4 ms·

If there's a group of people that understand technology less than Smith and care less about protecting freedom of speech on the internet than him, it would have

If there's a group of people that understand technology less than Smith and care less about protecting freedom of speech on the internet than him, it would have to be the people living in Texas's 21st congressional district, which he represents. Smith's been in the House since 1987, so he won't be going away any time soon without a fight. He won his last reelection with 69% of the votes, in 2010. Even though you've got 2 more years to prepare to take him down, I'd say you're extremely unlikely to succeed, particularly when you consider how short the public's collective attention span is. Reddit already did an analysis of this[0], and determined which Congresspeople who supported bills like the Patriot Act, NDAA, and SOPA/PIPA are most vulnerable in the 2012 elections. I think they decided upon one or two targets to focus on, which is a smart move. If they can come up with a winning strategy and get a pro-internet/freedom of speech politician who sticks to his principles into office, then they have hope of gaining support from other groups of people in future elections. 0: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nylx0/a_megalist_of_congressmen_facing_2012_reelection/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nylx0/a_megalist_o... ----- Personally, I believe that many of the current problems with the political system stem from (a) the electoral system and (b) the campaign finance system. The electoral system allows otherwise unelectable politicians to get into Congress and hold onto their seats purely by virtue of gerrymandered Congressional districts. This[1] is Texas's 21st Congressional district. Ignore the vast swaths of land in the middle of nowhere, as those are not very densely populated. Focus on the parts of the district that approach the cities of San Antonio and Austin. See how oddly shaped they are? This is to ensure that only wealthy people in those cities are in the district. By combining the social conservatives (religious people) in the rural areas with the fiscal conservatives (wealthy people) in the suburban areas, they've created a district that is unwinnable for a non-Republican (Democrat or 3rd party). Moreover, the lack of proportional representation in favor of a winner-takes-all situation makes it impossible for 3rd parties to get a foothold in the public consciousness, so that they can build over several elections into a formidable force. So even in districts that aren't so blatantly gerrymandered, you're left with what's essentially a political duopoly. We've gone over the campaign finance issues with lobbying and all in other threads here, so you probaly already know the issues with that. The bottom line is that solving any of these issues requires first getting "our" people into office, using the current system. The best hope of doing this is to identify local elections where we can first bring in an opposition candidate who supports us. This requires an election where (a) there's an incumbent who isn't really liked by his/her constituents, (b) a dearth of opposition candidates, and (c) someone living in the district who's supportive of our views and has the time, interest, and ability to run and win. This person would have to run as a Democrat or Republican (whichever the incumbent isn't) in order to get people to vote for him. If we can repeat this process in the same geographical area for several other positions, all of these candidates could then leave the parties they're a member of at the same time and form a new one. Now you would have a 3rd party with credibility and several respectable members already in political office. From there, it would be a matter of expanding to other states, and eventually to the national level. 1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Texas.21st.Congressional.District.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Texas.21st.Co...

dataminer 15y ago
Most people don't understand technology, but they do understand freedom. The strategy to get a pro technology representative elected is to get a small government person elected in such region, who believes federal government has very little role in every day life of a citizen.
- w1ntermute 15y ago
  The problem is that for these people, freedom of the speech on the internet isn't important because they don't use the internet. They don't see it as something important for America, now or in the future. They just see it as a place infested with scumbags who are hacking (not the PG definition), steal, and abuse children.
wisty 15y ago
(a) Virtually no-one ever admits their country's system is flawed. The Brits don't realise that the House of Lords is a really crappy substitute for a senate. The Americans don't realise that proportional representation, compulsory voting, and instant runoff voting is a much better system. They say stuff like "you'll just get a candidate that nobody hates, not someone who a few extremists really love, and if voting is compulsory you'll have normal people voting", and not realise that's a good thing. I've no idea what the Australians get wrong ... though it probably involves having too many levels of government.
- graphene 15y ago
  The Americans don't realise that proportional representation, compulsory voting, and instant runoff voting is a much better system I can't comment on instant runoff voting, but my impression from following politics in Europe is that proportional representation creates a situation where all legislators toe the party line, as opposed to still having some degree of independence, as in Britain or the US. This gives an undue amount of influence to a small number of party bigwigs, and the inevitable mess results. As for compulsory voting, at least in Belgium, it has been credited with fuelling the rise of more extreme parties, notably the anti-immigration Flemish nationalists, since people who feel disenfranchised by the whole system tend to cast a protest vote, without seriously considering the consequences. Also, the notion that you could get fined or jailed for not voting seems to me to be as illiberal an idea as ACTA or the Patriot act.

dataminer 15y ago

Most people don't understand technology, but they do understand freedom. The strategy to get a pro technology representative elected is to get a small government person elected in such region, who believes federal government has very little role in every day life of a citizen.

w1ntermute 15y ago
The problem is that for these people, freedom of the speech on the internet isn't important because they don't use the internet. They don't see it as something important for America, now or in the future. They just see it as a place infested with scumbags who are hacking (not the PG definition), steal, and abuse children.

wisty 15y ago

(a) Virtually no-one ever admits their country's system is flawed. The Brits don't realise that the House of Lords is a really crappy substitute for a senate. The Americans don't realise that proportional representation, compulsory voting, and instant runoff voting is a much better system. They say stuff like "you'll just get a candidate that nobody hates, not someone who a few extremists really love, and if voting is compulsory you'll have normal people voting", and not realise that's a good thing. I've no idea what the Australians get wrong ... though it probably involves having too many levels of government.

graphene 15y ago
The Americans don't realise that proportional representation, compulsory voting, and instant runoff voting is a much better system I can't comment on instant runoff voting, but my impression from following politics in Europe is that proportional representation creates a situation where all legislators toe the party line, as opposed to still having some degree of independence, as in Britain or the US. This gives an undue amount of influence to a small number of party bigwigs, and the inevitable mess results. As for compulsory voting, at least in Belgium, it has been credited with fuelling the rise of more extreme parties, notably the anti-immigration Flemish nationalists, since people who feel disenfranchised by the whole system tend to cast a protest vote, without seriously considering the consequences. Also, the notion that you could get fined or jailed for not voting seems to me to be as illiberal an idea as ACTA or the Patriot act.