11 ms·

Sergey Brin Calls On Politicians To Abandon Political Parties

299 points by jaredtking 14y ago

brackin 14y ago
I found the original Google+ post more striking. If anyone wants to access that directly: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir This is a good move from Brin in my opinion, even though he can do little more than speak about the matter. There's nothing more dangerous to a stable democracy than a two party system. In Britain with more prominent parties (Even though only two really get elected) I still feel like my politics aren't being represented.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  If Brin really wanted to do more than speak, he could be Governor of CA in 10 years and President in 20.
hnriot 14y ago
How naive of Brin to suggest this, and some might easily suggest that the best thing politicians can do is spednd their time sticking it to each other, that way they meddle less and avoid doing any real damage. Seriously though this post really shows how little Brin understands about how political systems work.
- olefoo 14y ago
  This. Competence in one field does not imply understanding in another. Given Sergey's proclivities and interests, I'd say it behooves him to fund a "non-partisan" thinktank to look at the data and produce data-driven policy suggestions that are intended to influence all parties to government. Not that I would suggest that he become too personally invested in what happens after the suggestions make into the legislature; that way lies pain.
- randomchars 14y ago
  Idealistic != Naive Learn the difference. Also the posts also shows how little the writer understands what Sergey wrote. Read the G+ post.
Wilduck 14y ago
I don't want politicians to denounce their political parties. Instead, I would rather see an adoption of elements of proportional representation into our political system. For example, Party List PR[1] in the House of Representatives would provide an avenue for third parties to actually get elected on the national level. This may seem like an extreme example, in that it is highly unlikely to happen any time soon, but it is not an extreme system of voting. The German Bundestag, for example, combines a system of First Past the Post voting and Party List PR to achieve proportional representation in their legislature[2]. Even less extreme would be ditching the Electoral college, and moving to a Single Transferable Vote[3] for presidential elections. At least under these systems you're not "Throwing your vote away" when voting third party. There is evidence that proportional systems of representation increase voter participation, and voter confidence. I would love to see prominent technologists espousing these sorts of changes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_represe... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distribution_of_seats_by_party_in_the_17th_Bundestag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distributio... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
- mtgx 14y ago
  I would also like to see the "Approval Voting" system being implement. It would make sure the politician that most people agree with the most, will get elected. It would also make it a lot easier for a 3rd party candidate to be elected president. For example, if 45% would vote for Obama (Democrats), 45% would vote for Romney (Republicans), and each of those 2 factions would also vote for Gary Johnson in proportion of 30% each (out of total voters), then it would be Gary Johnson who would win the election, because he would have the support of 60% of the population, rather than 45% for Obama and 45% for Romney. The reason this result would be more satisfactory for a larger portion of voters, is because more people actually approved of this candidate from both sides, instead of 45% approving Obama and absolutely hating Romney as a president, or 45% approving of Romney and absolutely hating Obama. The winner would be the candidate that is liked or approved by the largest portion of the population, which leads to higher satisfaction for the voters after the election. http://electology.org/approval-voting http://electology.org/approval-voting AV vs IRV (for those wanting to see the IRV system being applied): http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/ http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/
jhuckestein 14y ago
In Germany we have a multi-party system and it works a little better than in the US but it's not a silver bullet either. After each election, the elected representatives vote for our chancellor (similar to the American president). Because we have so many parties and the two largest parties usually get only 20% to 40% of the vote, they need to form alliances with the smaller parties in order to gain a governing majority. Sometimes our conservative party will team up with the liberals, sometimes our social democratic party will have to team up with a right-leaning party and sometimes the two big parties will even form an alliance. This works fairly well, especially because each state government has a different set of governing parties so there's not as much bitterness and more people get to work together. That said, within each office, parties still consider themselves to be either governing or the opposition and fall into opposition mode for a few years, just like they do in the US.
mmanfrin 14y ago
Parties are not the cause, they are the result. A first-past-the-post system like ours will always tend towards a two party system.
- Wilduck 14y ago
  Exactly. This is known as Duverger's Law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law
- baddox 14y ago
  It's worth nothing that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on who you are. By that, I mean that if you're part of government, it's a very good thing, since fewer parties generally means more government stability. Of course, that's quite likely to be bad for the general population.
phillmv 14y ago
I feel like I can't contribute much further than Yglesias did, >Political partisanship is kind of like representative democracy itself—a terrible mess, but clearly superior to the alternatives. After all, we don't need to guess at what representative democracy without political parties would look like. Just examine almost any American city council—be it New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, whatever—and you'll see a legislative body that's so overwhelmingly Democratic that partisan politics don't drive outcomes. The result of this isn't a utopia of good government and sound policy, it's an orgy of hyper-localism. >Political parties are organized, for better and for worse, around clashing visions of what's better for America. The quest for partisan advantage is, among other things, a quest for the opportunity to build a better society. Absent parties you get a situation where instead of a clash of visions of what would be best for the city as a whole, council members give undue preference to strong local interests. In city government, that means NIMBYism. In Congress it would mean endless gobs of the much-derided pork barrelling. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/sergei_brin_hates_political_parties_but_he_d_like_the_alternative_even_less.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/sergei_brin_h...
- saraid216 14y ago
  > The result of this isn't a utopia of good government and sound policy, it's an orgy of hyper-localism. Any chance someone could make this statement more concrete? It's terribly important to his argument, but it's taken as an article of faith.
  - phillmv 14y ago
    Because you're only beholden to the people who live in your ward, you only really have the interests of those specific 10-50 thousand people (less in smaller cities, more in larger ones) in mind. This, it turns out, really harms the capacity for governments to make decisions that make everyone better off on average but might make any given small region of people unhappy (say, by building a powerplant or a garbage dump). Of course, there are benefits to this kind of representation, and some kind of mix is always desirable - but the gist of it is people are more willing to make regionally-disinterested decisions if their interests are aligned across ideological rather than geographical lines.
cletus 14y ago
There are two important points to remember when it comes to political parties: 1. Political parties are brands. Just like buying a widget from Apple is done based on certain expectations based on the history of previous widgets, a political party instantly tells most voters what that person is for or against. This is incredibly convenient to the vast majority of voters; and 2. The current state of politics in the US I think reflect's Hotelling's Law [1]. The parties have converged on the middle so they each get roughly half the vote. With such close elections and narrow balances of power in the House and Senate things are going to stay ugly. Look no further than the current distribution of seats in the Australian House of Representatives [2] where the Gillard government clings to power with the support of 3 independents and 1 Green (76-74), a change of a single seat could change the government. This has inevitably led to some bitter disputes [3] [4] that would be non-issues or much smaller issues if the government had a large working majority. The problem with the US is not the electoral college or that only swing states matter (which largely misses the point). Popular vote deciding the president would be a fundamental change to the system that would (IMHO) ultimately lead to disaster when a close enough election repeated the turmoil of the 2000 Florida recount across the entire country. The problem is that: 1. Voting isn't mandatory and the population is apathetic; 2. Voting is too hard being on a weekday and involving long waiting times. I would also argue that the