4 ms·

So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. The worst that coul

by qrendel 11y ago

So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. The worst that could be said is that perhaps a one-issue candidate isn't a viable contender for the presidency, but that should be up to the voters, not up to a small group of political insiders to decide who our choices for the nomination are. That's kind of the idea behind his entire campaign.

nkurz 11y ago
So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. Yes, the purpose of a political party is to further the goals of the leadership of that party. The party has concluded (likely correctly) that including Lessig in their debates will not further their agenda. It seems strangely naive (or possibly disingenuous) for Lessig to suggest that there is something unexpected about this.
- qrendel 11y ago
  The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy (slash representative republic). They aren't doing us all a favor by serving as gatekeepers to which platforms we get to support. It's also representative of their opinion of Lessig's views and platforms, which isn't a positive reflection on them, imo. This is also just the nomination, not having him compete as a second candidate in the general election, so whoever would likely beat him would likely still go on to win the nomination. Keeping him out only directly serves to silence him; it's not like Bernie would end up beating out Clinton for the nomination as a result of letting Lessig run alongside them.
  - nkurz 11y ago
    The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy I think we agree. I'm just pointing out that this is not a problem with this specific decision by the Democratic party, but an inherent problem with any system that allows a small number of powerful political parties to act as the gatekeepers deciding who can appear on the ballot. This is the system we have, and it is an impediment to democracy.
jacobolus 11y ago
No, it’s not only “up to the inner circle”, but if you’re going to seriously run for president, you need to spend years building a credible campaign, and demonstrate (e.g. to qualified campaign staffers, grassroots organizers, donors, key party constituent institutions, the news media, etc.) that you know what you’re doing and have a chance. Most of the above groups are risk averse, so this is a non-trivial project. People who succeed at it spend a large chunk of their career on the process. The “easy” way to build up the understanding and support to play this game is to get elected to some lower office, and spend years working within the system, raising money, working with other elected officials, getting to know all the key players. That is to say, you have to engage with the process and earn some credibility before the process engages with you. There are other ways to earn that kind of respect/attention as an outsider, but they are equally long-term and difficult. (Alternately, if you are a billionaire like Donald Trump, or have some billionaire buddies, you can run from outside purely on money and media attention, for better or worse. But that’s also not what’s happening here.) Lessig’s op-ed here comes across sort of like the complaints of an antisocial shut-in who went to a club one time and was upset that nobody would dance with him. “They just dance with those other guys because they don’t want to hear the truth.”
- qrendel 11y ago
  Keeping Lessig out is serving the interests of the political elite though and (again) is a reflection on the interests of the DNC, part of what Lessig's entire spiel is. The issue isn't that he can't raise enough money to start a campaign, or that he probably wouldn't win in the end, it's that he's not given equal consideration by being kept out of the debates and given only token speaking time at the convention. I can certainly understand the rational self-interest for them in doing so (i.e. controlling the image of the democratic party, giving Hillary a better chance in the general election through more speaking time now, less chance of his hurting another runner's campaign by doing well in a debate), but that doesn't mean it's good for the democratic process - it's just another way of controlling it so that people are only allowed to vote on a couple of pre-approved candidates who barely differ in any meaningful way.
  - jacobolus 11y ago

by qrendel 11y ago

nkurz 11y ago

So it's up to the inner circle of the DNC to decide which candidates aren't a "waste of time"? I thought that was up to the primary voters. Yes, the purpose of a political party is to further the goals of the leadership of that party. The party has concluded (likely correctly) that including Lessig in their debates will not further their agenda. It seems strangely naive (or possibly disingenuous) for Lessig to suggest that there is something unexpected about this.

qrendel 11y ago
The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy (slash representative republic). They aren't doing us all a favor by serving as gatekeepers to which platforms we get to support. It's also representative of their opinion of Lessig's views and platforms, which isn't a positive reflection on them, imo. This is also just the nomination, not having him compete as a second candidate in the general election, so whoever would likely beat him would likely still go on to win the nomination. Keeping him out only directly serves to silence him; it's not like Bernie would end up beating out Clinton for the nomination as a result of letting Lessig run alongside them.
- nkurz 11y ago
  The point is that if voters would otherwise support someone, but they can't run because an inner circle of political elites won't let them, then those people are an obstruction to democracy I think we agree. I'm just pointing out that this is not a problem with this specific decision by the Democratic party, but an inherent problem with any system that allows a small number of powerful political parties to act as the gatekeepers deciding who can appear on the ballot. This is the system we have, and it is an impediment to democracy.

jacobolus 11y ago

No, it’s not only “up to the inner circle”, but if you’re going to seriously run for president, you need to spend years building a credible campaign, and demonstrate (e.g. to qualified campaign staffers, grassroots organizers, donors, key party constituent institutions, the news media, etc.) that you know what you’re doing and have a chance. Most of the above groups are risk averse, so this is a non-trivial project. People who succeed at it spend a large chunk of their career on the process. The “easy” way to build up the understanding and support to play this game is to get elected to some lower office, and spend years working within the system, raising money, working with other elected officials, getting to know all the key players. That is to say, you have to engage with the process and earn some credibility before the process engages with you. There are other ways to earn that kind of respect/attention as an outsider, but they are equally long-term and difficult. (Alternately, if you are a billionaire like Donald Trump, or have some billionaire buddies, you can run from outside purely on money and media attention, for better or worse. But that’s also not what’s happening here.) Lessig’s op-ed here comes across sort of like the complaints of an antisocial shut-in who went to a club one time and was upset that nobody would dance with him. “They just dance with those other guys because they don’t want to hear the truth.”

qrendel 11y ago
Keeping Lessig out is serving the interests of the political elite though and (again) is a reflection on the interests of the DNC, part of what Lessig's entire spiel is. The issue isn't that he can't raise enough money to start a campaign, or that he probably wouldn't win in the end, it's that he's not given equal consideration by being kept out of the debates and given only token speaking time at the convention. I can certainly understand the rational self-interest for them in doing so (i.e. controlling the image of the democratic party, giving Hillary a better chance in the general election through more speaking time now, less chance of his hurting another runner's campaign by doing well in a debate), but that doesn't mean it's good for the democratic process - it's just another way of controlling it so that people are only allowed to vote on a couple of pre-approved candidates who barely differ in any meaningful way.
- jacobolus 11y ago