5 ms·

Why don't we just vote the bums out of office? I voted for Obama both times. Going forward, I sure won't vote for anyone who supports this. We should organize a

by babesh 13y ago

Why don't we just vote the bums out of office? I voted for Obama both times. Going forward, I sure won't vote for anyone who supports this. We should organize and figure out who is for and against this.

aspensmonster 13y ago
The ability to vote someone in and out every N years is not nearly sufficient to ensure that the constituents' interests are represented. What is really needed, in my opinion, are the following: * The ability for the constituency to override important votes if thresholds are met * The capacity to initiate a vote of no confidence in an elected official at any time, and for such an action to take effect immediately should it pass, establishing new candidates and elections for the position * Public financing of all campaigns, with free and open access to all media channels required by law, as a duty such companies must shoulder in exchange for the privilege of operating their businesses within the United States * Declaring that money is property, not speech. Lobbying must be performed by no more than one degree of separation from the original sponsor, and utilizing chains of shell companies and organizations to mask the source of lobbying becomes a criminal offense with a mandatory prison sentence for every link in the chain * EDIT (forgot this one): Requiring all public data --laws, emails, chat logs, sanitation test results, etc, etc-- be digitally available over the internet and accessible to everyone with a free and open API as well as simple web portal * Legal teeth built into election law that establishes the following for all elections at all levels: +++ A none-of-the-above candidate. Should it take majority, all candidates that lost to it are barred from the next election, which takes place N weeks later with new candidates +++ Implement an Instant Runoff voting scheme +++ Implement a Mixed-Member Proportional Representation districting scheme. But... that's just me. I think the mechanics of how we do "democratic-republic constitutional federalism" is more important than any particular issue.
- mratzloff 13y ago
  * Free fairy dust for all Neverland residents I kid. Unfortunately, many of these are good but would be impossible to pass in today's political climate. One that I agree with strongly and would make a huge difference is an instant run-off ballot.
fragsworth 13y ago
Massive surveillance has nearly full bipartisan support. You can't just "vote them out". You have to somehow convince everyone to vote third party, which they all think is a wasted vote.
- wavesounds 13y ago
  It's not that hard, you just have to convince half the voters the 4th amendment is more important then being afraid of terrorists. No politician wants to support this they just think they have to to appear 'tough' on terrorism for their constituents.
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    so it's not hard, except for that whole "getting the apathetic to vote" part? America is called a sleeping giant for a reason.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Voter turnout for primaries is usually really, really low. You don't need to convince half of those who do vote; if you just convince 1/4 of those who could vote but don't, you can dominate the primaries. Not that this is easy, but it's another option.
- mratzloff 13y ago
  An instant run-off ballot solves that.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  What about voting "them" - that is, supporters in both parties - out in the primaries?
rayiner 13y ago
As a practical matter, you won't vote these guys out of office because you and everyone else isn't willing to compromise on all the other issues in play. President Kucinich or Paul never would have let this sort of program keep going. But people won't vote for them because, variously, Kucinich is too pre-Clinton liberal (loves regulation and unions), Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education and overturn Roe, etc. Indeed, democrats gravitated to Obama, especially the second time around, because he projected a strong stance on national security. He was the guy who killed Osama and that sold really well. Republicans love strong national security, and democrats either do too (Reagan democrats), or are sick of their candidates being considered weak and soft on communisim/terrorism/etc. Democrats wouldn't vote a President Kucinich because he is perceived as weak and at this point neither party wants to put up a candidate like that. Geez, just look at Carter. That was a guy whose politics mesh really well with the prevailing mood on HN, but look at how the democratic party has swept him under the rug. In the U.S., being perceived as weak is fatal in a leader. And even at the local level, techies, insistant on ideological purity, won't make the compromises necessary to make this happen. Are you going to vote for a Congressman who wants the 10 commandments hung up in schools, wants to see abortion made illegal, and whose objection to survrillance comes from the same survivalist mistrust of government that makes him a top-rated candidate by the NRA? If techies as a whole are willing to do that, maybe they can get some congresspeople elected. As it is, they support a democratic party that doesn't really care strongly about civil liberties. Its Tipper Gore's party, the one that tried to undermine the 1st amendment by banning violent music lyrics from stores and recently tried to ban violent video games with a law that was struck down by the Supreme Court. You think all the "think of the children!" suburbanite Californians share the distrust of surveillance that people on HN do?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I'd like to see Kucinich and Paul run as a ticket, with a promise that they'll only be active on the things they agree on...
betterunix 13y ago
"I voted for Obama both times. Going forward, I sure won't vote for anyone who supports this." In other words, you are waiting for this guy: "I am major party candidate so-and-so, and I swear to you that I will not allow the government to spy on you!" Why would you have voted for Obama the second time after seeing what sort of president he was in his first four years? Did those four years not give you a clue that maybe Obama was a wolf in sheep's clothing?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Because the alternative wasn't any less spy-happy, things were less solidly confirmed, and there are other issues? Simply choosing between major party candidates in the general election isn't going to get the job done - we need to find ways to apply pressure earlier in a meaningful way and get both parties shifted away from the authoritarianism that dominates.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    That's why I voted third party. It would have been great if a third party candidate won, but more importantly, third party votes send a message to the major parties. If the major parties want my vote, they better do something to earn it. Even more so in a battleground state: hit the major parties where it hurts, and change might happen.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      It's a mixed bag. True that the threat of third parties "stealing" votes pulls the major parties somewhat, but at the same time the direct effect of your vote in the general is less to your favor than if you had voted strategically. I am not convinced regarding which effect dominates.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > That's why I voted third party. It would have been great if a third party candidate won, but more importantly, third party votes send a message to the major parties. If the major parties want my vote, they better do something to earn it. But...they don't. At least, not collectively. Under the status quo system, each major party has preferences, numbered in order (letters distinguish approximately-equal-preference alternatives within the numbered category): 1. We get your vote, 2a. Your vote goes to someone other than the other major party 2b. You don't vote, 3. The other major party gets your vote. In fact, each major party has a pretty strong incentive to want people that aren't sold on their platform to blame the two-party system and opt out entirely either by not voting or voting third party, since you voting for the other major party is going to be twice as bad for the major party you aren't voting for than not voting or voting third party.
dllthomas 13y ago
Obama spoke loudly against illegal surveillance as a candidate, and it's one of the reasons I supported him. Obviously, just voting on this issue is insufficient.

