4 ms·

Hmm. > A majority of candidates agree on undermining civilian oversight of our government. Citation? > We aim to fix that by taking away their power every tw

Hmm. > A majority of candidates agree on undermining civilian oversight of our government. Citation? > We aim to fix that by taking away their power every two years. Uh oh. Have you even considered the unintended consequences of such a thing or ever read anything of the philosophy underlying democratic governance? I'd wager you have not. > We decide whether to keep our current elected officials in office with three simple measurements. > We decide > We Oh no > With your donations, we are going to fund analysis of candidates coming up for re-election. As per my previous prediction [1] this is a donation sourced political hit squad. > End Mass Surveillance The above has literally nothing to do with what you "intend" to do. It's a smokescreen to make it seem more reasonable. What is the relationship between this and biennial elections? > Stop Big Money Politics Well, it worked for Trump as mantra. Honestly this is very poor. Furthermore trying to state you are a political entity wanting to influence election outcomes and remaining anonymous is beyond cowardly [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23562226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23562226

r3trohack3r 6y ago
Appreciate your feedback. I'll take time reflecting on your takeaway reading our website. Some quick points: > We Your quote is coming from a philosophical block, and the context is lost when you quote it like this. "We" is the collective "us" including you. Our org intends to open source our analysis, be transparent, and take feedback in the process. The homepage is describing a different approach to engaging in the voting process. I've spoken with many disenfranchised voters who chose not to vote because neither candidate on the ballot represents them, and voters who vote but really aren't happy about it for the same reason. Instead of taking the "who do we pick given these options" approach, we ask "do we let the incumbent continue given their track record". This breaks through the points candidates agree on, since voting an incumbent out due to their track record gives a strong incentive to their replacement not to repeat those mistakes less they meet the same fate. It's an election outside of the election, and a (likely not) unique way of wielding our power as voters beyond the partisan options presented. I think there is some super valuable feedback here. Our homepage conflates the philosophical "different approach to voting" block with our organizations metrics. Our set of criteria for evaluating a candidate may not represent yours. Those might be worth separating out. The two ideas are meant to stand on their own, the first leading into the second. > this is a donation sourced political hit squad This is valuable feedback, I hope there aren't many folks walking away from engaging with us feeling this way. I feel this is a negative take on mobilizing potential voters who already exist, already have these views (or at least likely would given access to information), and feel disenfranchised. Our bet is that there are many voters like this. Our goal is to help coordinate that existing sentiment, not drum up a fake movement. It's about reminding representatives that they are supposed to be representative. They _should_ worry when their views significantly break from their constituents; our goal is to organize those constituents. As an aside, I also feel the term "hit squad" describes, at least partially, all 527 Super PACs. If you read the leading Super PACs websites listed on opensecrets, many includes phrases like "take the fight to candidate X". 527s are founded to directly support and oppose candidates, by definition. Our goal is to be a 527 that supports/opposes candidates based on constituent sentiment and federal law, not our own self interest. > What is the relationship between [mass surveillance] and biennial elections? The elected officials who oversaw (sanctioned, approved, understood, etc.) the Presidential Surveillance Program are part of a biennial election cycle. Many of them, still in office, defended its existence and legality in public hearings and continue to oversee its current form today. While 501(c)(3) non-profits and citizens are in courts trying to hold the government accountable to it's own laws, these representatives are actively undermining them [1][2]. We feel part of this is caused by our representatives not feeling they need to be representative, which leads into the other two points in our mission; they don't respect civilian oversight because we haven't given them a reason to. > Furthermore trying to state you are a political entity wanting to influence election outcomes and remaining anonymous is beyond cowardly I am not anonymous. I can't be. This is a 527. If you donate directly you aren't anonymous either; your donation is reported by us to the FEC [3]. I'm personally associated with this org in multiple places many of which are public (FEC). I'm also here, using my public handle, talking to you about it. > Have you ever read I have read quite a lot but if you have some resources you'd recommend I always love reading more. There is always more to learn <3 [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fisa-legislation https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fi... [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fisa-legislation-0 https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fi... [3] If you want to donate anonymously, there are instructions for laundering your donation through a non-profit on the website. Many candidates use this washing of donations to raise money from politically sensitive sources. We think that is wrong but we want to be on equal ground; it's hard to win a game without adopting a lusory attitude.
whycombagator 6y ago
This is a highly cynical but great perspective. The person posting here, involved in the project, might not be completely anonymous, but no name associated with their HN handle and no names on the site are definitely a red flag. As are many other things you point out. The concept is interesting but overall this is either a terrible execution, terrible idea, something more nefarious, or a combination of those things.
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  I'm sorry you feel this way. It's a side project that has taken considerable effort so far. It's being done in good faith. I've added a link to our GitHub organization to the footer, all contributions are under my personal account. My HN handle is the same as my social media handles across the board (though some are l33t-ified depending on the availability of the handle). I hope that, as we get further down this path and have more substance, we can demonstrate more transparency and earn more trust. Yesterday's launch validated the idea is worth iterating on for us, we intend to keep learning and pushing forward.

