5 ms·

They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney that lobbyists would be put in charge of the internet.

by galectin 13y ago

josh2600 13y ago
It doesn't matter who you vote for; lobbyists already control the Internet.
- numo16 13y ago
  > It doesn't matter who you vote for; lobbyists already control the Government. FTFY
  - yekko 13y ago
    If voting actually changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
w1ntermute 13y ago
There was nothing false about that. It was your mistake for assuming that voting for Obama wouldn't also result in lobbyists being put in charge. As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another. It's like expecting your local cable monopoly to be a better ISP because they have to compete with your local telephone monopoly for Internet subscribers.
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  I completely agree. Even though there are many political parties[1] in the US, there are only two that have the funds and mindshare to win presidential elections. I like that independents like Bernie Sanders[2] and Angus King[3] manage to get into the senate, it provides a little bit of hope for change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_political_parties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_th... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King
  - spikels 13y ago
    Don't Sanders & King almost always vote with the democrats? I would like to see real independents that vote sometimes with one party sometimes with the other and sometimes against both. That would be a true independent.
    - unclenoriega 13y ago
      As for Sanders, given the two-party system, I would expect a senator left of the Democrats to mostly vote with the Democrats just as I would expect a senator to the right of the Republicans to mostly vote with the Republicans. We need more political parties on the left, right, and center, but I don't think limited options makes him a false independent. As for King, he's only got a few months of a voting record, but it makes sense to caucus with the majority given the choice.
      - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
        Left right and center are mostly party constructs. Political ideology is infinitely more complicated than that, but the idea of left, right, and center make it easier to lump your beliefs nicely with those of others, which is necessary for a party system. In reality a politician can be in favor of regulating the oil industry and against regulating the communications industry; there is not hypocrisy there.
  - harshreality 13y ago
    The two major parties are propped up by the mathematics of voting, and funds. I believe mindshare is a symptom of those two things. http://www.rangevoting.org http://www.rangevoting.org
    - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
      Interesting site, but the process is more complex than I think it needs to be. Try instant-runoff voting[1], Australia already switched to it: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.h... Of course, this assumes that people know how to vote for the parties best for them. Which comes down to quality education and good news sources. You’d have to ban paid political ads, SuperPACs, lobbyists. Then there’s the matter of voting fraud. Voting computers shouldn’t be used at all, all voting should be done on paper and the ballot design should be standardized. Voter registration should be done away with. On election day, all public transport should be free and workers should get at least one hour paid leave to go out and vote. (None of these things are going to happen anytime soon, but I think they would help.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
- mseebach 13y ago
  Democracies tend to gravitate towards a binary choice, regardless of the actual number of parties. This happens all the time in Europe. Don't mistake the fact that we have social policies different from those in the US for diversity, it is very much a cross-party consensus.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    I never suggested that we should imitate Europe, did I? That would lead to even worse economic problems than we already have. I just think that we need to introduce more competition so that the parties are forced to compete on concrete goals and actions, rather than lofty ideals that are more suited to a sports match (which is what American politics often feels like).
    - mseebach 13y ago
      No, I was reacting to this: > As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another. In Europe, there are many more parties, but that doesn't make politics less of a two-team sports match. My point was that you've identified the wrong culprit in the two-party system.

They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney that lobbyists would be put in charge of the internet.

josh2600 13y ago

It doesn't matter who you vote for; lobbyists already control the Internet.

numo16 13y ago
> It doesn't matter who you vote for; lobbyists already control the Government. FTFY
- yekko 13y ago
  If voting actually changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

w1ntermute 13y ago

There was nothing false about that. It was your mistake for assuming that voting for Obama wouldn't also result in lobbyists being put in charge. As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another. It's like expecting your local cable monopoly to be a better ISP because they have to compete with your local telephone monopoly for Internet subscribers.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
I completely agree. Even though there are many political parties[1] in the US, there are only two that have the funds and mindshare to win presidential elections. I like that independents like Bernie Sanders[2] and Angus King[3] manage to get into the senate, it provides a little bit of hope for change. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_political_parties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_th... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_King
- spikels 13y ago
  Don't Sanders & King almost always vote with the democrats? I would like to see real independents that vote sometimes with one party sometimes with the other and sometimes against both. That would be a true independent.
  - unclenoriega 13y ago
    As for Sanders, given the two-party system, I would expect a senator left of the Democrats to mostly vote with the Democrats just as I would expect a senator to the right of the Republicans to mostly vote with the Republicans. We need more political parties on the left, right, and center, but I don't think limited options makes him a false independent. As for King, he's only got a few months of a voting record, but it makes sense to caucus with the majority given the choice.
    - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
      Left right and center are mostly party constructs. Political ideology is infinitely more complicated than that, but the idea of left, right, and center make it easier to lump your beliefs nicely with those of others, which is necessary for a party system. In reality a politician can be in favor of regulating the oil industry and against regulating the communications industry; there is not hypocrisy there.
- harshreality 13y ago
  The two major parties are propped up by the mathematics of voting, and funds. I believe mindshare is a symptom of those two things. http://www.rangevoting.org http://www.rangevoting.org
  - Samuel_Michon 13y ago
    Interesting site, but the process is more complex than I think it needs to be. Try instant-runoff voting[1], Australia already switched to it: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-alternative-vote-explained.h... Of course, this assumes that people know how to vote for the parties best for them. Which comes down to quality education and good news sources. You’d have to ban paid political ads, SuperPACs, lobbyists. Then there’s the matter of voting fraud. Voting computers shouldn’t be used at all, all voting should be done on paper and the ballot design should be standardized. Voter registration should be done away with. On election day, all public transport should be free and workers should get at least one hour paid leave to go out and vote. (None of these things are going to happen anytime soon, but I think they would help.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
mseebach 13y ago
Democracies tend to gravitate towards a binary choice, regardless of the actual number of parties. This happens all the time in Europe. Don't mistake the fact that we have social policies different from those in the US for diversity, it is very much a cross-party consensus.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  I never suggested that we should imitate Europe, did I? That would lead to even worse economic problems than we already have. I just think that we need to introduce more competition so that the parties are forced to compete on concrete goals and actions, rather than lofty ideals that are more suited to a sports match (which is what American politics often feels like).
  - mseebach 13y ago
    No, I was reacting to this: > As long as we have only 2 parties, they will have no incentive to do anything different from one another. In Europe, there are many more parties, but that doesn't make politics less of a two-team sports match. My point was that you've identified the wrong culprit in the two-party system.