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

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#81

Post by techdragon »

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…

A big part of the problem is voter turnout.

If you make voting a requirement, like paying your taxes. It changes the environment around an election. You spend less time and money trying to convince apathetic voters to take time out of their work day to vote.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#82

Post by Bud »

zeckalpha wrote: post #80
Bud wrote: post #79

Lessig should do something useful and realistic, instead of this grandstanding and pretending that he can go from zero-to-President in 2.4 seconds as if politics were some sort of Tesla. It's embarrassing. To wit: he should run for the House, or Senate, or he should support candidates who are in favor of overturning Citizens United (i.e., Democrats).

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 understands our system well enough to know this. So why is he doing this very expensive pretending that him being President will cause any change? If a Democrat in the White House could magically fix this, Obama would fix it right now.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#83

Post by Svip »

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…

Oh how quickly we forget. The 20 candidates between the two major parties isn't actually significant. I decided to check out the primaries from the U.S. Presidential elections since and including 1980 to see how many mayor candidates were fielded in each of the parties' primaries.

Which 20 (or 22 if you count the time when Scott Walker and Rick Perry was still running, which is only fair), then yes, 2016 is in the upper bracket, but not an outlier. Both 2008 and 1988 had 22 candidates running for president.

Here is a handy list:

    2012: Democrats: 1,  Republicans: 13. (Total: 14.)
    2008: Democrats: 10, Republicans: 12. (Total: 22.)
    2004: Democrats: 11, Republicans: 1.  (Total: 12.)
    2000: Democrats: 2,  Republicans: 13. (Total: 15.)
    1996: Democrats: 3,  Republicans: 10. (Total: 13 + 1.)
    1992: Democrats: 8,  Republicans: 7.  (Total: 15 + 1.)
    1988: Democrats: 13, Republicans: 9.  (Total: 22.)
    1984: Democrats: 8,  Republicans: 2.  (Total: 10.)
    1980: Democrats: 4,  Republicans: 10. (Total: 14 + 1.)
The reason there are 15 candidates on the Republican side has little to do with Citizens United and unlimited money in politics, but rather because the Republican Party is in disarray lacking an ability to field a strong candidate.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have a pretty strong hand with Hillary Clinton.

The 2008 book The Party Decides pretty much runs down how the primaries are mostly a show, and it's really the party leadership that decides who gets to be the nominee. No presidential candidate since and including 1980 have become their parties' nominee without endorsement from the party leadership.

Additionally, you are not getting more choice. Unless you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. If you live elsewhere, the primaries are likely to have been decided, so your vote will have little meaning. And by the time you get to the general election, you will - as in any U.S. presidential election - have two choices.

Money are not creating all these candidates, chaos is. And either way, you are not getting more choice.

A better solution to your problem might be encouraging third parties by abolishing your First past the Post system. Switch to party-list proportional representation in Congress and have the popular vote decide the presidential election.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#84

Post by yummyfajitas »

mtgx wrote: post #78
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…

I disagree. Do you want "more choices" that are paid and pre-selected by the same 200 richest families? Or do you want actual choices supported by the People , who get their money not from few large donations, but from many small ones. In the latter's case, you can have serious campaign finance reform, without restricting your real choices. What we want is for the money "vote" to be an equalizer just like the regular…

Your reply is completely nonresponsive to bsbechtel's point.

The point, stated more explicitly. There is a relatively small overton window permitted by the media - this is essentially what Chomsky would call "flak machines" and Moldbug would call the "cathedral". The "People", as you call them, will simply support whoever the media chooses to anoint. This set of candidates will basically be nothing but a few left wing Republicans and establishment Democrats (think Bush/Romney/Hillary) and we'll get more of the same.

In contrast, the richest 200 families are far less monolithic than the media. Money actually makes it possible for choices that the media establishment dislikes to get real traction. For example, Ross Perot or Donald Trump. If the People like such a candidate, they can then vote for that candidate.

tl;dr; The media has network effects which enforce a narrow overton window. In contrast, one eccentric rich guy can - if he chooses to spend lots of money - break through that and get other ideas out there.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#85

Post by crdoconnor »

lewisl9029 wrote: post #63
crdoconnor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any other election he'd have been right. This time there's Bernie Sanders, who is pretty much the first presidential candidate to support common sense laws. He raises money from lots of small donors with interests like you and me rather than a few big donors with interests diametrically opposed to you and me.

As awesome as Sanders is, I also happen to agree with Lessig in that campaign finance reform needs to take priority over every other issue. Sanders is fighting for the right issues, but without campaign finance reform, every issue worth fighting for is going to face an almost impossible uphill battle.

Sanders also wants to reform campaign finance.

Lessig should throw his weight behind Sanders if he wants to have an actual impact.

As it is, if he takes even a few votes away from Sanders he could end up giving away the primaries to, well, Clinton, who isn't going to do anything about campaign finance.

Progressives need to learn that being divided with people who basically agree with them is how they lose elections.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#86

Post by crdoconnor »

aidos wrote: post #67
mikegioia wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanders' self-claimed biggest issue is climate change, which in my opinion trumps campaign finance reform.

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.

American politics is pretty broken but it's not so broken that nothing is achievable without campaign finance reform.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#87

Post by saalweachter »

lewisl9029 wrote: post #63
crdoconnor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any other election he'd have been right. This time there's Bernie Sanders, who is pretty much the first presidential candidate to support common sense laws. He raises money from lots of small donors with interests like you and me rather than a few big donors with interests diametrically opposed to you and me.

As awesome as Sanders is, I also happen to agree with Lessig in that campaign finance reform needs to take priority over every other issue. Sanders is fighting for the right issues, but without campaign finance reform, every issue worth fighting for is going to face an almost impossible uphill battle.

Fun fact! Contra Lessig's plan to resign after magically gaining support for campaign finance reform from the two other branches of government, Presidents can do more than one thing per term! That means it is possible for a President Sanders to take action on both climate change and campaign finance reform, assuming the other two branches of government are amenable.

Amazing but true!

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#88

Post by throwaway13337 »

techdragon wrote: post #81
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…

A big part of the problem is voter turnout. If you make voting a requirement, like paying your taxes. It changes the environment around an election. You spend less time and money trying to convince apathetic voters to take time out of their work day to vote.

Voting hardly matters when there are two parties available representing largely the same company and pac interests.

I know this is unpopular to say, but if you'd like to make a difference in governance, you have to pay for it.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#89

Post by komaromy »

saalweachter wrote: post #87
lewisl9029 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As awesome as Sanders is, I also happen to agree with Lessig in that campaign finance reform needs to take priority over every other issue. Sanders is fighting for the right issues, but without campaign finance reform, every issue worth fighting for is going to face an almost impossible uphill battle.

Fun fact! Contra Lessig's plan to resign after magically gaining support for campaign finance reform from the two other branches of government, Presidents can do more than one thing per term! That means it is possible for a President Sanders to take action on both climate change and campaign finance reform, assuming the other two branches of government are amenable. Amazing but true!

Obama came into office with the same idea, then expended pretty much all of his political capital on passing the ACA. Lessig's plan seems to be on the same order.

Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In

#90

Post by GPGPU »

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…

People always say they don't like "Politicians" but politicians get things done. People who know how to make deals and bargains.
Post reply on HN