Lawrence Lessig Wants To Run For President So He Can Resign

An anonymous reader writes: Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has announced his intention to explore a bid for the U.S. presidency. By Labor Day, he will decide whether he has the support necessary to enter the Democratic primary. His goals are rather unusual — he says, "I want to run to be a different kind of president. 'Different' not in the traditional political puffery sense of that term. 'Different,' quite literally. I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs. Once that is passed, I would resign, and the elected Vice President would become President."

His top picks for a running mate include Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Lessig calls it a "Presidency as referendum," a hack for the U.S. Constitution to give more power back to the citizens. "In no plausible sense do we have a representative democracy in America today." In an interview with the Washington Post, Lessig added, "Until we find a way to fix the rigged system, none of the other things that people talk about doing are going to be possible."

Comments

Showed too much of his hand

[sh00z]

So, he's announcing a priori that he'll be a lame duck. Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[DarkOx]

Actually could work. "If you give me this, I'll leave" If not you probably have to put up with "four more years!"

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Austerity Empowers]

Except that the most powerful man in the world doesn't usually resign, even in a democracy.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

I've had the same idea before, and that doesn't have to be an issue.

My campaign would be simple: "Here are the things that Congress must pass. Until they pass every one of these, no strings attached, I will veto EVERY SINGLE BILL that comes across my desk. That includes budgets and any bill that continues the functioning of our government. By electing me, you are approving of this action and Congress will know precisely what the majority requires of them."

One change: my running mate would not be a traditional candidate, but would be like-minded. One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed. I don't want the candidacy of my running mate to become an issue.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[ShanghaiBill]

Actually could work. "If you give me this, I'll leave" If not you probably have to put up with "four more years!"

Why would four years of President Lessig be any worse than four years of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? Also, he wants Citizens United overturned, which isn't up to congress. He would need to either replace some Supreme Court Justices, or amend the constitution to override the free speech clause.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed.

You mean, one of the constitutional amendments that you would require that Congress tell The People that they must pass.

Or alternatively, you wouldn't run for president (and get into a position to start pointing fingers at Congress) until after The People ratify a constitutional amendment to take elections away from the The People and give it to Congress, so that Congress would have the power to enact bills that require certain types of elections.

I hate your idea, because I think Congress is the biggest part of the problem. I don't think you are going to fix things by giving them more powers.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

By electing me, you are approving of this action and Congress will know precisely what the majority requires of them.

I was going to say that the correct term is "plurality", but that's not even accurate. It's closer than "majority", however. The actual majority to which you refer is the electors, not the voters, and if you are truly such a nutter you'll find them voting for someone else.

If you DO manage to get enough electors to win, then you should realize that every congressman will have his constituents to think about, and they're collectively going to overrule your vetoes. They'll have veterans who want VA benefits, government employees who want paychecks, Universities and independent research organizations that want grant monies to pay their people, etc etc etc. You won't have partisanship to fall back on because you've abandoned all party affiliations in this quest, and both parties will have no hesitation to abandon you.

One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed.

And as soon as the Speaker of the House is sworn in, he can call for that bill to be rescinded (or pass a new one just like the old one). The Speaker is not appointed by the President, he is elected by his state first and then elected by the other house members, and you have as much chance of getting him to go along with your plan as you do of getting elected in the first place.

If you believe you can call for such a bill to hold an election before you resign, then you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.

I don't want the candidacy of my running mate to become an issue.

Of course it will be an issue, because they will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. You don't get to change the succession rules before you become President, and as soon as you do become "it" the current succession rules apply. Only if you demand the existing Succession Act be repealed or changed as part of your reign can you keep him out of the line of succession and thus not an issue -- but that can only happen after you are elected and he's been an issue.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[IMightB]

Or pass a law saying that corps are not people, need to act somewhat responsibly and only have rights/privileges specifically granted to them.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Fwipp]

A much bigger problem is how your actions split the vote up. Say you run a "referendum ticket" with yourself and your left-wing Real President.

If the voter has two tickets: "you + lefty" vs. "righty", then you conflate left-wing vs whatever you're referending on - you can't know who supported the referendum, and who simply didn't want righty. So you say, "I know, I'll run another ticket with me + right-wing candidate," at which point you're now splitting the right-wing ticket (because votes don't magically sum), and the left-wing candidate will likely win regardless of support for your referendum.

So you introduce a 4th ticket, with lefty alone, so any voter can vote for left, right, left+you, or right+you. That sounds fair, right? Unless there's any correlation between party & support for your referendum. Let's say the left party prefers the referendum 80-20, and right party support for the referendum is about 50-50, and overall voter preference is 60-40 for right party. The winner of the ticket would be you+lefty (with 32% of the vote), even though 60% of people voted for righty.

