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

Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 246 posts

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#231

Post by tptacek »

wfo wrote: post #222
tptacek wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nader sapped support from Gore throughout the entire election. Again, the problem isn't that it's wrong to run for President. The issue is that if you know you're pulling support in a close election, and you have no chance of winning, then it becomes legitimate to ask whether the point you're trying to make by running is worth the cost.

Our electoral system is broken in that it doesn't allow voters to reasonably express preferences which aren't one of the two mainstream options because of this spoiler effect. I'm not sure what the correct answer is, to complain about how "both parties are terrible" and vote for the mainstream party anyway and get more of the same and know that it will never change or to vote how you actually feel knowing that the sy…

I agree that our system is broken, but that's not news, and when you take actions within that system that cause harm, you remain culpable for the harm; you can't just appeal to a different electoral system.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#232

Post by tptacek »

mindslight wrote: post #219
tptacek wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure they could have. But statistically, we know that they wouldn't. They'd have handed the election to Gore. Nader's core supporters are liberal, and Bush was decidedly not that.

Since you really insist on analyzing things in a two party framework - It seems then that the democrats simply overplayed their hand from 1992-2000. They were too brazenly incongruent with their grassroots support, causing their constituents to cry uncle and look elsewhere. Getting the people to line up for what their sponsors have bought is the fundamental game, and they failed. So in effect, Bush's invasion of Iraq…

I do not understand this argument at all. Clinton would not have invaded Iraq. Neither would Gore. To get an invasion of Iraq, you need to put Bush in the White House.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#233

Post by tptacek »

mindslight wrote: post #220
tptacek wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a stretch to say that Gore would not have filled his cabinet with Neoconservatives. He would not have.

Only Neoconservatives can invade Iraq? The democratic party is traditionally better at selling domestic totalitarianism, but what exactly would be the point of letting an opportunity such as 11SEP2001 pass them by? I don't think the democratic sponsorship had a different country lined up to attack, and going after Iraq was already on the agenda, so they would have been beating those exact same war drums. There would…

No, only Neocons would have invaded Iraq. They're called "Neocons" because they break from the Baker/Scowcroft isolationist foreign policy that was mainstream in conservatism at the time. The "neo" part is almost literally "new willingness to send ground troops".

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#234

Post by gabrielgrant »

studentrob wrote: post #216
rhino369 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best and only constitutional solution is to publicly fund all federal elections. 2 billion a year could fully fund all congressional elections. You don't even need to fund the presidential election because the two parties raise more than enough money themselves. They are already buying literally all the commercial time on TV in swing states. More money doesn't provide much marginal benefit at that stage. That wou…

Okay, I've heard that, but then how do we decide who gets to run? Wouldn't the wealthiest still end up with the best initial campaigns? [side-rant] This makes me think that being able to include more candidates, by way of reforming FPTP and using an alternative vote, could be as important as campaign finance reform. I am over this two party system that controls everything. They're corrupting our democracy by gerryman…

You're absolutely right. That's why Lessig's proposed Citizen Equality Act has multi-member districts with ranked choice voting (effectively ending gerrymandering) as the second major component: https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#235

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #232
mindslight wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you really insist on analyzing things in a two party framework - It seems then that the democrats simply overplayed their hand from 1992-2000. They were too brazenly incongruent with their grassroots support, causing their constituents to cry uncle and look elsewhere. Getting the people to line up for what their sponsors have bought is the fundamental game, and they failed. So in effect, Bush's invasion of Iraq…

I do not understand this argument at all. Clinton would not have invaded Iraq. Neither would Gore. To get an invasion of Iraq, you need to put Bush in the White House.

You misunderstand my above comment. I'm saying that by your reasoning with Nader, we can also say that Clinton caused Bush's actual invasion.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party each must maintain two different facets - the values they preach to their grassroots support (for votes), and the policies that their sponsors purchase (for money to run campaigns).

