3 ms·

My big question is, who are these representatives signing these deals, and how are they not held accountable by voters? What voters actually want to give away h

My big question is, who are these representatives signing these deals, and how are they not held accountable by voters? What voters actually want to give away hundreds of millions of their tax dollars to the richest corporations?

bdcravens 8y ago
That gets to the underlying issue with all politics today: who is the real constituent? The voter, or the donor?
- germinalphrase 8y ago
  Further, if political seats are gerrymandered to protect incumbents - doesn’t this push politicians toward donor desires (and against constituent desires) as the most credible threat to their re-election is a well funded primary challenge?
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  Voters should be able to control their reps, via votes. If they can't, then the representative democracy is flawed and needs new legislation to fix it - and that case should be brought to the people, so they know how to vote to fix it.
  - chucksmash 8y ago
    > Voters should be able to control their reps, via votes. If they can't, then the representative democracy is flawed and needs new legislation to fix it The ballot box is a very low resolution feedback tool and an election cycle is a very long iteration cycle. Imagine you only had performance reviews every two years and the feedback from your boss was either "you're not as good as the next best choice, so you're fired" or "you're not fired right now." Voter willpower is diffuse (different people care about different things at different times) and only infrequently expressed. Special interest willpower can be much more acutely and frequently applied. It's hard to see how you can correct the imbalance between these two things given the current system and the inertia of incumbents who benefit from it.
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      You're right, it is hard. Here's one idea they could try, which I just pulled out of my ass over 10 minutes, so it may be very stupid. Term-defined performance goals. Before elections begin, each citizen can define a list of priorities, metrics, and multipliers of expected performance. These are used in a function to calculate a number that determines whether an elected official is performing according to the standards of the citizens. These "expectations" are collected, anonymized, and split up into groups of similar expectations. A candidate for office can select to align themselves to a specific group of expectations, or define their own and run on that as a platform. Either way they're going to have to live up to that set of expectations. Citizens vote for the candidate they feel best represents those expectations. At this point we're just "hoping" they come through on their promises; there's no guarantees. Once a candidate wins and begins their term, their performance is continually reviewed by the function. If a candidate's performance during their term drops below 50%, a performance review can be ordered, and more specific short term goals can be drawn up to see if they can rise to meet them. If their performance drops below 25%, a suggestion is automatically flagged to inform citizens they should vote this rep out at the next election cycle. The end results should be that citizens can more effectively inform representatives of what they want, they can track the progress of these representatives, and stay informed so that at the next election cycle they aren't just re-voting for the incumbent even if the incumbent didn't live up to expectations. In addition, a citizen no longer needs to vote according to a party; they simply define their personal expectations for government, and "parties" may naturally form according to real issues, rather than rhetoric, tradition, etc.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        That sounds insanely difficult to implement, potentially gameable by elected officials, and really difficult to do in a place that, say, is split somewhat evenly between Democrats and Republicans.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Yeah, but if we then vote out someone who made a bad deal, we're still stuck with that deal.
partiallypro 8y ago
Let's not act like the voters don't want this stuff, people were clamoring for Amazon to make their city its HQ. Not just politicians, the constituents. I think it's funny people think this is all because corporations buy politicians, but that's such a simplification of the issue. Sports franchises, landing factory jobs, etc are big "wins" for politicians because it makes people vote for them. People want to spend -other- people's money on things that benefit them or their community, even if it's short sighted. People want things now. Long term investments don't show gains for years, and as Keynes famously said, in the long run we're all dead.
- adjkant 8y ago
  Are people actually wanting Amazon? Many I know (on both classic political sides) are saying "anywhere but here".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomatotomato37 8y ago
The unemployed ones
djrogers 8y ago
A lot of people are willing to trade corporate tax revenue for new, local, high paying jobs. And regardless of the rhetoric used, that's exactly the idea here.

bdcravens 8y ago

That gets to the underlying issue with all politics today: who is the real constituent? The voter, or the donor?

germinalphrase 8y ago
Further, if political seats are gerrymandered to protect incumbents - doesn’t this push politicians toward donor desires (and against constituent desires) as the most credible threat to their re-election is a well funded primary challenge?
peterwwillis 8y ago
Voters should be able to control their reps, via votes. If they can't, then the representative democracy is flawed and needs new legislation to fix it - and that case should be brought to the people, so they know how to vote to fix it.
- chucksmash 8y ago
  > Voters should be able to control their reps, via votes. If they can't, then the representative democracy is flawed and needs new legislation to fix it The ballot box is a very low resolution feedback tool and an election cycle is a very long iteration cycle. Imagine you only had performance reviews every two years and the feedback from your boss was either "you're not as good as the next best choice, so you're fired" or "you're not fired right now." Voter willpower is diffuse (different people care about different things at different times) and only infrequently expressed. Special interest willpower can be much more acutely and frequently applied. It's hard to see how you can correct the imbalance between these two things given the current system and the inertia of incumbents who benefit from it.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    You're right, it is hard. Here's one idea they could try, which I just pulled out of my ass over 10 minutes, so it may be very stupid. Term-defined performance goals. Before elections begin, each citizen can define a list of priorities, metrics, and multipliers of expected performance. These are used in a function to calculate a number that determines whether an elected official is performing according to the standards of the citizens. These "expectations" are collected, anonymized, and split up into groups of similar expectations. A candidate for office can select to align themselves to a specific group of expectations, or define their own and run on that as a platform. Either way they're going to have to live up to that set of expectations. Citizens vote for the candidate they feel best represents those expectations. At this point we're just "hoping" they come through on their promises; there's no guarantees. Once a candidate wins and begins their term, their performance is continually reviewed by the function. If a candidate's performance during their term drops below 50%, a performance review can be ordered, and more specific short term goals can be drawn up to see if they can rise to meet them. If their performance drops below 25%, a suggestion is automatically flagged to inform citizens they should vote this rep out at the next election cycle. The end results should be that citizens can more effectively inform representatives of what they want, they can track the progress of these representatives, and stay informed so that at the next election cycle they aren't just re-voting for the incumbent even if the incumbent didn't live up to expectations. In addition, a citizen no longer needs to vote according to a party; they simply define their personal expectations for government, and "parties" may naturally form according to real issues, rather than rhetoric, tradition, etc.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      That sounds insanely difficult to implement, potentially gameable by elected officials, and really difficult to do in a place that, say, is split somewhat evenly between Democrats and Republicans.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Yeah, but if we then vote out someone who made a bad deal, we're still stuck with that deal.

partiallypro 8y ago

Let's not act like the voters don't want this stuff, people were clamoring for Amazon to make their city its HQ. Not just politicians, the constituents. I think it's funny people think this is all because corporations buy politicians, but that's such a simplification of the issue. Sports franchises, landing factory jobs, etc are big "wins" for politicians because it makes people vote for them. People want to spend -other- people's money on things that benefit them or their community, even if it's short sighted. People want things now. Long term investments don't show gains for years, and as Keynes famously said, in the long run we're all dead.

adjkant 8y ago
Are people actually wanting Amazon? Many I know (on both classic political sides) are saying "anywhere but here".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tomatotomato37 8y ago

The unemployed ones

djrogers 8y ago

A lot of people are willing to trade corporate tax revenue for new, local, high paying jobs. And regardless of the rhetoric used, that's exactly the idea here.