TL;DR - first-past-the-pole only barely works with two candidates. You can't co-opt it to do a referendum.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[IMightB]

perhaps an alternative would be "Free Speech" Zones for Corps

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Corporations are legal constructs that can be changed via legislation. Congress is fully within its rights to make these changes. The Supreme Court's decision on how the First Amendment applies to corporations relies entirely on how these constructs exist under current law.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

No constitutional amendment is required, and I am certainly not providing them any more power. Congress is already authorized to use law to change the line of succession (other than Vice-President) without the need for a constitutional amendment. This bill would declare a one-time change to the line of succession, as I described.

The whole point is to force Congress to do something they are unwilling to do. It does not (and cannot) provide them any more power.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[cyberchondriac]

"My way or the highway", in other words. There's already too much of that now; such strong-arm tactics are not what a democracy needs, that's what tyrants do.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

they're collectively going to overrule your vetoes

At least then, they will prove that they are unwilling to respect the direct decision of the people.

he can call for that bill to be rescinded (or pass a new one just like the old one)

If the new President calls to reverse a decision made directly by the people, it's instant political suicide.

you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.

Indeed there is. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[quantaman]

So, he's announcing a priori that he'll be a lame duck. Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%

Really?

Imagine if Obama announced he'd resign if congress passed bill X. You'd have public healthcare with fully funded abortions!

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[epyT-R]

Which socialists would have no problem doing. They've established quite the historical precedent for trampling things like free speech, assembly etc.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[myth24601]

So, with passage of a simple law, the government can be given power to search and seize the assets of corporations anytime without a warrant?

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Javagator]

I think Congress is the biggest part of the problem

I agree. At least our presidents worry about what's best for the country, rather than what's best for my district so I can get re-elected.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

At least then, they will prove that they are unwilling to respect the direct decision of the people.

You skipped over every word I wrote about you not being elected as a direct decision of the people, didn't you? And every word where what you think was a "direct decision" will be contradicted by everyone who contacts their congressman about NOT shutting the government down. And how even winning the "popular vote" (a meaningless term since there is no popular vote for US President) doesn't mean a majority of the people support you, only a plurality.

If the new President calls to reverse a decision made directly by the people, it's instant political suicide.

Har har hardy har har. He's President. He's not going to go back to running for congress. He'll have a pension and a load of speaking engagements at worst, and since he replaced a clear nutter and didn't demonstrate a lack of concern for the people who elected him, he'll probably be elected if he runs.

and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President,

A current, qualified President does not meet any of the conditions of that clause. He is not "removed, dead, resigned, or unable." Until you resign, there is no provision for an election to replace you, except for the normal end of term. And, guess what? They have already provided for those constitutional provisions. Once you resign, you have no power and your replacement can simply change the laws back to the way they were. Why wouldn't he? He'll want to stay in office and he'll have the backing of his partisan colleagues.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[TWX]

No, but the passage of a law would mean that the corporation as a layer between its owners and its assets would find its "rights" are solely those of its owners, rather than a second set defined for itself.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

Resigned

Which is precisely what I said we would do.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

Or pass a law saying that corps are not people

You do realize that is already recognized law? Corporate personhood doesn't make corporations people. It'd really help if you understood the actual legal situation first.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

would find its "rights" are solely those of its owners, rather than a second set defined for itself.

This is already the current situation. The point behind rulings like Citizen United is to protect the rights of the people involved in the corporation not to grant them new rights.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

Imagine if Obama announced he'd resign if congress passed bill X.

They'd have to believe him first - wouldn't happen.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

Most politicians only talk in vague terms, so when they grab for power they are often not following the direct will of the populous.

My campaign would be clear and unambiguous... my role is solely to provide a very rare path to direct democracy. If you vote me in, you are declaring that you want these laws to be passed. It's hardly tyranny when I'm doing what you want me to do.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

That's why I don't run with lefty or righty. I run against both. And I keep running, every election cycle, until I win or until I pass the torch.

It's quite an uphill battle... but if/once it succeeds, there can be very little argument that it wasn't the will of the people. Third party candidates need more than loyalty and luck on their side.

(One of the changes I would make would be to replace the first-past-the-post system... I don't know if I would call it a victory if we just fall back in to the old two-party system.)

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[ceoyoyo]

Judging by what happened when the US congress pulled that on Obama, it would just be a big mess. As an outside observer, less political cooperation doesn't seem to be what the US needs.

One change: my running mate would not be a traditional candidate, but would be like-minded. One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed. I don't want the candidacy of my running mate to become an issue.

I don't think you can do that. IIRC the schedule of presidential elections in the US is fixed in the constitution. To do what you say you'd need a constitutional amendment, passed by two thirds of the state legislatures or equivalently by constitutional conventions in 2/3 of the states.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[ceoyoyo]

Congress can pick another person to act as president, but they can't call another presidential election, even if both the president and vice president are dead, impeached or quit.