long waiting times are symptomatic of (1). Partisan election officials have a vested interest in deterring or encouraging the vote in certain areas; 3. The FPTP (first past the post) system reinforces the two-party system whereas preferential voting systems allow "protest votes" without them being wasted or, worse, an effective vote for the other side; 4. Here's the big one: people are too predictable in how they vote. Of those that vote, 40% vote Democrat, 40% vote Republican and 20% decide the election. The Biggest electoral landslides in history (Reagan in 84 and Nixon in 72) have both garnered less than 60% of the popular vote. This problem is so bad that in the redistricting process [5] there are maps produced of political persuasions that are used by the incumbent state government to redraw boundaries to maximize "their" Congressional delegation. This process is incredibly accurate because people are so predictable. IMHO the choices in this election are pretty terrible. Romney, with his 47% and his "binders full of women" is a joke. Obama is the most IP-friendly and consumer and tech hostile president in history, from championing in secret a treaty (the original ACTA) that would've raised file-sharing to the level of terrorism and turned the FBI into the RIAA and MPAA's enforcement arm to filling the DoJ and judiciary with RIAA lawyers to his stance on software patents. My advice? Given bad choices, which seem to abound, vote against the incumbent. The one thing politicians seem to fear is losing office with all the power and perks that come with it. If this means you vote for a party you otherwise wouldn't, consider this: it's also important that your party doesn't take your vote for granted. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Australia)#Current_distribution_of_seats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Austr... [3]: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/10/09/australian-speaker-weakens-gov-grip-quitting/3P1RG5mO2uvmPN77oHgMCP/story.html http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/10/09/australian-... [4]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-23/australian-lawmaker-thomson-s-home-raided-amid-corruption-probe.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-23/australian-lawmaker... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting
grandalf 14y ago
I question the judgment/intellect of anyone who affiliates with one of the major two parties in the US. I don't think parties themselves are necessarily a problem, but the US system has converged on a two-party equilibrium that is destructive to the democratic process.
bitcartel 14y ago
In the UK, only 1% of the electorate are members of a political party. Or put another way: "between them the three main parties now have fewer members than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds" http://www.economist.com/node/21559901 http://www.economist.com/node/21559901 What happens as party membership continues to decline? At what point does it become farcical? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-democracy-decline-report http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-democracy-d... http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/politics-democracy-decline-audit-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/politics...
- citricsquid 14y ago
  I care enough about politics to know who I'm voting for but not enough to go out and campaign for the party I'm voting for, are people that are members of a party the people that put up signs in their windows and the like? What is a "member" of the conservative party? Does someone just sign some paper or do they pay money to support the party, or commit to helping campaign?
  - bitcartel 14y ago
    Joining the party as a member costs 25 pounds a year. http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join.aspx http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join.aspx
pan69 14y ago
This is just my take on it; I don't think there anything wrong with the notion of a political party. It's just a bucket under which like-minded people can group together. My problem with politics is that politicians seem to be more focused on politics rather than governance. It's the back-stabbing, lying and foul mouthing that I start to detest more and more as I get older. A lot of young politicians start their career out with a lot ideals and will to chance the world they live in. But then they grow up a little and suddenly they have a young family to look after. Their ideals chance and what comes out of their mouths slowly starts to turn into "blah" simply saying what people want to hear. I.e. politics. Their once good intentions slowly turn into self interest. I think the first thing that any sane democracy should do is to take away the self interest among politicians. I would say that if someone decides to go into politics that this person can have no ties and interests to the commercial world what so ever. Not sure how this would exactly work in the real world but I think it could do some good to our political system.
anon808 14y ago
I call on all developers to abandon employment at mega companies and work independently.
- Apocryphon 14y ago
  The FOSS movement is far stronger in software than third parties are in American politics.
  - anon808 14y ago
    yup, good point but i'm not sure sergey would be encouraging google employees to quit google and take up an open source project as readily as he's calling politicians to do so. my comment is a little trolly, just find it peculiar that a person who heads up a massive organization encourages other folks not to be part of other massive organizations. I agree with him, partisan politics is bad, just as bad as corporate droning (which i'm not sure he would agree with).
debacle 14y ago
"Old Man Yells At Cloud" would have been an equally compelling headline.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
Many people agree that there are many problems with first past the post voting. IMO, that's an artefact of voting districts. With modern technology, it's possible to make our representative democracy truly representative. During an election, you give your proxy to anybody who is willing to be a representative. Each representative votes in Congress with a vote weighted by the number of proxies they received. The top 500 or so representatives get to sit in Congress. Those who didn't reach the threshold must pass their proxy on to another. Nobody is no longer "represented" by somebody they didn't vote for. You can be represented by somebody who much more closely matches your interest. "Districts" will still be represented because many people will choose a local candidate, but everybody is free to choose someone who will represent them better if no local candidate does. This won't eliminate political parties, but it will significantly weaken them as strong representatives will no longer be as dependent on the party machinery.
- Wilduck 14y ago
  That's a pretty interesting idea. Is there any precedent for anything remotely resembling this having been done before?
  - saraid216 14y ago
    I believe the Pirate Party (possibly only in Germany) uses it. It's called liquid democracy.
    - bryanlarsen 14y ago
      Liquid Democracy is basically direct democracy with a flexible proxy capability. My proposal is proxy only. Liquid Democracy also does away with fixed election dates and embraces a continuous process. I deliberately didn't talk about that in my proposal. I think too many people get hung up on the continuous process part, which I think is much less important than proxy voting combined with the removal of districting. IOW, my proposal is a toned down version of Liquid Democracy.
- specialist 14y ago
no_more_death 14y ago
The problem is the idea that a single elected official can somehow represent the entire United States. Can one person understand and represent 300 million people? Impossible. At least, impossible on a deep level. Such understanding is possible only in a very general level, for issues that are very broad. Therefore, government should be as small, localized, and focused as possible. As much power as possible should be invested at the local level. A lot of Europeans don't get this. European countries are already small and homogeneous (apologies for a huge generalization). They already have a fairly local government. The USA needs to work differently because it's the third most populous country in the world and because it's so enormously diverse. Government should be as close to the people as possible. Then if you don't like your municipality or state, you can move a few miles away to get a different municipal / state government. I'm much more concerned about electing people whom I've met personally and had the chance to interact with at a town hall. Grass roots movements are much more effective at understanding people in a deep way. From a conservative perspective (my perspective), the Tea Party is a movement that has had great success enforcing accountability and toppling incumbents. There are similar movements in other political camps as well. Here's the point: localized government increases freedom and choice. It puts local government in a position where it has to compete with other governments (municipal or state). That kind of competition can potentially squeeze out corruption and increase accountability.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  This is why our ~530 senators and representatives are important - they are also supposed to represent our interests. Then each state has a governor and state senators and representatives. And each state is divided into counties, which usually have a county chairman and county council. Additionally, cities usually have a mayor or director and a city council.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > The problem is the idea that a single elected official can somehow represent the entire United States. Can one person understand and represent 300 million people? He's not actually supposed to. The President has two essential jobs: (1) administrating and executing the laws he signs from Congress and (2) being the country's spokesperson to the rest of the world. To actually do these jobs, he presides over the vast bureaucracy that is the federal government. Sometimes his speech involves bombs; other times, it's more diplomatic. The idea that such a person should be representative of yourself is silly. I don't want to talk to Iran; that's why I elect a President to do it for me. Read Article 2 of the Constitution. It says nothing about representation, or anything like it.
