5 ms·

> The problem is that they are corporate shills. I really think the defining political problem of our age is campaign finance reform and to a lesser extent ele

> The problem is that they are corporate shills. I really think the defining political problem of our age is campaign finance reform and to a lesser extent election reform.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
Which is the primary aim of the new democratic house. I would not consider someone trying to limit corporate control of politics a corporate shill.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Yet Larry Lessig was shut down the last time he tried bringing this into focus.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    The 2016 election? Both the Democratic front-runner and the nearest also-ran not only had campaign finance reform prominently in their platforms (each with a full page devoted to the issue on their websites) but also brought it up during the debates. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-...
- jedmeyers 8y ago
  How about limiting political control of people, so corporations won’t try to control politics so much? Since so far “limiting corporate control of politics” looks more like gatekeeping: allowing some corporations to control while denying others.
- sidlls 8y ago
  The primary aim of the new democratic house is to continue in the same way under the same leadership as they have for the last 30 years. They're a conservative party who mainly want the same things as Republicans, but have somehow managed to bamboozle a whole new generation into thinking they're the party of civil rights, egalitarianism, labor, etc. They're about as interested in campaign and election reform as the Republicans.
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    How do you square your claims with this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997
    - sidlls 8y ago
      Politicians lie, and words are cheap.
      - stochastic_monk 8y ago
        I’ll re-evaluate them after I see what this house does. I certainly don’t want what the current party in power does.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - ta2987 8y ago
    This is patently false. Shame on you.
ende 8y ago
I would reverse those. The hyper adversarial nature of our political environment is shaped by our electoral systems; specifically plurality voting, partisan primaries, and gerrymandered single member districts. Fixing those three things will go a long way towards restoring sanity to our politics.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  > Fixing those three things will go a long way towards restoring sanity to our politics. But didn't those three things exist when the sanity you want to restore prevailed?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    I think there are two big issues there. The first is softball and obvious. Things can work on a small scale and collapse on a large scale. We started with around 30,000 citizens per congressional district (and thus per representative). And there was a strong urging to push it lower by some. This number was envisioned as remaining as a constant, for if you dilute the power and "connection" of the average voter too much, you risk exposing yourself to politicians too far detached from their constituency which can breed tyranny, corruption, and so on. And indeed 30,000 is already pretty far up there. Today we have more than 700,000 citizens per congressional district. The second is a more contentious issue, but perhaps even more relevant. Today we've become an increasingly divided and polarized society where nuance is increasingly a lost art. Democracy does not work in such situations. Iraq is an extreme example. Iraq is fundamentally broken up into three major groups - Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds. And these groups tend to be extremely intolerant of one another with members of each group generally adopting wholesale all views of their own group and only their own group. It just turns into a tyranny of the majority. Somehow the United States has started trending towards this exact behavior. This wasn't always the case. While we may have had vice president engage in a duel to the death with a secretary of the treasury, these were personal conflicts. Today people are engaging more in group conflicts. Democracy works when people are willing to work together, not when they view politics as a team sport where the idea is for your side to "win" and the other side to "lose."
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
The Supreme Court said limiting campaign finance is unconstitutional. What do you propose politicians do about it?
- peteretep 8y ago
  Amend the constitution?

> The problem is that they are corporate shills. I really think the defining political problem of our age is campaign finance reform and to a lesser extent election reform.

stochastic_monk 8y ago

Which is the primary aim of the new democratic house. I would not consider someone trying to limit corporate control of politics a corporate shill.

shmerl 8y ago
Yet Larry Lessig was shut down the last time he tried bringing this into focus.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  The 2016 election? Both the Democratic front-runner and the nearest also-ran not only had campaign finance reform prominently in their platforms (each with a full page devoted to the issue on their websites) but also brought it up during the debates. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-and-sanders-on-campaign-finance https://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465781632/fact-check-clinton-...
jedmeyers 8y ago
How about limiting political control of people, so corporations won’t try to control politics so much? Since so far “limiting corporate control of politics” looks more like gatekeeping: allowing some corporations to control while denying others.
sidlls 8y ago
The primary aim of the new democratic house is to continue in the same way under the same leadership as they have for the last 30 years. They're a conservative party who mainly want the same things as Republicans, but have somehow managed to bamboozle a whole new generation into thinking they're the party of civil rights, egalitarianism, labor, etc. They're about as interested in campaign and election reform as the Republicans.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  How do you square your claims with this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997
  - sidlls 8y ago
    Politicians lie, and words are cheap.
    - stochastic_monk 8y ago
      I’ll re-evaluate them after I see what this house does. I certainly don’t want what the current party in power does.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- ta2987 8y ago
  This is patently false. Shame on you.

ende 8y ago

I would reverse those. The hyper adversarial nature of our political environment is shaped by our electoral systems; specifically plurality voting, partisan primaries, and gerrymandered single member districts. Fixing those three things will go a long way towards restoring sanity to our politics.

BurningFrog 8y ago
> Fixing those three things will go a long way towards restoring sanity to our politics. But didn't those three things exist when the sanity you want to restore prevailed?
- rjf72 8y ago
  I think there are two big issues there. The first is softball and obvious. Things can work on a small scale and collapse on a large scale. We started with around 30,000 citizens per congressional district (and thus per representative). And there was a strong urging to push it lower by some. This number was envisioned as remaining as a constant, for if you dilute the power and "connection" of the average voter too much, you risk exposing yourself to politicians too far detached from their constituency which can breed tyranny, corruption, and so on. And indeed 30,000 is already pretty far up there. Today we have more than 700,000 citizens per congressional district. The second is a more contentious issue, but perhaps even more relevant. Today we've become an increasingly divided and polarized society where nuance is increasingly a lost art. Democracy does not work in such situations. Iraq is an extreme example. Iraq is fundamentally broken up into three major groups - Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds. And these groups tend to be extremely intolerant of one another with members of each group generally adopting wholesale all views of their own group and only their own group. It just turns into a tyranny of the majority. Somehow the United States has started trending towards this exact behavior. This wasn't always the case. While we may have had vice president engage in a duel to the death with a secretary of the treasury, these were personal conflicts. Today people are engaging more in group conflicts. Democracy works when people are willing to work together, not when they view politics as a team sport where the idea is for your side to "win" and the other side to "lose."

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

The Supreme Court said limiting campaign finance is unconstitutional. What do you propose politicians do about it?

peteretep 8y ago
Amend the constitution?