5 ms·

So why draw the line at disclosure? Why not abolish the secret ballot, if politics should be a "contact sport" as you say. If anything, votes are even more powe

So why draw the line at disclosure? Why not abolish the secret ballot, if politics should be a "contact sport" as you say. If anything, votes are even more powerful and important than money.

ddingus 11y ago
Oh, now I can reply. Must be a glitch. Let me make an edit and take care of a few things.. This is a good topic, and your question warrants dome discussion.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I've noticed this strange quirk of Hacker News. When a comment is new, you can reply by going to its permalink (clicking the timestamp), but not in context. (Awaiting your reply!)
  - ddingus 11y ago
    That is what happened. More in a bit.
ddingus 11y ago
There isn't any "should be" in politics. It IS a contact sport. Always has been. I am, at this time, unsure if votes actually are more important than money. They are supposed to be, and in theory they are. The law says they are. But, the reality of how things play out is very seriously questionable at best. The secret vote assures every voter is free to vote their conscience, free of coercion, discrimination, etc... Right now, we've got Gerrymandering, attacks on the Voting Rights Act, and lots of other efforts to basically cut down on the number of voters voting! It's a simple, "we don't like those other people" kind of dynamic doing us no real good. Public votes, say against large corporations, would lead to people failing job searches quite often, would it not? Public votes might result in things like, North Korea having an election that went 100 percent for the supreme leader. Who would dissent? On a basic level, making the vote public would discourage voting and increase discrimination. I can't see a reason to hold someone accountable for voting their best interests, can you? I can totally see people wanting to punish and or reward people for votes they don't like, or do like. But that isn't what voting is for! Voting is where the "free" comes from in "free" society. If we are controlled or very significantly pressured to vote in ways the power likes, does that not only serve the power? Of course it does, which is why we don't do it. Speech is different. It's the debate, and it's about settling lots of issues that law really does not cover well. We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. That's also where the "free" in free society comes from. So, then what about the freedom of those with lots of money? The "money is speech" and "corporations are people" proponents are basically erecting shields and proxies through which they can do things that impact a lot of people without those people knowing who did it to them. That's not OK. Worse, we can't really vote out people with money. They tend to own things and when they own them, they tend to exert control over them, and that impacts us. If we elect a bad leader, we can debate that, vote and try again. The key here is we know who holds the power. When it's anonymous money and proxies, we don't know anything really. Our elections, law, lives could be impacted by some hater from the other side of the world, who just happens to prefer nordic women to black women, for example. A silly one, but I don't want to offend anyone here. With power comes some responsibility and accountability, otherwise, it's just raw power and greed. That's not OK either. Disclosure would at least bring some personal responsibility to everyone in politics, not just those who lack the means to hide it from everyone. I would much prefer we fund elections with public money, require disclosure on political spending, and vote our best interests however we see them after processing all of that. But, it may just be enough to require disclosure. If somebody spends a few hundred million large on gay or minority or woman hostile advocacy, all of those people impacted can and should respond in like kind. This is going to limit the kinds of things people spend on, and those limits are appropriate checks on what is otherwise a lot of raw power. In the same vein, someone dropping a few hundred million large on STEM policy advocacy to make the nation compete better, all of those people impacted need to respond in like kind too. It may be a good response, or maybe the STEM advocacy is harmful somehow. Whatever the case. The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Proponents of Citizens United made a basic market of ideas and freedom argument. Great! That's what they got too, and we've seen it play out for a while now. Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? Vote to require disclosure. That's a great first step, and a step of that nature is precisely why we can't have a public vote. Say we vote it, and it fails by just a little tiny bit. What would be the response of those who want to continue acting anonymously through proxies? Target the shit out of those anti voters. Why not? They have the bucks, they have the shield, and they get to speak without ever being spoken to, just like kings, lords and nobility of the old world we left to form this nation!
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  >The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Spending money on advocacy doesn't do anything except try to convince people. People don't need to be protected from bad opinions. They're perfectly capable of sorting it out for themselves. There are people spending billions of dollars to advance all sorts of political ideas. Most of them will fail. At the end of the day, the ballot box is where the final power lies. There are many donors on the left that are engaging in the same kind of advocacy as the Koch brothers and other donors are on the right. If you think that your views are underrepresented, get involved. You don't even need to donate a single cent to make an impact. All of these organizations are hungry for volunteers. >We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. Anonymity is not just the for the rich and powerful, you can see it in force on the internet everyday. Have you seen the politics section of Reddit? A lot of vitriolic and inaccurate things about conservatives and the right (and the left too, in many cases) are said behind the veil of anonymity. Things that people would not dare say on-the-record. There's equally hateful things coming out of some conservative web forums. Should we ban anonymous comments online? >Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? This is the crux of it. Some people don't like the outcomes of American politics, and so they want to get the upper hand by neutering the freedom of those that they disagree with. You should change your focus to winning in the realm of ideas, not censorship or intimidation. If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to.
  - ddingus 11y ago
    First, please discontinue implications that I'm seeking to remedy outcomes I don't like by censoring or somehow attempting to seek advantages over those who are responsible for those outcomes. That's not the argument I've made, nor will I make it. The argument is one of trust. Massive amounts of dollars in the process simply isn't trustworthy. There is no way it can be trustworthy. Secondly, if we are to keep the dollars involved, and we need to trust the process, and I submit we do need to trust the process, then disclosure is the minimum needed for that trust to be meaningful. Your comparison of anon dollars to comments made by people online is quite frankly, laughable. I won't address it further. "Winning in the realm of ideas" and "If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to." Some how you have attempted to make this about me. Please reconsider that as well. It's not good form. Censorship and intimidation? LOL Really, these are the framing used by people who want to speak loudly and frequently, while not being spoken to themselves. Linking that to a "merit" and "market of ideas" argument is also, frankly, laughable! A debate goes both ways, and it's a contact sport for a reason. If I were to say, like Trump has, "All the fat girls just gotta go." that's deplorable! Right? Or, it's laughable too, depending on how it's all taken and presented. But it's not an idea with any real merit. If I can say that, loud, over a sustained amount of time, with complete impunity, what else can I say and get away with? Anything? What that is is a shouting match, not politics. And it's not healthy, nor meaningful discourse. On the other hand, if "ddingus" says we need to get rid of all the fat girls now, and that's linked to me, and I spend a lot of money on it? Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. Good, that's how it should work, and that's one of the primary reasons the First Amendment does not have a shield in it too. Prevents really bad ideas from even taking root, as it should. Linking anon comments to the need to "balance" that with large amounts of money because someone got butt hurt over some stuff they found on Reddit makes no sense at all. And I'll leave it there.
ddingus 11y ago
BTW, I find your "freedom at work" argument compelling. Disclosure is not something I want to see ignored. With it in place, we may well find the rest of the idea behind Citizens United play out in workable ways. I'm not extreme in these things, just civic minded and the current dynamics do not have enough checks and balances to make longer term sense. The same goes for corporations as people. So far, those who support that like the good parts, like speech. But, what about the other parts of being a person, like liability, accountability. We have a lot of work to do yet on that one.