specialist 14y ago
#1 - We have two political parties in the USA because of our winner takes all form of elections. No matter how big the pie, two sides will each attempt to form the smallest winning coalition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law #2 - Anything that weakens the political parties strengthens the monied interests. The American experiment has always been wealth vs democracy. Bad as our parties are, plutocracy is worse. This may change with the rise of issues-based political organizations. #3 - In the USA, we vote on everything, and we are not homogeneous. My local Republicans would be considered Democrats else where. #4 - Don't be distracted by the party politics. Reforms which would most improve our democracy, in order, are: a) Fair redistricting, meaning maximal competitiveness, minimal incumbency protection. b) Universal voter registration, just like every other western democracy. c) Public financing of campaigns. d) Restore the fairness doctrine. That's pretty much it. A good start. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. (I've got a separate list for election integrity reform.)
jfoster 14y ago
In the absence of a political party imposing partisanship onto politicians, is it possible that a new source of control over politicians might emerge? Independents (whether politicians, startups, or any organization that isn't big) are always cash strapped and in pursuit of a voice.
senthil_rajasek 14y ago
There is an error in the paraphrasing, Sergey Brin is not calling for all politicians to abandon their political parties. He is suggesting the "victors" to withdraw from their party affiliation while they are governing. There is a big difference. Here is his original post, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  I think you are correct. Many people seem to not be bothering what he wrote. That being said, I don't really understand this post at all. He recognizes and dislikes the game mechanics involved in political brinkmanship, and then thinks somehow there is any competitive human endeavor that does not involve one? Why not use mathematics to find a better mechanic more suitable to a goal? For example, absolute or adaptive term limits. Simply renouncing party affiliation leads to Bloomberg style manipulation of the electorate's party affiliations. Some people (most) prefer that the actions and abuses of one elected official will most likely reflect on the entire party in the next cycle. Complicated.
Velveteen_Mask 14y ago
As stated here, 2 party system is corrupt and self-destructive. When you listen to Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you hear rational people talking about real problems and real solutions. * I urge EVERYONE who is not in a battleground state to vote 3rd party, so that the news covers them more, and more voters hear their positions. This is the soft way to break the duopoly. The only other way I know involves bloodshed.
kdsudac 14y ago
I'm sympathetic to Sergey's views but I'd think he of all people would understand the utility of political parties as huge marketing machines. The DNC and GOP have a) eyeballs/audience which leads to b) donors/money. Although imperfect, there is some substance in this analogy Political Parties:Elections::Search Engines:Online Marketing
hooande 14y ago
I think that a Liberal vs Conservative two party system is inevitable in any large group. This assumes that most humans fall into broad liberal (counts on government, believes in helping the poor, open to new ideas) or conservative (dislikes taxes, believes in personal responsibility, likes free markets and the past) modes of thinking. Sooner or later, the smaller groups on one side are going to realize that they can push elements of their agenda further if they all vote together. They might not get all of the things that they wanted, but they'll gain more leverage over the people who have a drastically different world view. Once this has happened, all of the people of the other mode of thinking will realize that they now have to band together in order to compete. And wallah, parties are formed. The problem this presents to american voters is that a vote for a third party is effectively a vote for the other side of the ideological divide. Every vote cast for Garry Johnson is directly aiding the cause of Barack Obama. I bet Al Gore hates Ralph Nader to this day. The idea of "what will happen if the other side wins?" is a very real motivating factor in the voting booth. I'm not defending the two party system. I'm saying that like free markets, it's an emergent property of human behavior. Working together with common cause is the best way to get something done, even if it means associating yourself with a group of people that you don't entirely agree with.
- adaml_623 14y ago
  Many European parliaments seem to disprove your conjecture. The governing group is made up of coalitions of smaller parties.
Nursie 14y ago
I'd rather not have politicians making the decisions at all. Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my interests, when I could easily vote on actual issues. We'd still need executives, but legislature should be reduced to putting bills before the people.
- randomchars 14y ago
  > Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my interests This. I'M not in the US, so copyright laws are less of an issue here, but even without that number of times I find myself thinking that this system sucks is over the threshold. I mean all politicians act like they voters agree with everything they do because you voted for them even if what they're doing is the exact opposite of what you thought they'd be doing.
- ahallock 14y ago
  You were so close. Instead of voting, why don't people actually decide what happens amongst each other? Some people could use voting if they want. Another group of people could use a different method. But because force is involved, we're never given the chance to find out. It's complete vendor lock in. It's like being forced to use Internet Explorer 6... for hundreds of years. Sorry for the wild analogy, but using IE 6 for hundreds of years sounds pretty painful.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    "why don't people actually decide what happens amongst each other?" That's what government is.
    - ahallock 14y ago
      Perhaps I was a bit sloppy with my wording. I was implying that people could decide with the option to not use a centralized coercive agency.
      - 14y ago
jusben1369 14y ago
So are we complaining about the electoral college or the two party system? Way to smudge together two very important, but separate issues. I would argue that the problem in the US is that the two party system is too weak, not too strong, especially at the Federal level. More party discipline would mean majorities would drive through meaningful legislation that would create real change and make voters understand that the one thing they won't get (like today) is inertia due to partisan politics. Today there's very little party discipline in Congress so all legislation becomes multi animal sausage and no one ends up liking the watered down and confused taste.
ebbv 14y ago
Hey while we're making ridiculous claims that will never happen let me call on all billionaires like Sergey Brin to give away 99.999% of their money to charity immediately, not wait until they're 60 and realizing their only legacy is being an asshole.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
Can I suggest creating a new party? There must be enough Republicans sick of being associated with the Tea party, and enough Democrats who would quite like to be able to pass a law, any law, that a centrist counter balance would be quite feasible, and play the part of kingmaker.
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  You mean - a third party? :) Several people have had this idea - one of them actually appears to be getting a respectable portion of the vote this time. Generally speaking, it hasn't caught on.
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    It will catch on better than no party !
    - TallGuyShort 14y ago
      You do realize there are already other alternative parties, right?
vidarh 14y ago
Is he really that naive? It is not in the interest of any politician that wants their agenda to be successful to abandon political parties. Political parties were created to serve a purpose: People who believe their view of the world is right band together to increase their chance of changing things to fit their world view. Even if they were to all abandon political parties tomorrow, they would still have their allegiances and their respective world views and would seek to forge alliances to push their agendas. The end result would be the same. He should look instead to a voting system that so dramatically favour a strongly polarized two party system.
robomartin 14y ago