by babesh 13y ago

aspensmonster 13y ago

The ability to vote someone in and out every N years is not nearly sufficient to ensure that the constituents' interests are represented. What is really needed, in my opinion, are the following: * The ability for the constituency to override important votes if thresholds are met * The capacity to initiate a vote of no confidence in an elected official at any time, and for such an action to take effect immediately should it pass, establishing new candidates and elections for the position * Public financing of all campaigns, with free and open access to all media channels required by law, as a duty such companies must shoulder in exchange for the privilege of operating their businesses within the United States * Declaring that money is property, not speech. Lobbying must be performed by no more than one degree of separation from the original sponsor, and utilizing chains of shell companies and organizations to mask the source of lobbying becomes a criminal offense with a mandatory prison sentence for every link in the chain * EDIT (forgot this one): Requiring all public data --laws, emails, chat logs, sanitation test results, etc, etc-- be digitally available over the internet and accessible to everyone with a free and open API as well as simple web portal * Legal teeth built into election law that establishes the following for all elections at all levels: +++ A none-of-the-above candidate. Should it take majority, all candidates that lost to it are barred from the next election, which takes place N weeks later with new candidates +++ Implement an Instant Runoff voting scheme +++ Implement a Mixed-Member Proportional Representation districting scheme. But... that's just me. I think the mechanics of how we do "democratic-republic constitutional federalism" is more important than any particular issue.

mratzloff 13y ago
* Free fairy dust for all Neverland residents I kid. Unfortunately, many of these are good but would be impossible to pass in today's political climate. One that I agree with strongly and would make a huge difference is an instant run-off ballot.

fragsworth 13y ago

Massive surveillance has nearly full bipartisan support. You can't just "vote them out". You have to somehow convince everyone to vote third party, which they all think is a wasted vote.