Maybe congress could create some kind of special position, call an election to fill it, then put that position next in line for president, but I strongly suspect the supreme court would put the kibosh on that kind of shenanigan (which is what they're supposed to do). You'd just end up with the speaker of the house or the president of the senate as president.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

By far, most Presidential elections were won with a majority vote. Your objection is noted, but unlikely. The much, much more likely case is that the majority of people agree with me and want what I offer... your attempt to twist me as some fringe element would be invalidated.

Until you resign

... which we would, as I stated before.

They have already provided for those constitutional provisions.

The Constitution, as both of us quoted, provides that Congress may "by Law" change how this works. That means they can "by Law" require a new election for our replacements.

your replacement can simply change the laws back to the way they were

It would require Congress and the new President to agree to do this, clearly against the will of the people (as we have established although you refuse to acknowledge). Of course that would be political suicide.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

Sure they could, that's what the "by Law" allows them to do... they are allowed to pass any law that provides the procedure for succession, which would include holding a new election.

Remember that the current process for succession was created in law. The Constitution provides quite a bit of flexibility here, including rewriting that law.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Triklyn]

... the problem being, there's things like overriding the veto.

and you seem to believe that they won't just let it burn.

because, people hate congress. but they don't hate their congressman.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od...

all you gotta do, is make enough people believe it's the other guy's fault.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[datavirtue]

I think we need a tyrant every now and again. They can still be removed by the people and we would get a break from congress for a while. Actually, congress would still have a role...but their only influence would be on merit alone.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[datavirtue]

That is exactly what tyranny is. We have come to associate the word tyrant with something negative. We CAN elect a tyrant to clean house if we want...or to wage war.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Or pass a law saying that corps are not people, need to act somewhat responsibly and only have rights/privileges specifically granted to them.

God damn it, this meme just won't die!

The Supreme Court opinion exicity pointed out this "corporate right" to free speech was not due to corporation-as-person, but derived from the right of people who are the corporation, who take their speech rights with them.

In short, Congress cannot define a group of people, and require people to give up their right to speech when joining it, to take advantage of that group's provided features.

As for money itself, 80% of political donation goes to advertising, and that is "the press" in the first amendment -- literally the modern version of a printing press, the means of mass-producing speech for distribution. Kings can and did restrict printing presses to backdoor censor. "The Press" isn't just a guy with a notepad, a more modern addition to the concept of "freedom of the press".

Money buys mass production of speech. To restrict this is to violate this old notion that the king cannot restrict mass production of speech.

And the court has also ruled that ensuring equality of quantity of political speech (loosely correlated with equal money) was also "wholely foreign to the First Amendment."

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[epyT-R]

Statists are always encroaching on civil liberties. When was the last time the democrats or the republicans stood against that? The left uses the 'we care about your needs and feelings' excuse while the neocons use the 'we want to protect you' excuse. They both want to increase the size of the state at the expense of the middle and lower class.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[znrt]

Actually could work. "If you give me this, I'll leave" If not you probably have to put up with "four more years!"

sadly if that 'this' is of any value congressmen would have to put up with it an indeterminate number of years. they are greedy, not that stupid.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[znrt]

Except that the most powerful man in the world doesn't usually resign, even in a democracy.

the most powerful man in the world eats presidents for breakfast.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Greyfox]

He said he'd resign once he got the shit he wants passed. With a mandate like that he could wait for 2 years and then release a list of all the representatives who've been cock-blocking him with the expectation that they'd be un-elected. That's pretty much the level of support that he would need in order to get elected in the first place.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[soap_and_dish]

Yeah, I would expect to hear lots and lots of this sort of thing if he actually did this and won. Opposition pundit: "He's promised to resign so I'm going to put this big clock up behind me and talk about it constantly, reminding you all that he hasn't resigned yet and that, therefore, he's horrible, untrustworthy, and corrupt."

Then, at the first minor success towards achieving his goal: "Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? Why hasn't he resigned yet? "

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Beeftopia]

In short, Congress cannot define a group of people, and require people to give up their right to speech when joining it, to take advantage of that group's provided features.

Yes, but the executives take the logical construct's money, of which there is a copious amount, and use it to influence legislators. It's not their own personal money they're spending. Putting limits on how they can spend the construct's money is not the same thing as putting limits on how they can spend their own money.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[narcc]

This is why quirky third-party candidates are so much fun to watch. You never need to take them seriously, of course, so the crazier the better.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[riverat1]

Since corporations are totally artificial creations of the law in the first place I don't see how they can have any rights beyond what is explicitly allowed in the laws that make them possible.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[KGIII]

Try 1988 and the Democrats. It was not the Republicans (who I am loathe to defend but, well, I prefer honesty) who started the Free Speech Zones. That was the DNC doing in NYC in 1988. There is a handy Wikipedia article all about it. I suspect you will not bother to read it though.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[riverat1]

In what way do people involved in a corporation lose any of their individual rights by virtue of their involvement with the corporation such that we need to give them additional rights through the corporation?