I'm trying really hard not to get into political discussion. I really am. Here's a cold-hard fact: We can argue Republican or Democrat; Romney or Obama; More taxes or not; Unions or no unions; Electoral college or popular vote, and we can argue these and many other topics until we all vomit in disgust. And the truth will still be that our system of government has run its course and is in dire need of sensible and effective reform. Can't change it? Well, women and blacks didn't use to be able to vote either. Of course we can change it! It just isn't easy. And it shouldn't be. We can continue to bicker about all of the above and more while our country continues accelerating down the slippery slope that marks the decline of what was once a great society. It is politicians for politicians and by politicians. It is special interests and unions. It is idiot voters who rubber-stamp parties without any thought given to the consequences. It is about the incursion of hyper-religious sects into government. It also is about the enslaving of the masses through never-ending, ridiculous and abominable social programs that have managed to keep entire generations of people in poverty and ignorance while eroding any semblance of self-determination and the drive to succeed and advance. That's where we are. That's the truth. Believe what you want. The fact remains that you are unlucky enough to be living through a slow-motion train wreck and it is US who are allowing it to happen. And, while I don't advocate, condone or propose violence of any kind I remain surprised that people have not taken to the streets to take their country back from a political class that deserves a swift kick in the ass, at the very least. Morons. All of us. As far as I am concerned, there's only ONE criteria that should guide your decision of who to vote for over the next ten to twenty years: Economic Recovery. Virtually nothing else matters. Social issues are great when you are prosperous. And they are extremely important. That said, what do you think happens to social issues in places like Greece when people are rioting in the streets, burning-down buildings and destroying infrastructure? The luxury of a number of social programs can only come out of economic prosperity. You can't buy your kid an Xbox if you are not making any money. Well, we can't throw money around as a country when our economy is on life support. We can't grow and we can't advance. Economic prosperity has to be the single unifying criteria that drives us as a country for at least the next decade, if not a lot more. We must pull out of the nose-dive we are in. We have to. Or it will get really ugly here very quickly. As cool and fun as Obama is, he simply wasn't and isn't qualified for this job. Back in 2008 not one of you HN entrepreneurs would have hired him to run any kind of a startup. He wouldn't have been hired to even run a cookie baking operation. He simply did not have the skill set and life experience. Why is it that we ignore the facts and substitute our own imaginary reality with these people? Are they so good that they truly CAN sell ice to Eskimos? He wasn't qualified then and isn't qualified now. Would you have hired him to run your startup in 2008 and given him all of your life savings and all of your parent's, uncle's and friend's life savings? Unless you are in love with the idea of Obama, as opposed to seeing the reality of Obama, the only possible answer to that question is: No. We desperately need someone at the helm that can focus on Economic Development 100% and --this is important-- comes to the office with the skill set and life experience to navigate those waters. You don't learn to sail in a storm. You must be an experienced sailor if you are going to have any chance whatsoever to survive a storm. I wonder, how would a VC feel if the CEO of a company they are backing plays over 100 games of golf while the company continues to loose more and more money for four years? And, what would they do to that CEO if he (or she) refused to balance the budget and insisted in burning cash (and borrow more cash) while playing golf, taking vacations, singing and dancing? This is serious business folks. This ain't some bullshit Hollywood movie. In my opinion, this country desperately needs the guidance, outlook and vision of a seasoned business person. That's why today, my family and I voted for Mitt Romney. And, while I fear that my vote will not count because I live in California, I had to vote for the idea of a better potential future for both myself and my kids. One never knows. If you have not voted yet I urge you to consider the idea that nothing will improve your life more than our country being guided into a path of steady and significant economic prosperity. Today, I think, nothing else matters.
kwamenum86 14y ago
"It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people." Maybe they come off as thoughtful and well-meaning because many of them are sociopaths. Indeed, politicians are much more likely to be sociopaths and psycopaths; they're great manipulators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
brownbat 14y ago
For what it's worth, in the US (as opposed to, say, the UK), party politicians aren't tightly bound to their party's policies. This partly explains why some Republicans on the West coast could be considered "too liberal" to win in the Midwest, while some Southern Democrats from the last decade formerly endorsed segregation. And the parties encompass so many issues, it's nearly impossible for anyone to be a partisan down the line while remaining consistent. Isolationists and libertarians will clash in the Republican's tent, while union supporters and environmentalists might clash in the Democrat's tent. Parties aren't awesome, they often get distracted by short term tactical goals that hurt the country rather than pursuing long term strategies to refine public policy. But I think that's a vision and leadership problem, not a problem with parties themselves. The wide range of views within each party should at least provide some reassurance that the parties aren't always just giant soul-crushing machines. Just sometimes.
javajosh 14y ago
People are not reading enough into Brin's suggestion. You can't just ditch parties and expect to win an election. But parties are pretty bad. The solution is to really democratize American politics. I think we need a completely new system, where, oh, five candidates are chosen by a random lottery, and then after a few months of preparation (which would make great reality TV) a general election. This is the kind of participatory government that our modern information infrastructure can enable. And tell me that the American people wouldn't love this! The cool thing is that we can graft this onto the current system by asking people to agree to a pact where they agree to write in the selected candidate. This would have to be conditional, of course, on getting enough people to agree to the pact. 10 million or so would be a significant number. Of course there's no reason to start off with national politics with this. I think it would be fine to start with local races and demonstrate feasibility. But of course, I want it to choose the next President. :)
mdlm 14y ago
Wow. This is exactly what our YC application is about: "Thete builds tools for people who want to create new countries...We ask whether politicians are a necessary part of a political system." :-) :)
pathjumper 14y ago
Funny, I was just talking about this... Political parties are a bad idea. George Washington himself went to great pains to explain why in his farewell address. The gist of it is, political parties divide us, and the goals and motives of the party start to take precedence over the goals and motives of the people the party is supposed to represent. To bring this home, if you think the choice between two political candidates amounts to a choice between the lesser of two evils, then the parties have failed us completely and ought to be ousted. Both of them. I highly recommend every American read it. The prose is beautiful. [Here's the full text.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp) A couple of excerpts concerning the warning against political parties: >One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. Political parties are deceptive and divisive... >They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. Parties can get co-opted by those with the time and means to do so. For example, the 0.01%. The Koch brothers, etc. And government becomes a fight between the parties instead of an operating government. Sound familiar? >However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. People who control the parties may become ladder kickers. Removing the things that helped them rise to power, so that they cannot be easily usurped once ensconced. Like the Romney family. Mitt's father was a beneficiary of the social programs Romney claims to want to terminate. The very definition of a ladder kicker. >The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. Democrat vs. Republican. >The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Yeah, he saw [this](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2nzBwb5Cea4/T9KJYicYRFI/AAAAAAAARtU/ncNwyxEpAS0/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2nzBwb5Cea4/T9KJYicYRFI/AAAAAAAARt...) coming too. Parties take precedence over the people themselves, and when coopted by special interests, such as our 0.01%, or big business, turn into a nightmare. >Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. Keep an eye on political parties. >It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. [These are now called wedge issues.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue#Wedge_politics_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue#Wedge_politics_in_t...) Ostensibly issues everyone cares about, but really a tool to separate us into chunks and have us at each others' throats while those actually in power do as they please while we are fighting amongst each other over issues that ought not be the government's business.
jcslzr 14y ago
Political Parties should be illegal. They just end up as gangs of charismatic people.

