4 ms·

In general, the people and groups in the US that hold real power largely hold power because they have realized that as long as you keep cheating, eventually you

In general, the people and groups in the US that hold real power largely hold power because they have realized that as long as you keep cheating, eventually you will control the people and agencies responsible for punishing cheating. Rigging a process or stealing an election is fine because by the time the court case gets a hearing from a judge, the answer will be "well, the process/election is over, so we can't do anything about it." As time passes we see more and more groups intentionally exploiting this and exploiting it more often, and it feels like it will only get worse, especially since we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections. The impact only grows bigger as these systems are exploited to put people in lifetime positions, so that the damage can't be undone for decades. It's really unfortunate because the knowledge that the system works this way makes it very easy for people to make false claims about a particular election being stolen or the methods used - people seriously making claims that "fake ballots were flown over from China" [1] or things like that when the reality is that theft is simple and not the work of foreign spies, illegal immigrants, or hugo chavez [2] - it's our neighbors, fellow citizens, elected officials, etc 1: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/goofy-az-republican-vote-audit-examining-ballots-for-bamboo-because-china/vi-BB1goWuq https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/goofy-az-republican-vote-a... 2: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/18/fact-check-hugo-chavezs-family-does-not-own-part-dominion-voting-systems/3926344001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/18/fac...

grecy 6y ago
> they have realized that as long as you keep cheating Incredibly, what they're doing isn't cheating at all. Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal. NOTE: I'm not saying I agree with at at all - I'm just saying this is what it's come to. The people with all the power and the money are making the rules to suit themselves.
- c22 6y ago
  I think if you print new rules then you hide them in the game box it's still a kind of cheating.
  - Pokepokalypse 6y ago
    Not in Calvinball.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal. Lobbying itself is neither good nor bad. There are aspects of it that are both. The more excessive negative portions even pass into illegality, but that doesn't mean there's no good from it. The EFF meeting with lawmakers and explaining how their proto-legislation is not only impossible in practice but has many negative consequences they should be aware of is the exact definition of the benefits of lobbying as envisioned by the system in place and something we should not lose sight of. Babies, bathwater, etc.
  - grecy 6y ago
    I agree that it's good for elected politicians in a democracy to meet with and hear the concerns of their constituents. That is literally their job, and the reason they were elected. If they're not doing that..... then we have no use for them and should eliminate their position entirely, because it obviously doesn't serve a purpose. The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money, because then you can just buy whatever laws you want. The more money you have, the more you have laws that agree with what you're trying to do and squash everyone else. [1] [1] I mean, you just have to buy 8.5 million votes in this case - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-paid-for-8-5-million-fake-fcc-comments-opposing-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-pai...
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money But that's not lobbying, and that's against the law. The problem is the weird edge cases, like inviting the politicians and their families to a summit to discuss the issue that just happens to be in the Bahamas, or less obviously all the different dinner meetings that add up, etc. Honestly, those examples aren't so much edge cases as much as entrenched obvious problems some of which are explicitly illegal and others grey, but there are lots of edge cases that are much harder to track down, where the quid-pro-quo is separated by time or other things, such as businesses of close or not so close family members and friends getting more consideration, etc which then flow back to the politician from someone else (can a politician's cousin not invite them on a family vacation and offer to foot the bill?). Lobbying isn't so much the problem as corruption is, and lobbying just makes some small part of the corruption easier to do in the open, the explanation of what's wanted, because that's an obvious thing you want politicians to hear from interested parties in the areas they represent, whether businesses or individuals. Blaming lobbying for corruption is like blaming encrypted messaging for terrorism. Sure, they help those using them for nefarious purposes, but getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the problem, it just makes it slightly easier to see at the expense of the people that used those for good purposes. In both cases I would argue we're better off leaving those communication mediums available and attacking the problem from a different angle. I'm not sure what that is for lobbying, but "you're not allowed to talk to your politician" doesn't seem like it's it.
mandmandam 6y ago
> "we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections" .... Right. Overseas. Wink. [Cries in Bernie Sanders.]
danny_taco 6y ago
> "As time passes we see more and more groups intentionally exploiting this and exploiting it more often, and it feels like it will only get worse, especially since we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections" Out of curiosity, what election or elections are you speaking of?
- kevingadd 6y ago
  After the Brexit referendum concluded, the Leave campaign was officially found to have violated the law and fined. There were plenty of additional accusations that were never addressed. In the end, you can't undo something like leaving the EU even if voters feel they were lied to. You can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_unlawful_campaigning_in_the_2016_EU_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_unlawful_campai... for some examples of the accusations. I don't mention this to claim that foreigners are somehow worse - the US specializes in doing this at home if anything, even if we also love to interfere in foreign elections.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    They absolutely could have nullified the outcome and said you have X months to redo it. Nothing is final unless you make it final.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    No, sigh, it's the other way around. The people who believe the law was broken were lied to, by a corrupt set of regulators. Very apt, given the topic here. The Electoral Commission spent a long time trying to build cases against Leave campaigners. It did so because although theoretically neutral, like a lot of British government institutions it's run by people who are openly biased and happy to make strongly political statements on the record. The EC is literally run by people who made public statements saying Brexit and the Tories are bad, and that they wanted Remain to win. They also never bothered speaking to the people they were fining as part of their investigation. Not a good start. https://order-order.com/2018/07/17/electoral-commission-email-reveals-they-refused-to-speak-to-vote-leave-officials/ https://order-order.com/2018/07/17/electoral-commission-emai... So they worked over-time to try and prosecute people who campaigned for Leave, but they themselves (fortunately!) do not have law enforcement powers. This is indeed fortunate because every single case they referred to the CPS and Police was dismissed on the grounds that no crime had actually been committed. The High Court has repeatedly criticised the EC for appearing not to know what electoral laws actually say. Or in other words, the people you are claiming "officially found" one side to have violated the law, had their investigations/decisions labelled by the High Court as "unconstructive", "arbitrary" and lacking "any rational basis" (quoting the judgement itself there). https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electoral-commission-unfit-purpose/ https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electora... Here's another case where the EC lost in court against Leave: https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/breaking-aaron-banks-wins-electoral-commission-withdraws-allegations/ https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/breaking-aaron-banks-wins... The Metropolitan Police stated the EC itself had broken the law in its attempt to submit a case against Leave campaigners due to withholding evidence and not complying with criminal evidence and procedure law: https://order-order.com/2019/07/03/met-police-slam-electoral-commission-demolish-latest-loony-remoaner-lawsuit/ https://order-order.com/2019/07/03/met-police-slam-electoral... Part of the reason the EC's arguments were dismissed is that the EC is responsible for issuing interpretations of electoral law. In at least one case, the Vote Leave campaign requested such an interpretation, was told what they were going to do was entirely legal and OK, and then later the EC changed its mind and decided to fine them for doing it. That sort of thing is hard to explain: either the regulators are corrupt, or incompetent, or both, but it's certainly not the fault of people who explicitly requested clarification about an unclear rule and then were put in Kafka-esque no-win situation. Naturally they ignored quite blatant violations of electoral law when it was done by Remain campaigners like the famous mailshot to the entire country that mysteriously didn't count as campaign spending, or this one (who they eventually DID fine, but only after a lot of kicking and screaming): https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/electoral-commission-whitewashes-remain-collusion/ https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/electoral-commission-whit... The EC's quite transparent campaign against anyone who campaigned for Brexit, certainly motivated by the biases of the people appointed to run it, is a classic case of exactly the same problem Americans are complaining about in this very thread w.r.t. net neutrality. The regulator was captured by a certain viewpoint and appeared to care very little about even the appearance of doing their job properly let alone neutrally.