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[sjames]

Yes. Kinda like the passage of a simple law allows owners of a corporation to insulate their personal finances from it's failure and to avoid criminal prosecution for it's crimes.

In practice, it might be ruled that seizure is forbidden because those assets belong to individual real people. Or perhaps it would only create an obligation to return the assets to the shareholders in a reasonable time.

If the owners don't like that, they could form another sort of partnership where they assert their rights as natural people but also accept the liabilities personally.

Less drastically (and probably a better move), they could start taking the public interest clause in corporate charters seriously for once.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

Or just realize that, as an employee of Harvard (a Corporation), if he says anything representing Harvard he can only do so because of how Citizens United was decided. How come so many people out their do not understand that had SCOTUS ruled the other way on Citizens United no person employed by any corporation could make any speech remotely touching on politics. No more reporting on anything a politician does. Period. How stupid does one have to be to not understand that simple little fact?

Dumb enough to be considered as serious contender for the Democratic nomination, I guess.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Dahamma]

Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%

Yeah, but that's still 1000x the chance he has of actually getting elected...

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Dahamma]

Yep, generally only when he "gets caught".

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Dahamma]

Or pass a law saying that corps are not people, need to act somewhat responsibly and only have rights/privileges specifically granted to them.

Except that was also a decision of the Supreme Court. (You do realize there is no "Corporations Are People Act"? The whole concept is based on a series of Supreme Court rulings).

For those who like reading the (interesting) details: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/...

Serious change to corporate legal status is likely going to require a Constitutional amendment. So, pretty much impossible. (That said I'd support it - I'm just a realist...)

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Dahamma]

I agree with almost everything you said. The problem (much like the problem of the 2nd Amendment and cheap handguns/assault rifles) is that the Founding Fathers didn't comprehend TV, the Internet, and multibillionaires who could attempt to buy elections.

So, it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix the political process and remove money as the #1 factor in elections. Which is fine (if nigh impossible given the process for proposing and ratifying amendments).

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

The Citizens United ruling provided such an example. If a single citizen wanted to pay for a film bashing Hillary Clinton even a few days before a major election, then it's just fine, they're excising their First Amendment rights. But back in 2008, if a group of citizens wanted to do so and happened to have incorporated, then they couldn't due to a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act prohibiting various forms of political speech by corporations and labor unions within 60 days of an election.

That was the violation of rights that was corrected with the Citizens United ruling.

There's also historical examples of local and state governments trying to steal from corporations or chartered groups which were grotesque violations of the Fourth Amendment. For example, one of the earliest cases was the state of New Hampshire trying to take over Dartmouth College.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Boronx]

Smarter than you based on your legal analysis I guess. The law isn't computer code.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[AthanasiusKircher]

you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.

Indeed there is. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Huh? How do you read this as justifying an election? The commas are weird 18th-century things, so let me be clear about what this passage means: If the President goes away, the VP assumes the duties of the office. If both P and VP go away, Congress can pass a law to determine WHAT OFFICER shall act as President, i.e., immediately. There's no provision for an election at that point. Once SUCH OFFICER has taken upon the duties, he shall execute them until the President can resume the duties OR until a "President shall be elected," i.e., according to the SPECIFIC process which happens every 4 years listed elsewhere in the Constitution.

This passage isn't authorizing Congress to call an election, and it has never been interpreted as such. The manner of Presidential elections is explicitly listed in the Constitution. This passage only says that Congress can pass a law to determine what OFFICER becomes President until the next (Constitutionally-determined) election.

Anyhow, some of this was superseded by the 25th Amendment, which specifies exactly what MUST happen when a President leaves office. That question is now decided by the Constitution itself and is out of the hands of Congress.

The only place where Congress could pass a law to deal with a vacancy would be in a case that is not explicitly covered by the 25th Amendment, for example in the case of simultaneously incapacitation or death of both the President and Vice-President. Right now, what happens in that case is governed by the Presidential Succession Act, which in theory could be altered. But it could only be altered to determine some other OFFICER to succeed to the Presidency, according to the passage you cite. There is no power there mentioned to call a random new election.

Anyhow -- basically, you're wrong. You'd need to either amend the Constitution or change the Presidential Succession Act while having both the President AND the Vice-President resign at the same time. To do so, you'd have to trust that Congress and your VP would be completely on board with this after your election, and chances are not good that all of them would go along with it.

And they have a very good reason for doing so -- tampering with succession to the Presidency is not something to be done on the whim of some random law of Congress, which is why the 25th Amendment was proposed and passed in the first place. A country the size of the U.S. needs a dependable set of principles for determining who is running things at any given time, and calling a random election for sitting Presidents has NO historical or constitutional precedent. Given that the manner of electing a President and its timeline is explicitly specified in the Constitution, you could probably expect any such law passed by Congress (even if it could be done) to be overturned by SCOTUS on the grounds that it violates the explicit instructions for Presidential elections in the Constitution.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yeah, okay -- I'm wrong. Nevermind. I read the original Presidential Succession Act from the 1790s.