Clinton failed to sell his actions to traditionally democratic voters, causing them to look elsewhere instead of falling into line and voting for Gore.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#236

Post by mindslight »

tptacek wrote: post #233
mindslight wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Neoconservatives can invade Iraq? The democratic party is traditionally better at selling domestic totalitarianism, but what exactly would be the point of letting an opportunity such as 11SEP2001 pass them by? I don't think the democratic sponsorship had a different country lined up to attack, and going after Iraq was already on the agenda, so they would have been beating those exact same war drums. There would…

No, only Neocons would have invaded Iraq. They're called "Neocons" because they break from the Baker/Scowcroft isolationist foreign policy that was mainstream in conservatism at the time. The "neo" part is almost literally "new willingness to send ground troops".

I'll concede the point since "invasion" implies the large ground force and land occupation, and democrats seem to favor death from above. I do think that Iraq would still have been invaded sometime, given that repaving the country was on the bipartisan national agenda. Those rats in W's cabinet would have been waiting in the wings for 4 more years.

Fundamentally I'm not going to support terrible event A in an attempt to stop terrible event B from happening, especially when there is a large contingent of people with different priorities doing the reverse. That's a setup for manufacturing popular support for a lot of terrible events.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#237

Post by hackerboos »

nl wrote: post #218
hackerboos wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with CU isn't the 1st Amendment, it's corporate personhood and the press. It's easy to argue that corporations and unions don't deserve free speech as their directors, employees and members are all entitled to free speech individually. However the press is different. Nobody, rightly so, wants to limit the press to say and print whatever they like (so long as it's not slander/libel) and today's press is ma…

Oh yeah, the corporate personhood thing. I forgot that. But I only forgot about it because I simply don't see how that matters in an real way. Even if corporate personhood went away then (actual, real human) people would be paid to speak for a corporation, and then you hit the the 1st Amendment rights issues again.

>Even if corporate personhood went away then (actual, real human) people would be paid to speak for a corporation

There are proper campaign finance laws which regulate the above. Nothing is currently regulating SuperPACs at the moment, even American divisions of foreign corporations can accept money.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#238

Post by studentrob »

gabrielgrant wrote: post #234
studentrob wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I've heard that, but then how do we decide who gets to run? Wouldn't the wealthiest still end up with the best initial campaigns? [side-rant] This makes me think that being able to include more candidates, by way of reforming FPTP and using an alternative vote, could be as important as campaign finance reform. I am over this two party system that controls everything. They're corrupting our democracy by gerryman…

You're absolutely right. That's why Lessig's proposed Citizen Equality Act has multi-member districts with ranked choice voting (effectively ending gerrymandering) as the second major component: https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/

That sounds great. Is he friends with someone who holds office and can make it happen? Say, Warren?

However it goes, I hope we continue to raise awareness and rally support for these reforms. That simple image that shows how gerrymandering works is a real eye opener, for example. And all politicians are guilty for being complicit in that behavior, unless I'm misinformed and there's some legitimate reason for redrawing district lines.

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#239

Post by JamesBarney »

tptacek wrote: post #212
JamesBarney wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that there isn't a lot of evidence about whether money influences elections. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether money influences elections. What is more important is whether elected officials believe money is influential in elections, and I think this is trivially true. What are your fears if "The Democracy is for People Amendment" passed? Are you worried that the congress would limit political spe…

It doesn't separate political spending from political speech at all .

I read this as specifically giving congress the authority to set limits on raising and spending money. I don't see any language granting them to ability to restrict political speech.

SECTION 1.To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

[0] - https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-re...

Re: Lessig Ends Presidential Campaign

#240

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #212
JamesBarney wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that there isn't a lot of evidence about whether money influences elections. But ultimately it doesn't matter whether money influences elections. What is more important is whether elected officials believe money is influential in elections, and I think this is trivially true. What are your fears if "The Democracy is for People Amendment" passed? Are you worried that the congress would limit political spe…

It doesn't separate political spending from political speech at all .

[deleted]
Post reply on HN