r3trohack3r 6y ago

Appreciate your feedback. I'll take time reflecting on your takeaway reading our website. Some quick points: > We Your quote is coming from a philosophical block, and the context is lost when you quote it like this. "We" is the collective "us" including you. Our org intends to open source our analysis, be transparent, and take feedback in the process. The homepage is describing a different approach to engaging in the voting process. I've spoken with many disenfranchised voters who chose not to vote because neither candidate on the ballot represents them, and voters who vote but really aren't happy about it for the same reason. Instead of taking the "who do we pick given these options" approach, we ask "do we let the incumbent continue given their track record". This breaks through the points candidates agree on, since voting an incumbent out due to their track record gives a strong incentive to their replacement not to repeat those mistakes less they meet the same fate. It's an election outside of the election, and a (likely not) unique way of wielding our power as voters beyond the partisan options presented. I think there is some super valuable feedback here. Our homepage conflates the philosophical "different approach to voting" block with our organizations metrics. Our set of criteria for evaluating a candidate may not represent yours. Those might be worth separating out. The two ideas are meant to stand on their own, the first leading into the second. > this is a donation sourced political hit squad This is valuable feedback, I hope there aren't many folks walking away from engaging with us feeling this way. I feel this is a negative take on mobilizing potential voters who already exist, already have these views (or at least likely would given access to information), and feel disenfranchised. Our bet is that there are many voters like this. Our goal is to help coordinate that existing sentiment, not drum up a fake movement. It's about reminding representatives that they are supposed to be representative. They _should_ worry when their views significantly break from their constituents; our goal is to organize those constituents. As an aside, I also feel the term "hit squad" describes, at least partially, all 527 Super PACs. If you read the leading Super PACs websites listed on opensecrets, many includes phrases like "take the fight to candidate X". 527s are founded to directly support and oppose candidates, by definition. Our goal is to be a 527 that supports/opposes candidates based on constituent sentiment and federal law, not our own self interest. > What is the relationship between [mass surveillance] and biennial elections? The elected officials who oversaw (sanctioned, approved, understood, etc.) the Presidential Surveillance Program are part of a biennial election cycle. Many of them, still in office, defended its existence and legality in public hearings and continue to oversee its current form today. While 501(c)(3) non-profits and citizens are in courts trying to hold the government accountable to it's own laws, these representatives are actively undermining them [1][2]. We feel part of this is caused by our representatives not feeling they need to be representative, which leads into the other two points in our mission; they don't respect civilian oversight because we haven't given them a reason to. > Furthermore trying to state you are a political entity wanting to influence election outcomes and remaining anonymous is beyond cowardly I am not anonymous. I can't be. This is a 527. If you donate directly you aren't anonymous either; your donation is reported by us to the FEC [3]. I'm personally associated with this org in multiple places many of which are public (FEC). I'm also here, using my public handle, talking to you about it. > Have you ever read I have read quite a lot but if you have some resources you'd recommend I always love reading more. There is always more to learn <3 [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fisa-legislation https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fi... [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fisa-legislation-0 https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings/open-hearing-fi... [3] If you want to donate anonymously, there are instructions for laundering your donation through a non-profit on the website. Many candidates use this washing of donations to raise money from politically sensitive sources. We think that is wrong but we want to be on equal ground; it's hard to win a game without adopting a lusory attitude.

whycombagator 6y ago

This is a highly cynical but great perspective. The person posting here, involved in the project, might not be completely anonymous, but no name associated with their HN handle and no names on the site are definitely a red flag. As are many other things you point out. The concept is interesting but overall this is either a terrible execution, terrible idea, something more nefarious, or a combination of those things.

r3trohack3r 6y ago
I'm sorry you feel this way. It's a side project that has taken considerable effort so far. It's being done in good faith. I've added a link to our GitHub organization to the footer, all contributions are under my personal account. My HN handle is the same as my social media handles across the board (though some are l33t-ified depending on the availability of the handle). I hope that, as we get further down this path and have more substance, we can demonstrate more transparency and earn more trust. Yesterday's launch validated the idea is worth iterating on for us, we intend to keep learning and pushing forward.