3 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. Yes, the purpose of

by 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.

by nkurz 11y ago

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.