal power, or who decides; the problem is that there's too much of it.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#203

Post by sgnelson »

puranjay wrote: post #172
throwaway729 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. And I think that would've been a good thing. Do you disagree?

Sure, but the rules of the game were set before the candidates started playing. You can't lose and then retroactively change the rules to give yourself the victory. If the rules are bad, change them the next time around.

That's what people are talking about?

Nobody is seriously saying, "let's change the rules now so Hillary wins!" Some people are calling for electors to not vote for Trump, but at least that's part of the original intent for the electoral college (and it's not likely to happen anyways).

But lots of people are saying, "This system is obviously broken since the will of the majority was not enacted, let's fix it."

So nice strawman, but I think I just burnt it down.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#205

Post by grzm »

gaius wrote: post #204

Ah, the Washington Post, who gleefully published everything Snowden gave them, then called for him to be jailed. What do they know about net-anything?

What does the Washington Post and Snowden have to do with them printing an article (not an editorial) on net neutrality?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#206

Post by cyphax »

mch82 wrote: post #184
cheetos wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? Because it turns out that has a very strong effect on the power of your vote :) The electoral college exists to balance the voices of citizens in cities vs. "the country." It checks the power of highly dense populations who are more likely to vote for pro-city federal policies, so the needs of those in "the country" are not…

The Electoral College was created for two reasons as a compromise so that all of the states would sign the Constitution: 1. To balance power between states that have slaves and states that do not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0]. Addressing #1, we thankfully no longer have slaves, but the ne…

> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0].

Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "people with better information" chose Trump? That just doesn't sound right. ;)

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#207

Post by phailhaus »

sgnelson wrote: post #193
nerfhammer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A state can choose to allow this on its own. A couple do: Nebraska and Maine.

but even this still has issues. Such as, what are the electors based off of, state wide popular vote? What about rounding, up or down? Each congressional district (for states with more than 1 congressional district, and how about the other 2 electoral votes? At-large, a hybrid approach, what else?), Some predetermined electoral districting? etc. And even with that question answered, this doesn't necessarily fix the p…

Perhaps there is no point to the modern electoral college. With a little research, it turns out that the point of the electoral college was to act as a check against a demagogue that could manipulate the citizenry, and to ensure that "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Oh, the irony...The EC was meant to be un-democratic, to keep someone like Trump from getting power.

When electors are bound to their vote as they are today, the electoral college seems to exist in order to give a greater voice to more rural states, to keep them from being forgotten. But then the opposite occurs: winner-takes-all means that candidates have little incentive to campaign in "safe" states and the entire election hinges on just a few.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#208

Post by 13years »

puranjay wrote: post #172
throwaway729 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. And I think that would've been a good thing. Do you disagree?

Sure, but the rules of the game were set before the candidates started playing. You can't lose and then retroactively change the rules to give yourself the victory. If the rules are bad, change them the next time around.

Even this justification for changing the rules next time around has little merit.

In this case, it would be like the soccer team picking a really bad goalie, so they want to change the rules so goalies have less effect on game outcome.

If the DNC were correct about their assumptions, they should have won by a landslide. This should not be about changing the rules, it should be reevaluation of our beliefs and course corrections.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#209

Post by colejohnson66 »

shmerl wrote: post #62
MichaelBurge wrote: post #14

I don't think Trump cares much about net neutrality in particular, but it wouldn't surprise me if he abolished or severely cut back the FCC. The big deal to me is mostly the last-mile infrastructure, which is more of a local/state issue anyways. If the telecom companies mostly handled the backbone, losing the government enforcement doesn't even seem that bad. Regardless of what happens at the federal level, Californi…

The irony is, places mostly controlled by Republicans will be bitten the most by weaker FCC. They are already plagued by lazy and sleepy monopolists and corrupted local laws written by them that prevent municipal networks and result in overpriced and underpowered Internet. Without FCC it will only get worse. So those who chose that will taste their own medicine.

I thought rich people were given exceptional QoS so they don't complain about it to the media. Not to mention: they're rich; They don't really care how much their internet costs so long as it works.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#210

Post by ScottBurson »

crdoconnor wrote: post #66
hristov wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is completely normal and accepted for various agencies to make rules within the confines of the laws that have empowered them. It is in fact necessary considering how complex our society is. Congress cannot possibly control everything. If congress has power to pass certain laws, they have power to relegate some of such authority to a governing body. If the FCC's rules are in accordance with the laws that empowered…

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/53260835850816716... "Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media."

Yikes! So he doesn't actually know what Net Neutrality is. He's come out against the AT&T/TW merger. Maybe at some point he'll realize that NN is also an attempt to fight excessive concentrations of power in media companies.

Personally I would give up NN if we could separate transport from content completely and have real competition among ISPs.

Post reply on HN