So why draw the line at disclosure? Why not abolish the secret ballot, if politics should be a "contact sport" as you say. If anything, votes are even more powerful and important than money.

ddingus 11y ago

Oh, now I can reply. Must be a glitch. Let me make an edit and take care of a few things.. This is a good topic, and your question warrants dome discussion.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I've noticed this strange quirk of Hacker News. When a comment is new, you can reply by going to its permalink (clicking the timestamp), but not in context. (Awaiting your reply!)
- ddingus 11y ago
  That is what happened. More in a bit.

ddingus 11y ago

There isn't any "should be" in politics. It IS a contact sport. Always has been. I am, at this time, unsure if votes actually are more important than money. They are supposed to be, and in theory they are. The law says they are. But, the reality of how things play out is very seriously questionable at best. The secret vote assures every voter is free to vote their conscience, free of coercion, discrimination, etc... Right now, we've got Gerrymandering, attacks on the Voting Rights Act, and lots of other efforts to basically cut down on the number of voters voting! It's a simple, "we don't like those other people" kind of dynamic doing us no real good. Public votes, say against large corporations, would lead to people failing job searches quite often, would it not? Public votes might result in things like, North Korea having an election that went 100 percent for the supreme leader. Who would dissent? On a basic level, making the vote public would discourage voting and increase discrimination. I can't see a reason to hold someone accountable for voting their best interests, can you? I can totally see people wanting to punish and or reward people for votes they don't like, or do like. But that isn't what voting is for! Voting is where the "free" comes from in "free" society. If we are controlled or very significantly pressured to vote in ways the power likes, does that not only serve the power? Of course it does, which is why we don't do it. Speech is different. It's the debate, and it's about settling lots of issues that law really does not cover well. We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. That's also where the "free" in free society comes from. So, then what about the freedom of those with lots of money? The "money is speech" and "corporations are people" proponents are basically erecting shields and proxies through which they can do things that impact a lot of people without those people knowing who did it to them. That's not OK. Worse, we can't really vote out people with money. They tend to own things and when they own them, they tend to exert control over them, and that impacts us. If we elect a bad leader, we can debate that, vote and try again. The key here is we know who holds the power. When it's anonymous money and proxies, we don't know anything really. Our elections, law, lives could be impacted by some hater from the other side of the world, who just happens to prefer nordic women to black women, for example. A silly one, but I don't want to offend anyone here. With power comes some responsibility and accountability, otherwise, it's just raw power and greed. That's not OK either. Disclosure would at least bring some personal responsibility to everyone in politics, not just those who lack the means to hide it from everyone. I would much prefer we fund elections with public money, require disclosure on political spending, and vote our best interests however we see them after processing all of that. But, it may just be enough to require disclosure. If somebody spends a few hundred million large on gay or minority or woman hostile advocacy, all of those people impacted can and should respond in like kind. This is going to limit the kinds of things people spend on, and those limits are appropriate checks on what is otherwise a lot of raw power. In the same vein, someone dropping a few hundred million large on STEM policy advocacy to make the nation compete better, all of those people impacted need to respond in like kind too. It may be a good response, or maybe the STEM advocacy is harmful somehow. Whatever the case. The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Proponents of Citizens United made a basic market of ideas and freedom argument. Great! That's what they got too, and we've seen it play out for a while now. Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? Vote to require disclosure. That's a great first step, and a step of that nature is precisely why we can't have a public vote. Say we vote it, and it fails by just a little tiny bit. What would be the response of those who want to continue acting anonymously through proxies? Target the shit out of those anti voters. Why not? They have the bucks, they have the shield, and they get to speak without ever being spoken to, just like kings, lords and nobility of the old world we left to form this nation!