299 points by jaredtking 14y ago

I found the original Google+ post more striking. If anyone wants to access that directly: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir This is a good move from Brin in my opinion, even though he can do little more than speak about the matter. There's nothing more dangerous to a stable democracy than a two party system. In Britain with more prominent parties (Even though only two really get elected) I still feel like my politics aren't being represented.

trhtrsh 14y ago
If Brin really wanted to do more than speak, he could be Governor of CA in 10 years and President in 20.

hnriot 14y ago

How naive of Brin to suggest this, and some might easily suggest that the best thing politicians can do is spednd their time sticking it to each other, that way they meddle less and avoid doing any real damage. Seriously though this post really shows how little Brin understands about how political systems work.

olefoo 14y ago
This. Competence in one field does not imply understanding in another. Given Sergey's proclivities and interests, I'd say it behooves him to fund a "non-partisan" thinktank to look at the data and produce data-driven policy suggestions that are intended to influence all parties to government. Not that I would suggest that he become too personally invested in what happens after the suggestions make into the legislature; that way lies pain.
randomchars 14y ago
Idealistic != Naive Learn the difference. Also the posts also shows how little the writer understands what Sergey wrote. Read the G+ post.

Wilduck 14y ago

I don't want politicians to denounce their political parties. Instead, I would rather see an adoption of elements of proportional representation into our political system. For example, Party List PR[1] in the House of Representatives would provide an avenue for third parties to actually get elected on the national level. This may seem like an extreme example, in that it is highly unlikely to happen any time soon, but it is not an extreme system of voting. The German Bundestag, for example, combines a system of First Past the Post voting and Party List PR to achieve proportional representation in their legislature[2]. Even less extreme would be ditching the Electoral college, and moving to a Single Transferable Vote[3] for presidential elections. At least under these systems you're not "Throwing your vote away" when voting third party. There is evidence that proportional systems of representation increase voter participation, and voter confidence. I would love to see prominent technologists espousing these sorts of changes. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_representation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party-list_proportional_represe... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distribution_of_seats_by_party_in_the_17th_Bundestag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag_(Germany)#Distributio... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

mtgx 14y ago
I would also like to see the "Approval Voting" system being implement. It would make sure the politician that most people agree with the most, will get elected. It would also make it a lot easier for a 3rd party candidate to be elected president. For example, if 45% would vote for Obama (Democrats), 45% would vote for Romney (Republicans), and each of those 2 factions would also vote for Gary Johnson in proportion of 30% each (out of total voters), then it would be Gary Johnson who would win the election, because he would have the support of 60% of the population, rather than 45% for Obama and 45% for Romney. The reason this result would be more satisfactory for a larger portion of voters, is because more people actually approved of this candidate from both sides, instead of 45% approving Obama and absolutely hating Romney as a president, or 45% approving of Romney and absolutely hating Obama. The winner would be the candidate that is liked or approved by the largest portion of the population, which leads to higher satisfaction for the voters after the election. http://electology.org/approval-voting http://electology.org/approval-voting AV vs IRV (for those wanting to see the IRV system being applied): http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/ http://electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv/

jhuckestein 14y ago

In Germany we have a multi-party system and it works a little better than in the US but it's not a silver bullet either. After each election, the elected representatives vote for our chancellor (similar to the American president). Because we have so many parties and the two largest parties usually get only 20% to 40% of the vote, they need to form alliances with the smaller parties in order to gain a governing majority. Sometimes our conservative party will team up with the liberals, sometimes our social democratic party will have to team up with a right-leaning party and sometimes the two big parties will even form an alliance. This works fairly well, especially because each state government has a different set of governing parties so there's not as much bitterness and more people get to work together. That said, within each office, parties still consider themselves to be either governing or the opposition and fall into opposition mode for a few years, just like they do in the US.

mmanfrin 14y ago

Parties are not the cause, they are the result. A first-past-the-post system like ours will always tend towards a two party system.

Wilduck 14y ago
Exactly. This is known as Duverger's Law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law
baddox 14y ago
It's worth nothing that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on who you are. By that, I mean that if you're part of government, it's a very good thing, since fewer parties generally means more government stability. Of course, that's quite likely to be bad for the general population.

phillmv 14y ago

I feel like I can't contribute much further than Yglesias did, >Political partisanship is kind of like representative democracy itself—a terrible mess, but clearly superior to the alternatives. After all, we don't need to guess at what representative democracy without political parties would look like. Just examine almost any American city council—be it New York, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, whatever—and you'll see a legislative body that's so overwhelmingly Democratic that partisan politics don't drive outcomes. The result of this isn't a utopia of good government and sound policy, it's an orgy of hyper-localism. >Political parties are organized, for better and for worse, around clashing visions of what's better for America. The quest for partisan advantage is, among other things, a quest for the opportunity to build a better society. Absent parties you get a situation where instead of a clash of visions of what would be best for the city as a whole, council members give undue preference to strong local interests. In city government, that means NIMBYism. In Congress it would mean endless gobs of the much-derided pork barrelling. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/sergei_brin_hates_political_parties_but_he_d_like_the_alternative_even_less.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/11/06/sergei_brin_h...

saraid216 14y ago
> The result of this isn't a utopia of good government and sound policy, it's an orgy of hyper-localism. Any chance someone could make this statement more concrete? It's terribly important to his argument, but it's taken as an article of faith.
- phillmv 14y ago
  Because you're only beholden to the people who live in your ward, you only really have the interests of those specific 10-50 thousand people (less in smaller cities, more in larger ones) in mind. This, it turns out, really harms the capacity for governments to make decisions that make everyone better off on average but might make any given small region of people unhappy (say, by building a powerplant or a garbage dump). Of course, there are benefits to this kind of representation, and some kind of mix is always desirable - but the gist of it is people are more willing to make regionally-disinterested decisions if their interests are aligned across ideological rather than geographical lines.