grecy 6y ago

> they have realized that as long as you keep cheating Incredibly, what they're doing isn't cheating at all. Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal. NOTE: I'm not saying I agree with at at all - I'm just saying this is what it's come to. The people with all the power and the money are making the rules to suit themselves.

c22 6y ago
I think if you print new rules then you hide them in the game box it's still a kind of cheating.
- Pokepokalypse 6y ago
  Not in Calvinball.
kbenson 6y ago
> Lobbying (newspeak for corruption) is 100% perfectly legal. Lobbying itself is neither good nor bad. There are aspects of it that are both. The more excessive negative portions even pass into illegality, but that doesn't mean there's no good from it. The EFF meeting with lawmakers and explaining how their proto-legislation is not only impossible in practice but has many negative consequences they should be aware of is the exact definition of the benefits of lobbying as envisioned by the system in place and something we should not lose sight of. Babies, bathwater, etc.
- grecy 6y ago
  I agree that it's good for elected politicians in a democracy to meet with and hear the concerns of their constituents. That is literally their job, and the reason they were elected. If they're not doing that..... then we have no use for them and should eliminate their position entirely, because it obviously doesn't serve a purpose. The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money, because then you can just buy whatever laws you want. The more money you have, the more you have laws that agree with what you're trying to do and squash everyone else. [1] [1] I mean, you just have to buy 8.5 million votes in this case - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-paid-for-8-5-million-fake-fcc-comments-opposing-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biggest-isps-pai...
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > The problem I have is when this "meeting" involves giving those elected officials money But that's not lobbying, and that's against the law. The problem is the weird edge cases, like inviting the politicians and their families to a summit to discuss the issue that just happens to be in the Bahamas, or less obviously all the different dinner meetings that add up, etc. Honestly, those examples aren't so much edge cases as much as entrenched obvious problems some of which are explicitly illegal and others grey, but there are lots of edge cases that are much harder to track down, where the quid-pro-quo is separated by time or other things, such as businesses of close or not so close family members and friends getting more consideration, etc which then flow back to the politician from someone else (can a politician's cousin not invite them on a family vacation and offer to foot the bill?). Lobbying isn't so much the problem as corruption is, and lobbying just makes some small part of the corruption easier to do in the open, the explanation of what's wanted, because that's an obvious thing you want politicians to hear from interested parties in the areas they represent, whether businesses or individuals. Blaming lobbying for corruption is like blaming encrypted messaging for terrorism. Sure, they help those using them for nefarious purposes, but getting rid of them doesn't eliminate the problem, it just makes it slightly easier to see at the expense of the people that used those for good purposes. In both cases I would argue we're better off leaving those communication mediums available and attacking the problem from a different angle. I'm not sure what that is for lobbying, but "you're not allowed to talk to your politician" doesn't seem like it's it.