A special election could be called, in theory. But the problem increases in terms of the number of people you need to trust, since your Constitutional passage does explicitly say that Congress needs to replace the President with some "Officer" upon resignation UNTIL an election. While that "Officer" is in place, it would be possible for Congress to pass another law changing what happens... and frankly if you were a President who basically "blew up" the entire government function of the U.S. unless Congress went along with your demands, my bet would be that whoever was Speaker or whatever would be eager to overturn your crazy laws, perhaps even including your provision requiring a new election.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

I had not forgotten about the 25th Amendment; it was simply irrelevant beyond the fact of the Vice President being the person who immediately succeeds the President.

The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to declare a special election for a President, only that they can pass a law stating who, already elected or appointed, takes over until the expiration of the current term.

To qualify as "already elected or appointed" would require simply appointing the to-be President and VP as executive officers. I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from passing a law to hold an election for the sole purpose of recommending such executive appointments to the President.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

As an outside observer, less political cooperation doesn't seem to be what the US needs.

In general I absolutely agree. But this isn't the normal situation; this is a subversion of the current system in order to provide a path to direct democracy.

I don't think you can do that. IIRC the schedule of presidential elections in the US is fixed in the constitution.

The normal election cycle is fixed, but read some of my other comments in this thread. This wouldn't be a standard election.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

gives Congress the authority to spell out which current officer takes over, not to hold a special election

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting Congress from holding a special election as a means for recommending to the President who should be appointed as executive officers. And nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from temporarily overriding the 1947 Presidential Succession Act in order to declare that those executive officers would be the next in line.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

Actually there is a nice way around this:

- the law creates two temporary new executive offices: "Presidential Successor" and "Vice Presidential Successor"
- the law provides for a special election to recommend whom the President appoints to those executive offices
- the President would appoint the winners to those offices
- the President and Vice President resign
- line of succession takes effect, causing "Presidential Successor" to become President and "Vice Presidential Successor" to become VP
- the law automatically removes those executive offices at this time, and restores the line of succession that existed prior

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

Now, now. We can't expect everyone to actually read and understand the simple truth before blathering on about adult topics such as "what are my rights?"

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

Uh, the bastions of liberalness like Ivy League schools and the UC system started that well before 2004.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

Ah yes, let's fix that pesky free speech problem.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

Uh, read the whole thing. "declaring what Officer shall then act as President." It seems as though the Constitution says that Congress should outline an order of succession from existing "Officers". Holding an election would not actually be in keeping with that.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

It would if the election was in the form of a non-binding recommendation, with the winners appointed by the President as said Officers.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[slashdot_commentator]

Nope, still think ill of Richard Nixon. I recognize that he had the grace to resign, but with what the prosecutors had, he would have been the first POTUS to lose his presidency to impeachment.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[silentcoder]

Why ? Mit Romney doesn't.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[djdarko]

The president of the senate is the Vice President. You probably mean "the senate majority leader."

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[sed quid in infernos]

The constitutional provision you quote limits Congress' power to declaring what officer takes over as president. As in, the person must be an officer at the time the vacancy in office happens.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[rfengr]

I don't consider the 2A a problem. Also, "assault rifles" are not inexpensive.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[dywolf]

then let them spend their own money to buy candidates, not the corporation's.

they cannot both have the legal shield of the corporation separating them into distinct legal entities when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[fnj]

So, with passage of a simple law, the government can be given power to search and seize the assets of corporations anytime without a warrant?

Corporations are legal constructs created by the government in the first place (in the US they are constructs of the individual states - e.g., "Delaware Corporation" - however, such legislation as the Securities Act of 1933 add a degree of federal regulation). Significantly, the "corporate shield" is a government creation. It can as well be taken away legislatively as created legislatively. If you want to curb the excesses of corporations, just take away the ability of the officers to hide behind the corporate shield.

There is certainly no reference to, or protection of, the concept of "corporate personhood" in the Constitution. As such, if the government grants the bounty of corporate structures to enrich people who are mostly already very wealthy to begin with, the government can certainly impose regulation of corporations, and power over their doings; certainly over their gross excesses.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

I have actually read the official Citizens United opinions. The majority opinion did state that ruling against Citizens United would have resulted in exactly what I stated because there exists no rational way to distinguish Mother Jones as a corporation from NBC from GE from Citizens United. Nobody on the left seems to want to stifle the speech of the first three in that list but all four are corporations.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[kwbauer]

Officers as in "Officers of the United States" which traditionally was interpreted as Executive Branch employees and then Congress re-interpreted to mean Executive Branch employees and elected officials. So, I guess Congress could hold a non-binding referendum to have people nominate someone who is already in one of those categories. I guess we could day exactly the same thing for every decision that Congress makes or we could just have them do what they were elected to do and make decisions on their own on our behalf. IOW, we either have a Congress or we don't; we shouldn't have a Congress in some situations and not in others.