wavesounds 13y ago
It's not that hard, you just have to convince half the voters the 4th amendment is more important then being afraid of terrorists. No politician wants to support this they just think they have to to appear 'tough' on terrorism for their constituents.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  so it's not hard, except for that whole "getting the apathetic to vote" part? America is called a sleeping giant for a reason.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Voter turnout for primaries is usually really, really low. You don't need to convince half of those who do vote; if you just convince 1/4 of those who could vote but don't, you can dominate the primaries. Not that this is easy, but it's another option.
mratzloff 13y ago
An instant run-off ballot solves that.
dllthomas 13y ago
What about voting "them" - that is, supporters in both parties - out in the primaries?

rayiner 13y ago

As a practical matter, you won't vote these guys out of office because you and everyone else isn't willing to compromise on all the other issues in play. President Kucinich or Paul never would have let this sort of program keep going. But people won't vote for them because, variously, Kucinich is too pre-Clinton liberal (loves regulation and unions), Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Education and overturn Roe, etc. Indeed, democrats gravitated to Obama, especially the second time around, because he projected a strong stance on national security. He was the guy who killed Osama and that sold really well. Republicans love strong national security, and democrats either do too (Reagan democrats), or are sick of their candidates being considered weak and soft on communisim/terrorism/etc. Democrats wouldn't vote a President Kucinich because he is perceived as weak and at this point neither party wants to put up a candidate like that. Geez, just look at Carter. That was a guy whose politics mesh really well with the prevailing mood on HN, but look at how the democratic party has swept him under the rug. In the U.S., being perceived as weak is fatal in a leader. And even at the local level, techies, insistant on ideological purity, won't make the compromises necessary to make this happen. Are you going to vote for a Congressman who wants the 10 commandments hung up in schools, wants to see abortion made illegal, and whose objection to survrillance comes from the same survivalist mistrust of government that makes him a top-rated candidate by the NRA? If techies as a whole are willing to do that, maybe they can get some congresspeople elected. As it is, they support a democratic party that doesn't really care strongly about civil liberties. Its Tipper Gore's party, the one that tried to undermine the 1st amendment by banning violent music lyrics from stores and recently tried to ban violent video games with a law that was struck down by the Supreme Court. You think all the "think of the children!" suburbanite Californians share the distrust of surveillance that people on HN do?

dllthomas 13y ago
I'd like to see Kucinich and Paul run as a ticket, with a promise that they'll only be active on the things they agree on...

betterunix 13y ago

"I voted for Obama both times. Going forward, I sure won't vote for anyone who supports this." In other words, you are waiting for this guy: "I am major party candidate so-and-so, and I swear to you that I will not allow the government to spy on you!" Why would you have voted for Obama the second time after seeing what sort of president he was in his first four years? Did those four years not give you a clue that maybe Obama was a wolf in sheep's clothing?

dllthomas 13y ago
Because the alternative wasn't any less spy-happy, things were less solidly confirmed, and there are other issues? Simply choosing between major party candidates in the general election isn't going to get the job done - we need to find ways to apply pressure earlier in a meaningful way and get both parties shifted away from the authoritarianism that dominates.
- betterunix 13y ago
  That's why I voted third party. It would have been great if a third party candidate won, but more importantly, third party votes send a message to the major parties. If the major parties want my vote, they better do something to earn it. Even more so in a battleground state: hit the major parties where it hurts, and change might happen.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It's a mixed bag. True that the threat of third parties "stealing" votes pulls the major parties somewhat, but at the same time the direct effect of your vote in the general is less to your favor than if you had voted strategically. I am not convinced regarding which effect dominates.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That's why I voted third party. It would have been great if a third party candidate won, but more importantly, third party votes send a message to the major parties. If the major parties want my vote, they better do something to earn it. But...they don't. At least, not collectively. Under the status quo system, each major party has preferences, numbered in order (letters distinguish approximately-equal-preference alternatives within the numbered category): 1. We get your vote, 2a. Your vote goes to someone other than the other major party 2b. You don't vote, 3. The other major party gets your vote. In fact, each major party has a pretty strong incentive to want people that aren't sold on their platform to blame the two-party system and opt out entirely either by not voting or voting third party, since you voting for the other major party is going to be twice as bad for the major party you aren't voting for than not voting or voting third party.

dllthomas 13y ago

Obama spoke loudly against illegal surveillance as a candidate, and it's one of the reasons I supported him. Obviously, just voting on this issue is insufficient.