5 ms·

I don't want any corporate involvement in our election system. I don't care if you're a startup.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
That's impossible to the point that it's completely preposterous. Utter insanity. Even if you could change the law so that corporate involvement of all types were illegal (not happening) corporations would still be involved behind the scenes. I think there is a fundamental difference between a corporation offering (relatively) agnostic tools to help voters vote more in accordance with their (the voter's) values and a corporation which is trying to actively influence the election according to the corporation's values. Why do you want to lump them together? And what goal do you think you're furthering by pushing the idea of an election without corporate involvement?
- manicdee 10y ago
  There are many countries around the world with actual democracies where elections and vote counts are run by governments with citizens scrutineering. It is not impossible.
  - ughsrsly 10y ago
    What a crazy idea! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    This is the case in the United States. Maybe there are some exceptions, but elections are generally run by each county, with county officials supervising citizen volunteers. Citizens are also able to inspect the equipment and process.
- phs318u 10y ago
  What goal? How about consistency - equal method, equal process, equal treatment, equal oversight regardless of who you are, where you live or where you vote. It's done in Australia. http://aec.gov.au/ http://aec.gov.au/
- supernintendo 10y ago
  It all comes down to the age-old question of "who watches the watchmen?" We can never be sure that the tools a corporation is providing are truly "agnostic" because corporations exist for only one reason: to maximize profits. We can't expect them to look out for "voters' values" because voters are not their shareholders. Even vote.org, which is an nonprofit, raises questions of impartiality. Where do they get the phone numbers of unregistered voters and how do we know they won't attempt to sway them toward a particular candidate or political party (look into social architecture)? There is no way to know without 100% transparency and I personally don't trust this organization as far as I can throw it. Collusion between corporations and politics is an anathema to democracy. Your vote doesn't mean shit unless you have the capital to back it up. Take a look at WikiLeaks or the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Our political voices are falling on deaf ears because most of our representatives are bought and paid for. I would rather not go down this road when it comes to the core mechanisms of our electoral system (but I'm sure that's already well underway).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    How would you propose information about the candidates be disseminated without corporate involvement? Would you prefer Google remove links to political information, and newspapers refrain from reporting on political events, because those things are collusion between corporations and politics just as much as the tool which is the topic of discussion. For that matter, better prohibit phone calls between voters about their government, because the then the telco is aiding in political collusion too.
    - supernintendo 10y ago
      My original statement pertains specifically to the election system by which I mean voting machines, voter registration, the drawing of electoral districts and so on. That's all purely logistical. If you think CNN or Google is biased, you're free to choose a competitor. If your elected officials are taking money from lobbyists who don't serve your interests, you can demand change or vote them out of office. If the mechanics of the electoral process has been manipulated by special interest groups, how certain can you be that your vote will even count? Corporatism has had many negative effects on western democracy but I'd rather not add rubber stamp elections to the list.
jdminhbg 10y ago
According to TFA, Vote.org is a non-profit.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Non-profits are still corporations.
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    I thought I was being charitable in interpreting "corporation" as "for-profit corporation," because the literal sense of not wanting any formally organized group of people working in elections is pretty nutty.

That's impossible to the point that it's completely preposterous. Utter insanity. Even if you could change the law so that corporate involvement of all types were illegal (not happening) corporations would still be involved behind the scenes. I think there is a fundamental difference between a corporation offering (relatively) agnostic tools to help voters vote more in accordance with their (the voter's) values and a corporation which is trying to actively influence the election according to the corporation's values. Why do you want to lump them together? And what goal do you think you're furthering by pushing the idea of an election without corporate involvement?

manicdee 10y ago
There are many countries around the world with actual democracies where elections and vote counts are run by governments with citizens scrutineering. It is not impossible.
- ughsrsly 10y ago
  What a crazy idea! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada
- maxerickson 10y ago
  This is the case in the United States. Maybe there are some exceptions, but elections are generally run by each county, with county officials supervising citizen volunteers. Citizens are also able to inspect the equipment and process.
phs318u 10y ago
What goal? How about consistency - equal method, equal process, equal treatment, equal oversight regardless of who you are, where you live or where you vote. It's done in Australia. http://aec.gov.au/ http://aec.gov.au/
supernintendo 10y ago
It all comes down to the age-old question of "who watches the watchmen?" We can never be sure that the tools a corporation is providing are truly "agnostic" because corporations exist for only one reason: to maximize profits. We can't expect them to look out for "voters' values" because voters are not their shareholders. Even vote.org, which is an nonprofit, raises questions of impartiality. Where do they get the phone numbers of unregistered voters and how do we know they won't attempt to sway them toward a particular candidate or political party (look into social architecture)? There is no way to know without 100% transparency and I personally don't trust this organization as far as I can throw it. Collusion between corporations and politics is an anathema to democracy. Your vote doesn't mean shit unless you have the capital to back it up. Take a look at WikiLeaks or the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Our political voices are falling on deaf ears because most of our representatives are bought and paid for. I would rather not go down this road when it comes to the core mechanisms of our electoral system (but I'm sure that's already well underway).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  How would you propose information about the candidates be disseminated without corporate involvement? Would you prefer Google remove links to political information, and newspapers refrain from reporting on political events, because those things are collusion between corporations and politics just as much as the tool which is the topic of discussion. For that matter, better prohibit phone calls between voters about their government, because the then the telco is aiding in political collusion too.
  - supernintendo 10y ago
    My original statement pertains specifically to the election system by which I mean voting machines, voter registration, the drawing of electoral districts and so on. That's all purely logistical. If you think CNN or Google is biased, you're free to choose a competitor. If your elected officials are taking money from lobbyists who don't serve your interests, you can demand change or vote them out of office. If the mechanics of the electoral process has been manipulated by special interest groups, how certain can you be that your vote will even count? Corporatism has had many negative effects on western democracy but I'd rather not add rubber stamp elections to the list.

jdminhbg 10y ago

According to TFA, Vote.org is a non-profit.

ams6110 10y ago
Non-profits are still corporations.
- jdminhbg 10y ago
  I thought I was being charitable in interpreting "corporation" as "for-profit corporation," because the literal sense of not wanting any formally organized group of people working in elections is pretty nutty.