And who gets to be in charge while we run this small election? Nobody? Mighty Polyanna of you to think that no foreign government might take advantage of such a situation.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no law that says corporations get special tax tables either, and plenty of history that shows certain corporations (non-profits) can be forced to give up their political speech rights or lose their tax status.

All we have to do is make every corporation that wants to engage in political speech move to the human person tax table.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[cyberchondriac]

I think we need a tyrant every now and again. They can still be removed by the people ..

No, that's one of the things about being a tyrant- you don't give up your power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyrants are only removed by revolution or war, or serious threats of same. I don't usually believe in absolutes, but I've never seen evidence to the contrary in this case.
At the risk of making a strawman, I'm willing to bet you believe that no one human being deserves to be a billionaire, or even a multimillionaire; why should one have that much unchallengeable power over other human beings?

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[david_thornley]

If I become CEO of a corporation, I lose none of my legal rights of expression. Offending the wrong people can have consequences, but that's always true.]

Therefore, there is no need for a "corporate right" to free speech, since all individual rights remain intact.

If I, as CEO, can donate my personal money to political campaigns, why do I need the ability to take other people's money and donate it? What, in the Constitution, requires it?

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[david_thornley]

In other words, the Supreme Court could have said that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. Alternately, if McCain-Feingold were changed appropriately, there'd be no need for corporate rights of free speech.

Similarly, corporate property could be interpreted as being the stockholder's property, so that an illegal confiscation of 3M property would affect my Fourth Amendment rights.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

By far, most Presidential elections were won with a majority vote.

A majority vote of the electors chosen by the states. Not a majority vote of the sum of the total votes case nationwide. NOBODY won a Presidential election by getting a majority of the "popular vote" -- it just doesn't work that way in the US.

Until you resign

... which we would, as I stated before.

I didn't question that you would be stupid enough to resign, just that your plan of getting a bill passed that would force an immediate election to replace you would be unlikely to have any effect. Until you resign there is no constitutional authority for the congress to call for such an election, and after you resign the new President and congress will make it their first priority to annul any such bill.

The Constitution, as both of us quoted, provides that Congress may "by Law" change how this works.

Yes, they may, by law, change how a resigned, dead, or unable to serve President will be replaced. YOU, until you resign, will be none of those. And they've already put a system in place, so when you DO resign and the law kicks in, you won't be in power to change it. There WILL be a President who WILL sign the law rescinding the election, because there cannot be any significant period of time where there is no President. If you think that there will ever be a law that says we won't have a President for a month so that the states can hold their elections, you're even more naive than you've already demonstrated.

It would require Congress and the new President to agree to do this, clearly against the will of the people (as we have established although you refuse to acknowledge).

No, WE have not established any such thing, because I understand the system a lot better than you seem to. Even with a plurality of the "popular vote", your support will have vaporized the day you actually veto a bill that causes a government shutdown, and the level of support you started with will not be as great as you think. Every "winner" who gets a large plurality claims a "mandate" to carry out his platform, and then he runs into the truth of the matter. The truth is, the congresspeople are ALSO elected (and this time directly by the people they represent) with a mandate. If their mandate doesn't match the President's, well, things don't happen as quickly as he wants them to, if at all.

Of course that would be political suicide.

And yet, congress is filled with people who have stood up to the Presidential "mandate" that the "popular vote" proved he had, and many of them get re-elected after committing that "political suicide" you claim they've committed. You really don't understand how the system works, do you?

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

If you think Congress is going to pass a law that says that a current, qualified President gets to pick his own successor, you truly are insane. And if you think SCOTUS will let that law survive, you are even more so.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

15 out of the 17 people that are in the Presidential line of succession are picked by the President, by current law.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

A majority vote of the electors chosen by the states. Not a majority vote of the sum of the total votes case nationwide. NOBODY won a Presidential election by getting a majority of the "popular vote" -- it just doesn't work that way in the US.

I see that you didn't understand what I said. I'll rephrase: By far, in most Presidential elections which were won, the winner also held a popular majority. Obviously that doesn't matter to the outcome, but to assume that no President ever achieved popular majority is wrong.

Until you resign there is no constitutional authority for the congress to call for such an election

I've covered this in other responses to you... it would be a non-binding recommendation.

and after you resign the new President and congress will make it their first priority to annul any such bill.

Political suicide.

Yes, they may, by law, change how a resigned, dead, or unable to serve President will be replaced. YOU, until you resign, will be none of those.

The law that changes how this work is part of the same law that I would force Congress to sign. It would be on the books before I resign... that's the whole point.