cletus 14y ago

There are two important points to remember when it comes to political parties: 1. Political parties are brands. Just like buying a widget from Apple is done based on certain expectations based on the history of previous widgets, a political party instantly tells most voters what that person is for or against. This is incredibly convenient to the vast majority of voters; and 2. The current state of politics in the US I think reflect's Hotelling's Law [1]. The parties have converged on the middle so they each get roughly half the vote. With such close elections and narrow balances of power in the House and Senate things are going to stay ugly. Look no further than the current distribution of seats in the Australian House of Representatives [2] where the Gillard government clings to power with the support of 3 independents and 1 Green (76-74), a change of a single seat could change the government. This has inevitably led to some bitter disputes [3] [4] that would be non-issues or much smaller issues if the government had a large working majority. The problem with the US is not the electoral college or that only swing states matter (which largely misses the point). Popular vote deciding the president would be a fundamental change to the system that would (IMHO) ultimately lead to disaster when a close enough election repeated the turmoil of the 2000 Florida recount across the entire country. The problem is that: 1. Voting isn't mandatory and the population is apathetic; 2. Voting is too hard being on a weekday and involving long waiting times. I would also argue that the long waiting times are symptomatic of (1). Partisan election officials have a vested interest in deterring or encouraging the vote in certain areas; 3. The FPTP (first past the post) system reinforces the two-party system whereas preferential voting systems allow "protest votes" without them being wasted or, worse, an effective vote for the other side; 4. Here's the big one: people are too predictable in how they vote. Of those that vote, 40% vote Democrat, 40% vote Republican and 20% decide the election. The Biggest electoral landslides in history (Reagan in 84 and Nixon in 72) have both garnered less than 60% of the popular vote. This problem is so bad that in the redistricting process [5] there are maps produced of political persuasions that are used by the incumbent state government to redraw boundaries to maximize "their" Congressional delegation. This process is incredibly accurate because people are so predictable. IMHO the choices in this election are pretty terrible. Romney, with his 47% and his "binders full of women" is a joke. Obama is the most IP-friendly and consumer and tech hostile president in history, from championing in secret a treaty (the original ACTA) that would've raised file-sharing to the level of terrorism and turned the FBI into the RIAA and MPAA's enforcement arm to filling the DoJ and judiciary with RIAA lawyers to his stance on software patents. My advice? Given bad choices, which seem to abound, vote against the incumbent. The one thing politicians seem to fear is losing office with all the power and perks that come with it. If this means you vote for a party you otherwise wouldn't, consider this: it's also important that your party doesn't take your vote for granted. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotellings_law [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Australia)#Current_distribution_of_seats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Austr... [3]: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/10/09/australian-speaker-weakens-gov-grip-quitting/3P1RG5mO2uvmPN77oHgMCP/story.html http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/2012/10/09/australian-... [4]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-23/australian-lawmaker-thomson-s-home-raided-amid-corruption-probe.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-23/australian-lawmaker... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting

grandalf 14y ago

I question the judgment/intellect of anyone who affiliates with one of the major two parties in the US. I don't think parties themselves are necessarily a problem, but the US system has converged on a two-party equilibrium that is destructive to the democratic process.

bitcartel 14y ago

In the UK, only 1% of the electorate are members of a political party. Or put another way: "between them the three main parties now have fewer members than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds" http://www.economist.com/node/21559901 http://www.economist.com/node/21559901 What happens as party membership continues to decline? At what point does it become farcical? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-democracy-decline-report http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/british-democracy-d... http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/politics-democracy-decline-audit-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/06/politics...

citricsquid 14y ago
I care enough about politics to know who I'm voting for but not enough to go out and campaign for the party I'm voting for, are people that are members of a party the people that put up signs in their windows and the like? What is a "member" of the conservative party? Does someone just sign some paper or do they pay money to support the party, or commit to helping campaign?
- bitcartel 14y ago
  Joining the party as a member costs 25 pounds a year. http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join.aspx http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join.aspx

pan69 14y ago

This is just my take on it; I don't think there anything wrong with the notion of a political party. It's just a bucket under which like-minded people can group together. My problem with politics is that politicians seem to be more focused on politics rather than governance. It's the back-stabbing, lying and foul mouthing that I start to detest more and more as I get older. A lot of young politicians start their career out with a lot ideals and will to chance the world they live in. But then they grow up a little and suddenly they have a young family to look after. Their ideals chance and what comes out of their mouths slowly starts to turn into "blah" simply saying what people want to hear. I.e. politics. Their once good intentions slowly turn into self interest. I think the first thing that any sane democracy should do is to take away the self interest among politicians. I would say that if someone decides to go into politics that this person can have no ties and interests to the commercial world what so ever. Not sure how this would exactly work in the real world but I think it could do some good to our political system.

anon808 14y ago

I call on all developers to abandon employment at mega companies and work independently.

Apocryphon 14y ago
The FOSS movement is far stronger in software than third parties are in American politics.
- anon808 14y ago
  yup, good point but i'm not sure sergey would be encouraging google employees to quit google and take up an open source project as readily as he's calling politicians to do so. my comment is a little trolly, just find it peculiar that a person who heads up a massive organization encourages other folks not to be part of other massive organizations. I agree with him, partisan politics is bad, just as bad as corporate droning (which i'm not sure he would agree with).

debacle 14y ago

"Old Man Yells At Cloud" would have been an equally compelling headline.

bryanlarsen 14y ago

Many people agree that there are many problems with first past the post voting. IMO, that's an artefact of voting districts. With modern technology, it's possible to make our representative democracy truly representative. During an election, you give your proxy to anybody who is willing to be a representative. Each representative votes in Congress with a vote weighted by the number of proxies they received. The top 500 or so representatives get to sit in Congress. Those who didn't reach the threshold must pass their proxy on to another. Nobody is no longer "represented" by somebody they didn't vote for. You can be represented by somebody who much more closely matches your interest. "Districts" will still be represented because many people will choose a local candidate, but everybody is free to choose someone who will represent them better if no local candidate does. This won't eliminate political parties, but it will significantly weaken them as strong representatives will no longer be as dependent on the party machinery.

Wilduck 14y ago
That's a pretty interesting idea. Is there any precedent for anything remotely resembling this having been done before?
- saraid216 14y ago
  I believe the Pirate Party (possibly only in Germany) uses it. It's called liquid democracy.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    Liquid Democracy is basically direct democracy with a flexible proxy capability. My proposal is proxy only. Liquid Democracy also does away with fixed election dates and embraces a continuous process. I deliberately didn't talk about that in my proposal. I think too many people get hung up on the continuous process part, which I think is much less important than proxy voting combined with the removal of districting. IOW, my proposal is a toned down version of Liquid Democracy.
specialist 14y ago

no_more_death 14y ago

The problem is the idea that a single elected official can somehow represent the entire United States. Can one person understand and represent 300 million people? Impossible. At least, impossible on a deep level. Such understanding is possible only in a very general level, for issues that are very broad. Therefore, government should be as small, localized, and focused as possible. As much power as possible should be invested at the local level. A lot of Europeans don't get this. European countries are already small and homogeneous (apologies for a huge generalization). They already have a fairly local government. The USA needs to work differently because it's the third most populous country in the world and because it's so enormously diverse. Government should be as close to the people as possible. Then if you don't like your municipality or state, you can move a few miles away to get a different municipal / state government. I'm much more concerned about electing people whom I've met personally and had the chance to interact with at a town hall. Grass roots movements are much more effective at understanding people in a deep way. From a conservative perspective (my perspective), the Tea Party is a movement that has had great success enforcing accountability and toppling incumbents. There are similar movements in other political camps as well. Here's the point: localized government increases freedom and choice. It puts local government in a position where it has to compete with other governments (municipal or state). That kind of competition can potentially squeeze out corruption and increase accountability.

stephengillie 14y ago
This is why our ~530 senators and representatives are important - they are also supposed to represent our interests. Then each state has a governor and state senators and representatives. And each state is divided into counties, which usually have a county chairman and county council. Additionally, cities usually have a mayor or director and a city council.
saraid216 14y ago
> The problem is the idea that a single elected official can somehow represent the entire United States. Can one person understand and represent 300 million people? He's not actually supposed to. The President has two essential jobs: (1) administrating and executing the laws he signs from Congress and (2) being the country's spokesperson to the rest of the world. To actually do these jobs, he presides over the vast bureaucracy that is the federal government. Sometimes his speech involves bombs; other times, it's more diplomatic. The idea that such a person should be representative of yourself is silly. I don't want to talk to Iran; that's why I elect a President to do it for me. Read Article 2 of the Constitution. It says nothing about representation, or anything like it.

