5 ms·

The government supporting the TSA, despite its People pushing against it, is a prime example of failure of democracy in the United States. The People elected a

by mrb 15y ago

The government supporting the TSA, despite its People pushing against it, is a prime example of failure of democracy in the United States. The People elected a government who does not what they want! Some countries hold referendums to vote on controversial topics. It would be a great solution to hold one in the U.S. at the federal level asking a very simple question: "Should the TSA be shut down? Yes/No". Direct democracy at its best. Unfortunately the U.S. constitution does not provide for referendums at the federal level... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#United_States

api 15y ago
People need to understand this: it's all about the lobbyists, period. The TSA is nothing but a cash cow for the defense and security industries. Actual security is an irrelevant side effect.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  it's all about the lobbyists, period. Don't the politicians and bureaucrats -- the ones we're trusting to look out for our interests -- bear some responsibility?
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    You mean people like Michael Chertoff, who pushed for the body scanners when he was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and then retired to found a consulting company which has been employed by the companies who manufacture those same scanners? That sort of thing?
tptacek 15y ago
Be careful what you wish for. The capital-P people are just peachy with those machines. I traveled last week and saw nobody (other than myself) opting out. The people --- in the aggregate --- do not care about this issue. Left to "democracy in the United States", a referendum that requested the elimination of the "opt-out" process in favor of 0.5s of wait time at the security lines would probably pass in a landslide. Thankfully, we're governed not just by a legislature but by a Constitution interpreted by a panel of judges with lifetime tenure.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  I don't think your observations back up your conclusions with regard to public support for the machines. The choice people have is between these scanners and a highly intrusive "pat down" which typically includes some TSA agent's hands on your junk. That's not much of a choice.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    If you'd like to make that argument, you can, but it doesn't rebut the poll data that shows a clear majority of Americans favor the machines. (I would prefer they did not, but you can't always get what you want.)
    - chc 15y ago
      It kind of does rebut the poll data. I bet a majority of Americans would rather be smacked in the face with a brick than shot in the face with a rifle, but it would be a pretty big distortion to rephrase that as "A clear majority of Americans favor getting hit in the face with bricks."
    - sitkack 15y ago
      Favor the machines over a pat-down. They would actually _prefere_ neither.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Sorry, this is wishful (I share your wish). The reality is, the polls aren't posing the either/or question. Respondents can favor the imaging machines and reject the pat-downs. Here's a sample question: The Transportation Security Administration is increasing its use of so-called 'full-body' digital x-ray machines to screen passengers in airport security lines. (Supporters say these machines improve the ability to spot hidden weapons and explosives, and reduce the need for physical searches.) (Opponents say these machines invade privacy by producing x-ray images of a passenger’s naked body that security officials can see, and don’t provide enough added security to justify this.) Which comes closer to your own view – do you support or oppose using these scanners in airport security lines? You would find the actual breakdown of responses equally dispiriting. Americans think the imaging machines are a good idea. Americans are unreasonably scared of threats to airplanes. That shouldn't surprise you, since Americans are also unreasonably scared of airplanes. In any case, if this is a "failure of democracy", it is not a failure of the kind imagined by the root comment on this thread.
protomyth 15y ago
Some states have had good luck with referendums (ND), but I am not sure a federal version would be all that good. I'm one of those that thinks the 17th Amendment made it harder for the federal government to be accountable to the will of the people in the states. It seems like Senators are not as responsive. I don't think repealing it would help these days since people expect to directly vote for office holders (electoral college aside). It would be interesting, since travel distances are not really the issue, if each state was represented in the Senate not by 2 Senators but by that state's Governor. Seems like you would get a much better response.

by mrb 15y ago

api 15y ago

People need to understand this: it's all about the lobbyists, period. The TSA is nothing but a cash cow for the defense and security industries. Actual security is an irrelevant side effect.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
it's all about the lobbyists, period. Don't the politicians and bureaucrats -- the ones we're trusting to look out for our interests -- bear some responsibility?
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  You mean people like Michael Chertoff, who pushed for the body scanners when he was the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and then retired to found a consulting company which has been employed by the companies who manufacture those same scanners? That sort of thing?

tptacek 15y ago

Be careful what you wish for. The capital-P people are just peachy with those machines. I traveled last week and saw nobody (other than myself) opting out. The people --- in the aggregate --- do not care about this issue. Left to "democracy in the United States", a referendum that requested the elimination of the "opt-out" process in favor of 0.5s of wait time at the security lines would probably pass in a landslide. Thankfully, we're governed not just by a legislature but by a Constitution interpreted by a panel of judges with lifetime tenure.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
I don't think your observations back up your conclusions with regard to public support for the machines. The choice people have is between these scanners and a highly intrusive "pat down" which typically includes some TSA agent's hands on your junk. That's not much of a choice.
- tptacek 15y ago
  If you'd like to make that argument, you can, but it doesn't rebut the poll data that shows a clear majority of Americans favor the machines. (I would prefer they did not, but you can't always get what you want.)
  - chc 15y ago
    It kind of does rebut the poll data. I bet a majority of Americans would rather be smacked in the face with a brick than shot in the face with a rifle, but it would be a pretty big distortion to rephrase that as "A clear majority of Americans favor getting hit in the face with bricks."
  - sitkack 15y ago
    Favor the machines over a pat-down. They would actually _prefere_ neither.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Sorry, this is wishful (I share your wish). The reality is, the polls aren't posing the either/or question. Respondents can favor the imaging machines and reject the pat-downs. Here's a sample question: The Transportation Security Administration is increasing its use of so-called 'full-body' digital x-ray machines to screen passengers in airport security lines. (Supporters say these machines improve the ability to spot hidden weapons and explosives, and reduce the need for physical searches.) (Opponents say these machines invade privacy by producing x-ray images of a passenger’s naked body that security officials can see, and don’t provide enough added security to justify this.) Which comes closer to your own view – do you support or oppose using these scanners in airport security lines? You would find the actual breakdown of responses equally dispiriting. Americans think the imaging machines are a good idea. Americans are unreasonably scared of threats to airplanes. That shouldn't surprise you, since Americans are also unreasonably scared of airplanes. In any case, if this is a "failure of democracy", it is not a failure of the kind imagined by the root comment on this thread.

protomyth 15y ago

Some states have had good luck with referendums (ND), but I am not sure a federal version would be all that good. I'm one of those that thinks the 17th Amendment made it harder for the federal government to be accountable to the will of the people in the states. It seems like Senators are not as responsive. I don't think repealing it would help these days since people expect to directly vote for office holders (electoral college aside). It would be interesting, since travel distances are not really the issue, if each state was represented in the Senate not by 2 Senators but by that state's Governor. Seems like you would get a much better response.