3 ms·

I think it's great that Lessig is interested in running, but I think the intent of being a single-issue "referendum president" is, to be polite, misguided. It'

by Ankaios 11y ago

I think it's great that Lessig is interested in running, but I think the intent of being a single-issue "referendum president" is, to be polite, misguided. It's not actually the choice of the president whether a single issue is the only issue, regardless of how much he might want that to be the case. If elected, he would have to run the executive branch, which means he would need to select a cabinet, unless he is planning on just hanging on to the previous guy's choices until he has finished his quest. We're going to judge him on his perceived ability to do that, as well as everything else a president has to do. Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? His running mate will have be chosen far more carefully than normal. Also, why would I be willing to leave the decision about the replacement vice president to a bunch of people in Washington? By pledging to quit, he is effectively eliminating our direct voice on half of the ticket. Mr. Lessig, if you want a chance at my vote you have to run for real and commit to serving your full term to the best of your abilities. I hope you do—I think you are up to the task.

omginternets 11y ago
I'm not sure I follow. If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable (see 2000 - 2004) and the good that would come out of fixing campaign corruption would be immeasurable. >Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? Because he doesn't think he is competent to run the country; he thinks he's competent to fix a specific problem. I just found out about this guy 10 minutes ago, but I very much welcome this kind of discourse and honestly wish there were more of it.
- Ankaios 11y ago
  If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Lessig would have to govern until he finished enacting his agenda. That could take years. Plus, selecting a good cabinet would off-load distractions from him, allowing him to focus more on his core objectives. Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable A "survivable" term isn't the threshold I personally use when voting for candidates. :)
  - omginternets 11y ago
    >A "survivable" term isn't the criteria I personally use for choosing presidents. :) That's fair enough, but I would counter that: 1. We've been settling for "survivable" terms for the past 10 years 2. Some people will take a hit for the greater good. I really wish you would be willing to do that too. That said, maybe you don't think Lessig's agenda would be serving the greater good, in which case I'd be interested in knowing why.
    - Ankaios 11y ago
      I think his agenda is great. (I might quibble about things like ranked-choice versus approval voting, but that's immaterial for the moment.) I just think he's going to have to govern while trying to achieve that agenda, and I suspect he can do that successfully, so I'd like him to run for real rather than planning to quit after he's done.
geofft 11y ago
Those seem like procedural issues -- the sort of things that, if it were a technical proposal, I would write up in a detailed RFC or spec but not in the blog post. The campaign website is basically the blog post. I'm obviously not Lessig, but those issues sound pretty straightforwardly solvable: 1. Allow your VP to appoint the cabinet members they want, and have them continue to run the executive branches as usual. Delegate everything other than the signature of bills from Congress to your VP: since the duties of the president are "decide whether" or "decide who" unless you're at war, delegation doesn't need a formal mechanism. Veto everything except the reform bills, then wait, like, two days for the Senate to realize they can't get 67 of themselves to agree on anything. 2. You want to vote for him because while you and I might be enthusiastic about Lessig as a person, the country is not. Lessig->Clinton is much more likely to win the Democratic nomination than Lessig/Kerr or whatever, and I'd rather have Lessig get to be president for a day than never. 3. Run with the future-VP's name on the ticket, and get a promise from your VP, during the campaign, to appoint them. Make that a condition of stepping down. Obviously the VP technically can lie until the day they become president, but if you have a president who's willing to lie that much to the country and the party, you have bigger problems. 3a. (You never had a direct voice anyway. If you wanted Obama but not Biden, or McCain without Palin, or Lincoln without Johnson, you never really had an effective choice in the matter. All you could do is vote for another ticket entirely. This isn't making the situation any worse.)

by Ankaios 11y ago

omginternets 11y ago

I'm not sure I follow. If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable (see 2000 - 2004) and the good that would come out of fixing campaign corruption would be immeasurable. >Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected? Because he doesn't think he is competent to run the country; he thinks he's competent to fix a specific problem. I just found out about this guy 10 minutes ago, but I very much welcome this kind of discourse and honestly wish there were more of it.

Ankaios 11y ago
If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet? Lessig would have to govern until he finished enacting his agenda. That could take years. Plus, selecting a good cabinet would off-load distractions from him, allowing him to focus more on his core objectives. Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable A "survivable" term isn't the threshold I personally use when voting for candidates. :)
- omginternets 11y ago
  >A "survivable" term isn't the criteria I personally use for choosing presidents. :) That's fair enough, but I would counter that: 1. We've been settling for "survivable" terms for the past 10 years 2. Some people will take a hit for the greater good. I really wish you would be willing to do that too. That said, maybe you don't think Lessig's agenda would be serving the greater good, in which case I'd be interested in knowing why.
  - Ankaios 11y ago
    I think his agenda is great. (I might quibble about things like ranked-choice versus approval voting, but that's immaterial for the moment.) I just think he's going to have to govern while trying to achieve that agenda, and I suspect he can do that successfully, so I'd like him to run for real rather than planning to quit after he's done.

geofft 11y ago

Those seem like procedural issues -- the sort of things that, if it were a technical proposal, I would write up in a detailed RFC or spec but not in the blog post. The campaign website is basically the blog post. I'm obviously not Lessig, but those issues sound pretty straightforwardly solvable: 1. Allow your VP to appoint the cabinet members they want, and have them continue to run the executive branches as usual. Delegate everything other than the signature of bills from Congress to your VP: since the duties of the president are "decide whether" or "decide who" unless you're at war, delegation doesn't need a formal mechanism. Veto everything except the reform bills, then wait, like, two days for the Senate to realize they can't get 67 of themselves to agree on anything. 2. You want to vote for him because while you and I might be enthusiastic about Lessig as a person, the country is not. Lessig->Clinton is much more likely to win the Democratic nomination than Lessig/Kerr or whatever, and I'd rather have Lessig get to be president for a day than never. 3. Run with the future-VP's name on the ticket, and get a promise from your VP, during the campaign, to appoint them. Make that a condition of stepping down. Obviously the VP technically can lie until the day they become president, but if you have a president who's willing to lie that much to the country and the party, you have bigger problems. 3a. (You never had a direct voice anyway. If you wanted Obama but not Biden, or McCain without Palin, or Lincoln without Johnson, you never really had an effective choice in the matter. All you could do is vote for another ticket entirely. This isn't making the situation any worse.)