specialist 14y ago

#1 - We have two political parties in the USA because of our winner takes all form of elections. No matter how big the pie, two sides will each attempt to form the smallest winning coalition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_law #2 - Anything that weakens the political parties strengthens the monied interests. The American experiment has always been wealth vs democracy. Bad as our parties are, plutocracy is worse. This may change with the rise of issues-based political organizations. #3 - In the USA, we vote on everything, and we are not homogeneous. My local Republicans would be considered Democrats else where. #4 - Don't be distracted by the party politics. Reforms which would most improve our democracy, in order, are: a) Fair redistricting, meaning maximal competitiveness, minimal incumbency protection. b) Universal voter registration, just like every other western democracy. c) Public financing of campaigns. d) Restore the fairness doctrine. That's pretty much it. A good start. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. (I've got a separate list for election integrity reform.)

jfoster 14y ago

In the absence of a political party imposing partisanship onto politicians, is it possible that a new source of control over politicians might emerge? Independents (whether politicians, startups, or any organization that isn't big) are always cash strapped and in pursuit of a voice.

senthil_rajasek 14y ago

There is an error in the paraphrasing, Sergey Brin is not calling for all politicians to abandon their political parties. He is suggesting the "victors" to withdraw from their party affiliation while they are governing. There is a big difference. Here is his original post, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SergeyBrin/posts/B9VnJXd6Rir

shawn-butler 14y ago
I think you are correct. Many people seem to not be bothering what he wrote. That being said, I don't really understand this post at all. He recognizes and dislikes the game mechanics involved in political brinkmanship, and then thinks somehow there is any competitive human endeavor that does not involve one? Why not use mathematics to find a better mechanic more suitable to a goal? For example, absolute or adaptive term limits. Simply renouncing party affiliation leads to Bloomberg style manipulation of the electorate's party affiliations. Some people (most) prefer that the actions and abuses of one elected official will most likely reflect on the entire party in the next cycle. Complicated.

Velveteen_Mask 14y ago

As stated here, 2 party system is corrupt and self-destructive. When you listen to Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you hear rational people talking about real problems and real solutions. * I urge EVERYONE who is not in a battleground state to vote 3rd party, so that the news covers them more, and more voters hear their positions. This is the soft way to break the duopoly. The only other way I know involves bloodshed.

kdsudac 14y ago

I'm sympathetic to Sergey's views but I'd think he of all people would understand the utility of political parties as huge marketing machines. The DNC and GOP have a) eyeballs/audience which leads to b) donors/money. Although imperfect, there is some substance in this analogy Political Parties:Elections::Search Engines:Online Marketing

hooande 14y ago

I think that a Liberal vs Conservative two party system is inevitable in any large group. This assumes that most humans fall into broad liberal (counts on government, believes in helping the poor, open to new ideas) or conservative (dislikes taxes, believes in personal responsibility, likes free markets and the past) modes of thinking. Sooner or later, the smaller groups on one side are going to realize that they can push elements of their agenda further if they all vote together. They might not get all of the things that they wanted, but they'll gain more leverage over the people who have a drastically different world view. Once this has happened, all of the people of the other mode of thinking will realize that they now have to band together in order to compete. And wallah, parties are formed. The problem this presents to american voters is that a vote for a third party is effectively a vote for the other side of the ideological divide. Every vote cast for Garry Johnson is directly aiding the cause of Barack Obama. I bet Al Gore hates Ralph Nader to this day. The idea of "what will happen if the other side wins?" is a very real motivating factor in the voting booth. I'm not defending the two party system. I'm saying that like free markets, it's an emergent property of human behavior. Working together with common cause is the best way to get something done, even if it means associating yourself with a group of people that you don't entirely agree with.

adaml_623 14y ago
Many European parliaments seem to disprove your conjecture. The governing group is made up of coalitions of smaller parties.

Nursie 14y ago

I'd rather not have politicians making the decisions at all. Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my interests, when I could easily vote on actual issues. We'd still need executives, but legislature should be reduced to putting bills before the people.

randomchars 14y ago
> Why do I need to pick someone who poorly represents my views and will probably vote against my interests This. I'M not in the US, so copyright laws are less of an issue here, but even without that number of times I find myself thinking that this system sucks is over the threshold. I mean all politicians act like they voters agree with everything they do because you voted for them even if what they're doing is the exact opposite of what you thought they'd be doing.
ahallock 14y ago
You were so close. Instead of voting, why don't people actually decide what happens amongst each other? Some people could use voting if they want. Another group of people could use a different method. But because force is involved, we're never given the chance to find out. It's complete vendor lock in. It's like being forced to use Internet Explorer 6... for hundreds of years. Sorry for the wild analogy, but using IE 6 for hundreds of years sounds pretty painful.
- Nursie 14y ago
  "why don't people actually decide what happens amongst each other?" That's what government is.
  - ahallock 14y ago
    Perhaps I was a bit sloppy with my wording. I was implying that people could decide with the option to not use a centralized coercive agency.
    - 14y ago

jusben1369 14y ago

So are we complaining about the electoral college or the two party system? Way to smudge together two very important, but separate issues. I would argue that the problem in the US is that the two party system is too weak, not too strong, especially at the Federal level. More party discipline would mean majorities would drive through meaningful legislation that would create real change and make voters understand that the one thing they won't get (like today) is inertia due to partisan politics. Today there's very little party discipline in Congress so all legislation becomes multi animal sausage and no one ends up liking the watered down and confused taste.

ebbv 14y ago

Hey while we're making ridiculous claims that will never happen let me call on all billionaires like Sergey Brin to give away 99.999% of their money to charity immediately, not wait until they're 60 and realizing their only legacy is being an asshole.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

Can I suggest creating a new party? There must be enough Republicans sick of being associated with the Tea party, and enough Democrats who would quite like to be able to pass a law, any law, that a centrist counter balance would be quite feasible, and play the part of kingmaker.