marcoperaza 11y ago
>The major difference is money being used to lead people, set policy, do advocacy, etc... Spending money on advocacy doesn't do anything except try to convince people. People don't need to be protected from bad opinions. They're perfectly capable of sorting it out for themselves. There are people spending billions of dollars to advance all sorts of political ideas. Most of them will fail. At the end of the day, the ballot box is where the final power lies. There are many donors on the left that are engaging in the same kind of advocacy as the Koch brothers and other donors are on the right. If you think that your views are underrepresented, get involved. You don't even need to donate a single cent to make an impact. All of these organizations are hungry for volunteers. >We can't, for example, make a reasonable, "don't be an asshole" type of law. But we can hold assholes accountable through speech in the hopes that they will reconsider being assholes, though they don't really have to do that. Anonymity is not just the for the rich and powerful, you can see it in force on the internet everyday. Have you seen the politics section of Reddit? A lot of vitriolic and inaccurate things about conservatives and the right (and the left too, in many cases) are said behind the veil of anonymity. Things that people would not dare say on-the-record. There's equally hateful things coming out of some conservative web forums. Should we ban anonymous comments online? >Many of us are not impressed with the outcome. How do we hold these anonymous forces acting through multiple corporate proxies to account for their negative influence on how we live, work, play, love? This is the crux of it. Some people don't like the outcomes of American politics, and so they want to get the upper hand by neutering the freedom of those that they disagree with. You should change your focus to winning in the realm of ideas, not censorship or intimidation. If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to.
- ddingus 11y ago
  First, please discontinue implications that I'm seeking to remedy outcomes I don't like by censoring or somehow attempting to seek advantages over those who are responsible for those outcomes. That's not the argument I've made, nor will I make it. The argument is one of trust. Massive amounts of dollars in the process simply isn't trustworthy. There is no way it can be trustworthy. Secondly, if we are to keep the dollars involved, and we need to trust the process, and I submit we do need to trust the process, then disclosure is the minimum needed for that trust to be meaningful. Your comparison of anon dollars to comments made by people online is quite frankly, laughable. I won't address it further. "Winning in the realm of ideas" and "If your ideas can't win on their merits alone, then maybe they don't deserve to." Some how you have attempted to make this about me. Please reconsider that as well. It's not good form. Censorship and intimidation? LOL Really, these are the framing used by people who want to speak loudly and frequently, while not being spoken to themselves. Linking that to a "merit" and "market of ideas" argument is also, frankly, laughable! A debate goes both ways, and it's a contact sport for a reason. If I were to say, like Trump has, "All the fat girls just gotta go." that's deplorable! Right? Or, it's laughable too, depending on how it's all taken and presented. But it's not an idea with any real merit. If I can say that, loud, over a sustained amount of time, with complete impunity, what else can I say and get away with? Anything? What that is is a shouting match, not politics. And it's not healthy, nor meaningful discourse. On the other hand, if "ddingus" says we need to get rid of all the fat girls now, and that's linked to me, and I spend a lot of money on it? Now, I'm the asshole, bat shit crazy nut. People can see that for what it is, ignore it, and they can take my reputation and rub my face in how shitty my advocacy really is. Good, that's how it should work, and that's one of the primary reasons the First Amendment does not have a shield in it too. Prevents really bad ideas from even taking root, as it should. Linking anon comments to the need to "balance" that with large amounts of money because someone got butt hurt over some stuff they found on Reddit makes no sense at all. And I'll leave it there.

ddingus 11y ago

BTW, I find your "freedom at work" argument compelling. Disclosure is not something I want to see ignored. With it in place, we may well find the rest of the idea behind Citizens United play out in workable ways. I'm not extreme in these things, just civic minded and the current dynamics do not have enough checks and balances to make longer term sense. The same goes for corporations as people. So far, those who support that like the good parts, like speech. But, what about the other parts of being a person, like liability, accountability. We have a lot of work to do yet on that one.