mandmandam 6y ago

> "we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections" .... Right. Overseas. Wink. [Cries in Bernie Sanders.]

danny_taco 6y ago

> "As time passes we see more and more groups intentionally exploiting this and exploiting it more often, and it feels like it will only get worse, especially since we can see it happening overseas in major political referendums or elections" Out of curiosity, what election or elections are you speaking of?

kevingadd 6y ago
After the Brexit referendum concluded, the Leave campaign was officially found to have violated the law and fined. There were plenty of additional accusations that were never addressed. In the end, you can't undo something like leaving the EU even if voters feel they were lied to. You can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_unlawful_campaigning_in_the_2016_EU_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_unlawful_campai... for some examples of the accusations. I don't mention this to claim that foreigners are somehow worse - the US specializes in doing this at home if anything, even if we also love to interfere in foreign elections.
- sitkack 6y ago
  They absolutely could have nullified the outcome and said you have X months to redo it. Nothing is final unless you make it final.
- thu2111 6y ago
  No, sigh, it's the other way around. The people who believe the law was broken were lied to, by a corrupt set of regulators. Very apt, given the topic here. The Electoral Commission spent a long time trying to build cases against Leave campaigners. It did so because although theoretically neutral, like a lot of British government institutions it's run by people who are openly biased and happy to make strongly political statements on the record. The EC is literally run by people who made public statements saying Brexit and the Tories are bad, and that they wanted Remain to win. They also never bothered speaking to the people they were fining as part of their investigation. Not a good start. https://order-order.com/2018/07/17/electoral-commission-email-reveals-they-refused-to-speak-to-vote-leave-officials/ https://order-order.com/2018/07/17/electoral-commission-emai... So they worked over-time to try and prosecute people who campaigned for Leave, but they themselves (fortunately!) do not have law enforcement powers. This is indeed fortunate because every single case they referred to the CPS and Police was dismissed on the grounds that no crime had actually been committed. The High Court has repeatedly criticised the EC for appearing not to know what electoral laws actually say. Or in other words, the people you are claiming "officially found" one side to have violated the law, had their investigations/decisions labelled by the High Court as "unconstructive", "arbitrary" and lacking "any rational basis" (quoting the judgement itself there). https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electoral-commission-unfit-purpose/ https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electora... Here's another case where the EC lost in court against Leave: https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/breaking-aaron-banks-wins-electoral-commission-withdraws-allegations/ https://order-order.com/2020/04/29/breaking-aaron-banks-wins... The Metropolitan Police stated the EC itself had broken the law in its attempt to submit a case against Leave campaigners due to withholding evidence and not complying with criminal evidence and procedure law: https://order-order.com/2019/07/03/met-police-slam-electoral-commission-demolish-latest-loony-remoaner-lawsuit/ https://order-order.com/2019/07/03/met-police-slam-electoral... Part of the reason the EC's arguments were dismissed is that the EC is responsible for issuing interpretations of electoral law. In at least one case, the Vote Leave campaign requested such an interpretation, was told what they were going to do was entirely legal and OK, and then later the EC changed its mind and decided to fine them for doing it. That sort of thing is hard to explain: either the regulators are corrupt, or incompetent, or both, but it's certainly not the fault of people who explicitly requested clarification about an unclear rule and then were put in Kafka-esque no-win situation. Naturally they ignored quite blatant violations of electoral law when it was done by Remain campaigners like the famous mailshot to the entire country that mysteriously didn't count as campaign spending, or this one (who they eventually DID fine, but only after a lot of kicking and screaming): https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/electoral-commission-whitewashes-remain-collusion/ https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/electoral-commission-whit... The EC's quite transparent campaign against anyone who campaigned for Brexit, certainly motivated by the biases of the people appointed to run it, is a classic case of exactly the same problem Americans are complaining about in this very thread w.r.t. net neutrality. The regulator was captured by a certain viewpoint and appeared to care very little about even the appearance of doing their job properly let alone neutrally.