TallGuyShort 14y ago
You mean - a third party? :) Several people have had this idea - one of them actually appears to be getting a respectable portion of the vote this time. Generally speaking, it hasn't caught on.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  It will catch on better than no party !
  - TallGuyShort 14y ago
    You do realize there are already other alternative parties, right?

vidarh 14y ago

Is he really that naive? It is not in the interest of any politician that wants their agenda to be successful to abandon political parties. Political parties were created to serve a purpose: People who believe their view of the world is right band together to increase their chance of changing things to fit their world view. Even if they were to all abandon political parties tomorrow, they would still have their allegiances and their respective world views and would seek to forge alliances to push their agendas. The end result would be the same. He should look instead to a voting system that so dramatically favour a strongly polarized two party system.

robomartin 14y ago

I'm trying really hard not to get into political discussion. I really am. Here's a cold-hard fact: We can argue Republican or Democrat; Romney or Obama; More taxes or not; Unions or no unions; Electoral college or popular vote, and we can argue these and many other topics until we all vomit in disgust. And the truth will still be that our system of government has run its course and is in dire need of sensible and effective reform. Can't change it? Well, women and blacks didn't use to be able to vote either. Of course we can change it! It just isn't easy. And it shouldn't be. We can continue to bicker about all of the above and more while our country continues accelerating down the slippery slope that marks the decline of what was once a great society. It is politicians for politicians and by politicians. It is special interests and unions. It is idiot voters who rubber-stamp parties without any thought given to the consequences. It is about the incursion of hyper-religious sects into government. It also is about the enslaving of the masses through never-ending, ridiculous and abominable social programs that have managed to keep entire generations of people in poverty and ignorance while eroding any semblance of self-determination and the drive to succeed and advance. That's where we are. That's the truth. Believe what you want. The fact remains that you are unlucky enough to be living through a slow-motion train wreck and it is US who are allowing it to happen. And, while I don't advocate, condone or propose violence of any kind I remain surprised that people have not taken to the streets to take their country back from a political class that deserves a swift kick in the ass, at the very least. Morons. All of us. As far as I am concerned, there's only ONE criteria that should guide your decision of who to vote for over the next ten to twenty years: Economic Recovery. Virtually nothing else matters. Social issues are great when you are prosperous. And they are extremely important. That said, what do you think happens to social issues in places like Greece when people are rioting in the streets, burning-down buildings and destroying infrastructure? The luxury of a number of social programs can only come out of economic prosperity. You can't buy your kid an Xbox if you are not making any money. Well, we can't throw money around as a country when our economy is on life support. We can't grow and we can't advance. Economic prosperity has to be the single unifying criteria that drives us as a country for at least the next decade, if not a lot more. We must pull out of the nose-dive we are in. We have to. Or it will get really ugly here very quickly. As cool and fun as Obama is, he simply wasn't and isn't qualified for this job. Back in 2008 not one of you HN entrepreneurs would have hired him to run any kind of a startup. He wouldn't have been hired to even run a cookie baking operation. He simply did not have the skill set and life experience. Why is it that we ignore the facts and substitute our own imaginary reality with these people? Are they so good that they truly CAN sell ice to Eskimos? He wasn't qualified then and isn't qualified now. Would you have hired him to run your startup in 2008 and given him all of your life savings and all of your parent's, uncle's and friend's life savings? Unless you are in love with the idea of Obama, as opposed to seeing the reality of Obama, the only possible answer to that question is: No. We desperately need someone at the helm that can focus on Economic Development 100% and --this is important-- comes to the office with the skill set and life experience to navigate those waters. You don't learn to sail in a storm. You must be an experienced sailor if you are going to have any chance whatsoever to survive a storm. I wonder, how would a VC feel if the CEO of a company they are backing plays over 100 games of golf while the company continues to loose more and more money for four years? And, what would they do to that CEO if he (or she) refused to balance the budget and insisted in burning cash (and borrow more cash) while playing golf, taking vacations, singing and dancing? This is serious business folks. This ain't some bullshit Hollywood movie. In my opinion, this country desperately needs the guidance, outlook and vision of a seasoned business person. That's why today, my family and I voted for Mitt Romney. And, while I fear that my vote will not count because I live in California, I had to vote for the idea of a better potential future for both myself and my kids. One never knows. If you have not voted yet I urge you to consider the idea that nothing will improve your life more than our country being guided into a path of steady and significant economic prosperity. Today, I think, nothing else matters.

kwamenum86 14y ago

"It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people." Maybe they come off as thoughtful and well-meaning because many of them are sociopaths. Indeed, politicians are much more likely to be sociopaths and psycopaths; they're great manipulators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

brownbat 14y ago

For what it's worth, in the US (as opposed to, say, the UK), party politicians aren't tightly bound to their party's policies. This partly explains why some Republicans on the West coast could be considered "too liberal" to win in the Midwest, while some Southern Democrats from the last decade formerly endorsed segregation. And the parties encompass so many issues, it's nearly impossible for anyone to be a partisan down the line while remaining consistent. Isolationists and libertarians will clash in the Republican's tent, while union supporters and environmentalists might clash in the Democrat's tent. Parties aren't awesome, they often get distracted by short term tactical goals that hurt the country rather than pursuing long term strategies to refine public policy. But I think that's a vision and leadership problem, not a problem with parties themselves. The wide range of views within each party should at least provide some reassurance that the parties aren't always just giant soul-crushing machines. Just sometimes.

javajosh 14y ago

People are not reading enough into Brin's suggestion. You can't just ditch parties and expect to win an election. But parties are pretty bad. The solution is to really democratize American politics. I think we need a completely new system, where, oh, five candidates are chosen by a random lottery, and then after a few months of preparation (which would make great reality TV) a general election. This is the kind of participatory government that our modern information infrastructure can enable. And tell me that the American people wouldn't love this! The cool thing is that we can graft this onto the current system by asking people to agree to a pact where they agree to write in the selected candidate. This would have to be conditional, of course, on getting enough people to agree to the pact. 10 million or so would be a significant number. Of course there's no reason to start off with national politics with this. I think it would be fine to start with local races and demonstrate feasibility. But of course, I want it to choose the next President. :)

mdlm 14y ago

Wow. This is exactly what our YC application is about: "Thete builds tools for people who want to create new countries...We ask whether politicians are a necessary part of a political system." :-) :)

pathjumper 14y ago

Funny, I was just talking about this... Political parties are a bad idea. George Washington himself went to great pains to explain why in his farewell address. The gist of it is, political parties divide us, and the goals and motives of the party start to take precedence over the goals and motives of the people the party is supposed to represent. To bring this home, if you think the choice between two political candidates amounts to a choice between the lesser of two evils, then the parties have failed us completely and ought to be ousted. Both of them. I highly recommend every American read it. The prose is beautiful. [Here's the full text.](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp) A couple of excerpts concerning the warning against political parties: >One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. Political parties are deceptive and divisive... >They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. Parties can get co-opted by those with the time and means to do so. For example, the 0.01%. The Koch brothers, etc. And government becomes a fight between the parties instead of an operating government. Sound familiar? >However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. People who control the parties may become ladder kickers. Removing the things that helped them rise to power, so that they cannot be easily usurped once ensconced. Like the Romney family. Mitt's father was a beneficiary of the social programs Romney claims to want to terminate. The very definition of a ladder kicker. >The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. Democrat vs. Republican. >The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Yeah, he saw [this](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2nzBwb5Cea4/T9KJYicYRFI/AAAAAAAARtU/ncNwyxEpAS0/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2nzBwb5Cea4/T9KJYicYRFI/AAAAAAAARt...) coming too. Parties take precedence over the people themselves, and when coopted by special interests, such as our 0.01%, or big business, turn into a nightmare. >Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. Keep an eye on political parties. >It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. [These are now called wedge issues.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue#Wedge_politics_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue#Wedge_politics_in_t...) Ostensibly issues everyone cares about, but really a tool to separate us into chunks and have us at each others' throats while those actually in power do as they please while we are fighting amongst each other over issues that ought not be the government's business.

jcslzr 14y ago

Political Parties should be illegal. They just end up as gangs of charismatic people.