No, WE have not established any such thing, because I understand the system a lot better than you seem to.

You don't seem to even understand anything I'm saying. So how can you judge how well I know the system?

Even with a plurality of the "popular vote", your support will have vaporized the day you actually veto a bill that causes a government shutdown

All of which would have been made very clear and unambiguous during the campaign. If you vote for this measure and then get mad when I do exactly what I said I would do, well, you shouldn't have voted for it.

Every "winner" who gets a large plurality claims a "mandate" to carry out his platform

And yet, congress is filled with people who have stood up to the Presidential "mandate"

There's a huge difference. Most Presidents run to become and remain President for the full term. I would run to pass the bill that I state I will pass while vetoing anything that is not that bill, until I sign it into law. The first one is a "mandate", the second is actually a mandate.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[lott11]

Let start why you do not count as a person or as a voter. Because the only one's that have those legal rights under the laws, are the corporations or business. You are not human as per the law, you are a feudal tenant. To see what I mean http://freedom-school.com/what... To witch in the laws of the USA business you do not have any of those legal rights. You loose them when you petition for citizenship, or naturalize your status in the eyes of the law. At that point you stop being a human, and become a civilith or a better known as servant of the state. And yes I did say USA business and just look up what is the national gross product is, the servants of the state. Or what do you think the taxes are for, and I am not talking a bought income tax that is just for the banking system. Also do not forget that you do not elect the president use the USA, that job belongs to the house of representatives. You never have a choice there is always someone being a pointed for all government jobs. It just looks like you have one, did you get the memo read the constitution an all the modifications. So you speak of rights, think a bought it and read. Get informed and have a nice day.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

I see that you didn't understand what I said. I'll rephrase:

I understood what you wrote. The rephrased version isn't the same.

but to assume that no President ever achieved popular majority is wrong.

Sigh. You don't need a "popular majority" to win. In fact, there is NO popular majority, because there is no "popular vote". Adding up all the state-level elections means nothing.

And even when there is a plurality in the specious "popular vote", you certainly do NOT have a majority of the people, only a plurality of those who voted. Trying to claim a mandate to make radical changes and that it would be "political suicide" for anyone to oppose you is just nonsense.

I've covered this in other responses to you... it would be a non-binding recommendation.

And I've covered that in another response to you. If you think Congress is going to hand you the ability to hand-pick your own replacement, you are insane. There is even LESS constitutional authority for the congress to force the states to hold elections for "presidential replacement suggestions".

and after you resign the new President and congress will make it their first priority to annul any such bill.

Political suicide.

Bullshit. Political fact.

The law that changes how this work is part of the same law that I would force Congress to sign. It would be on the books before I resign... that's the whole point.

And the day you resign the new President and existing congress will repeal it before you get your bags packed and get out of the White House. Political fact. Call it "political suicide" again and you'll just prove how little you know about the process, and history.

Every "winner" who gets a large plurality claims a "mandate" to carry out his platform And yet, congress is filled with people who have stood up to the Presidential "mandate"

There's a huge difference.

No, there isn't. Every Presidential "mandate" came from winning the election, and you are claiming that YOUR mandate will come from winning the election. Their mandates to do what they promised weren't unopposed by congress any less than YOUR alleged mandate to do what you promised to do will be. Every congressman has a mandate from their constituents, and those mandates don't necessarily agree with yours.

Most Presidents run to become and remain President for the full term. I would run to pass the bill that I state I will pass while vetoing anything that is not that bill, until I sign it into law. The first one is a "mandate", the second is actually a mandate.

Nonsense. Absolute malarky. Every politician makes promises to get elected and then calls them a "mandate", and yours will be no different.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

The first two are not, and the rest are picked by the President with the concurrence of the Senate PRIOR to the President resigning.

Since you seem to think that you're going to get to pick your own successor, you truly are insane, and further discussion is a waste of time.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

In other words, the Supreme Court could have said that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional.

Which is what they did.

Alternately, if McCain-Feingold were changed appropriately, there'd be no need for corporate rights of free speech.

Just like if we passed the right legislation, there'd be no need for you to have freedom of speech either? Think about it.

Similarly, corporate property could be interpreted as being the stockholder's property, so that an illegal confiscation of 3M property would affect my Fourth Amendment rights.

Which it is.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

So Mit Romney is your moral and legal authority?

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

they cannot both have the legal shield of the corporation separating them into distinct legal entities when it suits them, and ignore it when it doesn't.

That is the point about rules. If they're following the rules, then they can act that way. If they can't, then there are hidden rules (or rather, someone's whims imposed in addition to whatever rules actually exist), which are anathema to a democracy.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

In fact, there is NO popular majority, because there is no "popular vote". Adding up all the state-level elections means nothing.

If 60 million people vote for me and 40 million people vote for the other guys, and if I win the election, then yes... I won the election AND a popular majority (even if that doesn't officially count for anything).

