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

41–50 of 167 posts

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#41

Post by chillwaves »

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.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#42

Post by SwellJoe »

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…

"I haven’t tried to engage with the political system before"

Now that's just inaccurate, unless you mean merely that he's never run for office. He has engaged with the political system on numerous fronts over the span of a couple of decades, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. He's made real positive change in the world (possibly as much as anyone else running, if we're being honest), occasionally through political means.

But, more importantly, I genuinely trust him to do what he says. Which is definitely more than can be said of the vast majority of people vying for the title on either side of the fence (the entirety of GOP field is particularly villainous this year, but the current leader for the DNC isn't exactly a pillar of virtue).

But, you're right that he is running a losing race. Several commentators on the first debate said they would have preferred to see Lessig on the stage, and perhaps if that would have happened, things would look different. I don't know. That said, I think you're missing the point of why he's so thoroughly unlikely to even get fair treatment by the DNC, much less taken seriously as a candidate. Despite his impressive fundraising for a "nobody" in politics, and despite being clearly smarter and more broadly competent than some of the other DNC candidates, his desire to tear down the very system that feeds the DNC (and the GOP) virtually guarantees he will never be taken seriously.

A reform candidate in a thoroughly corrupt system stands no chance. Short of pitchforks and the guillotine, our system likely won't be reformed.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#43

Post by nocman »

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…

"running in a primary with a bunch of weak other candidates"

^ I think your political bias is showing through.

In my opinion this is one of the strongest sets of candidates for the Republican primary in a long time. And I am far from alone in that assessment.

Yes there are some weak candidates (there are always weak candidates in both parties), but it is far from "a bunch".

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#44

Post by throwaway13337 »

jensen123 wrote: post #39
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. Why do they do this? Because the politicians who spend the most money on advertising generally win the elections, right? I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is the failure of democracy with universal suffrage. Most of the voters don't seem to be independent thinkers. They could have voted for politicians who haven't been "bought". But they don't. For ex…

This is more a problem with vote distribution.

The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different.

Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats.

This is not the case in all democracies - most european parliaments have more than two parties because of the difference in the way minority votes are handled.

This is a failure of US-flavor representative democracy.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#45

Post by aggie »

jensen123 wrote: post #39
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. Why do they do this? Because the politicians who spend the most money on advertising generally win the elections, right? I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is the failure of democracy with universal suffrage. Most of the voters don't seem to be independent thinkers. They could have voted for politicians who haven't been "bought". But they don't. For ex…

Lack of independent thinking may indeed be a problem, but the reason for a two-party system is mostly due to the mechanics of our plurality voting system [1]. People don't vote for third parties because voting for the lesser evil with the best shot to win produces a better outcome than voting for true preferences that are likely to lose.

This problem of plurality mechanics could be largely addressed by instant runoff voting [2], which allows people to vote for their true preferences without fear of throwing their vote away. Of course the people in power don't want to make it harder to retain power, so getting something like this implemented is very difficult without a referendum.

This is just my speculation, but it seems that a two-party system removes most of the incentive for pursuing nuanced, independent thought. The depth of the decision you have to make is choosing one team or the other, and defaulting to their stances on most issues, or by a mix of resignation and cognitive dissonance, ignoring the areas of disagreement. And once you've made the decision for which team to be on (or inherited from your parents), it's usually set-it-and-forget-it.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#46

Post by jensen123 »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #44
jensen123 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. Why do they do this? Because the politicians who spend the most money on advertising generally win the elections, right? I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is the failure of democracy with universal suffrage. Most of the voters don't seem to be independent thinkers. They could have voted for politicians who haven't been "bought". But they don't. For ex…

This is more a problem with vote distribution. The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different. Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats. This is not the case in all d…

I suppose you have a valid point. I have one question, though: aren't political TV ads actually illegal in most European countries?

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#47

Post by WildUtah »

crdoconnor wrote: post #31
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah like a five person team who's CEO spends 70% of time fundraising is probably fine. But an ENTIRE team that spends 70% of their time fundraising perpetually would be about as effective as Congress actually is.

Congresspeople have staffers who do not fundraise.

"The MRA for each Representative is calculated based on three components, including personnel, which is the same for each Member ($944,671 for each Member in 2014)"

"Each Member may use the MRA to employ no more than 18 permanent employees, a level that has remained unchanged for nearly four decades. A Member may employ up to four additional [part-time] employees "[0]

So each congressman can hire 18 people for about a million dollars total, including both district and DC staff and not including himself. That's a good size startup. Congressmen who do spend a lot of time fundraising (not all of them -- hundreds in safe districts don't bother) are like the CEO of that office raising the money while staffers do the work at his direction.

[0]http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/114_20150106_...

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#48

Post by JetSpiegel »

jensen123 wrote: post #46
throwaway13337 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more a problem with vote distribution. The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different. Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can only allow for major parties to hold seats. This is not the case in all d…

I suppose you have a valid point. I have one question, though: aren't political TV ads actually illegal in most European countries?

At least I never seen anything like what Jon Stewart showed. There are political TV ads during the official campaigns, but that's two weeks before the elections and it's just 1h where the ads run all in a big block.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#49

Post by jensen123 »

Let's say that Larry Lessig succeeds. What would happen then? Would it be primarily journalists who would influence the government then, rather than corporations and rich people? Journalists tend to be left-leaning. The left is probably better on some issues, such as the environment, however, they aren't always so good for the economy and entrepreneurs. Personally, I'm really not sure whether the US would be a better or worse place without money in politics.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#50

Post by fmjrey »

natch wrote: post #11

I love Lessig but speaking of mistakes, he should do a poll about his glasses. Whether he switches to something more likable or not will be an indicator of how savvy he would be on the job.

I'm assuming half of your point is humour and the other is the fact you don't like his glasses.

It is on this second half I'd like to comment.

It shifts the focus on form rather than content. Sure form has its non-negligible role, but in politics and most domains it should never take precedence over content, the actual message itself. And here lies one part of the problem Lessig is trying to go after: the corruption of our mind in its ability to be seduced by form at the expense of content. It is that kind of corruption that makes it possible for movie actors without real political substance to become president. It is that kind of corruption that makes the present political system a democratic farce.

If we want him to succeed we have to do our part too, and it's precisely because we haven't for ages, that we have such situation today. Even if he succeeds and changes the rules of the political game, if we the people also don't change the way we think, then this can start all over again in 4 years without us even realizing.

So maybe he could do with another pair of glasses, but we the people also need another pair of glasses.

Deal?

Post reply on HN