3 ms·

What't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign approach rather than convincing a more electable candidate to commit to the same reform? If there is enough

by nkurz 11y ago

What't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign approach rather than convincing a more electable candidate to commit to the same reform? If there is enough public support for Lessig to win the election, presumably there would be enough support for another candidate with more outside support (such as his designated successor) to win with the same platform. The main reason I can see is that Lessig himself views his promise of reform to be more reliable than any another candidate's promise. True or not, I think it would be difficult to convince the general electorate that he should be trusted more than any other candidate.

betenoire 11y ago
From his FAQ: > But if the major candidates in the Democratic Primary all credibly commit to making this same type of reform the first priority of the next administration, I have promised to step aside. This campaign is about a principle, not a person. He's not claiming it needs to be him, just that it needs to be someone
mtgx 11y ago
He doesn't even have to convince one about it - there already is a candidate that supports such reforms and that's Bernie Sanders. Is he guaranteed to win? No. But he sure as hell has a much better chance of winning than Lessig. He should use his crowdfunds to support him.
- jkestner 11y ago
  Yeah, but wouldn't it get people's attention if two candidates on stage at the debate spoke to the same issue? I imagine that will have a much bigger impact than one candidate who people already are inclined to dismiss as too far left. Safety in numbers.
300bps 11y ago
>What't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign Howard Stern did it in the run for Governor of New York in 1994. It wasn't successful: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-05/news/mn-23782_1_personality-howard-stern http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-05/news/mn-23782_1_perso...
quadrangle 11y ago
The entire point is that if you are an absolute ONE ISSUE candidate, then nobody can claim that your one issue isn't the real reason people elected you. Whereas Sanders could get elected and people could debate which of his policies the public really cares about…

by nkurz 11y ago

betenoire 11y ago

From his FAQ: > But if the major candidates in the Democratic Primary all credibly commit to making this same type of reform the first priority of the next administration, I have promised to step aside. This campaign is about a principle, not a person. He's not claiming it needs to be him, just that it needs to be someone

mtgx 11y ago

He doesn't even have to convince one about it - there already is a candidate that supports such reforms and that's Bernie Sanders. Is he guaranteed to win? No. But he sure as hell has a much better chance of winning than Lessig. He should use his crowdfunds to support him.

jkestner 11y ago
Yeah, but wouldn't it get people's attention if two candidates on stage at the debate spoke to the same issue? I imagine that will have a much bigger impact than one candidate who people already are inclined to dismiss as too far left. Safety in numbers.

300bps 11y ago

>What't the advantage of Lessig's win-reform-resign Howard Stern did it in the run for Governor of New York in 1994. It wasn't successful: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-05/news/mn-23782_1_personality-howard-stern http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-05/news/mn-23782_1_perso...

quadrangle 11y ago

The entire point is that if you are an absolute ONE ISSUE candidate, then nobody can claim that your one issue isn't the real reason people elected you. Whereas Sanders could get elected and people could debate which of his policies the public really cares about…