I'm arguing this because you are so caught up on the idea that the only way this could work is if the majority backs me. It's not only plausible that my winning would indicate that a majority approve of my position... it's also quite likely, based on past results.

Every Presidential "mandate" came from winning the election, and you are claiming that YOUR mandate will come from winning the election.

I have stated several times that the campaign will be crystal clear: IF YOU VOTE FOR ME THEN YOU ARE VOTING FOR THIS LAW TO BE PASSED, AND YOU ARE APPROVING ME TO USE EVERY ASPECT OF MY POWER TO ENSURE THIS LAW PASSES. No reading between the lines are necessary.

Every congressman has a mandate from their constituents, and those mandates don't necessarily agree with yours.

Since when has Congress done everything their constituents want? You seem to forget how much time our representatives spend in Washington, away from the voices of their constituents, and how many lobbyists they interact with.

Nonsense. Absolute malarky. Every politician makes promises to get elected and then calls them a "mandate", and yours will be no different.

That's a legitimate concern... I might just be blowing smoke, and will completely reverse course the day my opponents concede. For that matter, so could any elected official, so I'm not seeing how this concern is greater for me.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

with the concurrence of the Senate PRIOR to the President resigning

... which happens through the same law that I've been talking about this whole time. The law is all-or-nothing, I veto it if any parts are missing.

The people are actually voting on who replaces me. The appointment process is a formality because that's the way the Constitution requires it to be done; I would gladly do a direct election if I didn't have to push a constitutional amendment to make it happen. (And if anyone doesn't trust that I will actually nominate the winners of that vote, then they wouldn't trust any of what I'm doing, so that argument is pointless.)

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[silentcoder]

Oh no. I was merely pointing out how widespread this misconception is. Even the last republican candidate for president beliefs it.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[silentcoder]

Actually it's simpler. A corporation is made up of people but those people only agreed to share an investment. They never authorised the executives to make political speech in their name and with their money. Since a corporation is made up of all shareholders simply pass a law that a corporation can only engage in political speech or donations on presentation of a letter signed by all shareholders authorising the specific donation. I would argue that employees are also part of a corporation and you need their consent as well. I worked for Oracle but I sure didn't approve of the same political speech as Larry Ellison. And that would require a way the ensure there can't be retribution against employees who refuse to sign. Perhaps an anonymized authorization system that let's them review the proposed donation and yay or nay without revealing who voted what.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[khallow]

I read the remarks Romney made and I have to disagree with your characterization of them.

"Corporations are people, my friend," Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, "No, theyâ(TM)re not!"

"Of course they are," Romney said. "Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

He was making the obvious point that corporations are constituted of people and work for the benefit of people.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[Obfuscant]

with the concurrence of the Senate PRIOR to the President resigning

... which happens through the same law that I've been talking about this whole time.

The advice and consent clause is part of the Constitution, so you are now going to demand a change to the constitution or you will hold your breathe and kick and scream...

The people are actually voting on who replaces me.

You hand-picking your replacement can in no way be construed as the "people actually voting on who replaces [you]".

The appointment process is a formality because that's the way the Constitution requires it to be done;

No, the appointment process is NOT a formality because the constitution requires it to be that way. There have been way too many contentious appointments for ANYONE who is sane to call it a formality, and then to claim that the constitution requires it to be so is, well, ignorance.

I would gladly do a direct election if I didn't have to push a constitutional amendment to make it happen.

And there is no constitutional authority for any election, direct or indirect, or for you to hand-pick your replacement. Unless you're going to assassinate the speaker of the house and the president pro-tem of the senate after you resign, your secretary of state pick won't become President. Your secretary of state will have gone through the "advise and consent" process, so you may not get your first pick.

(And if anyone doesn't trust that I will actually nominate the winners of that vote, then they wouldn't trust any of what I'm doing, so that argument is pointless.)

This whole argument is pointless because you cannot constitutionally do what you want to do, and the existing congress will not bend over and hand you what you demand just because you claim a "mandate from the majority of the people". They will know you have no such mandate, and they will have their own mandates from their own constituencies to consider. It will not be "political suicide" for a member from, e.g. Utah, to ignore the voices of the people from Florida or California, as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.

Your whole plan is smoke built on wishes and a complete ignorance of the political system in the US.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[bondsbw]

Unless you're going to assassinate the speaker of the house and the president pro-tem of the senate after you resign, your secretary of state pick won't become President.

Their role in the order of succession is provided by... LAW. It can be changed by... guess what... LAW!

The same LAW I've been talking about this whole time.

Damn... I don't generally mind having a reasonable conversation, but you are completely ignoring the things I've explained time and time again.

This whole argument is pointless because you cannot constitutionally do what you want to do,

The Constitution provides for Presidential power of veto. Sure, veto does not grant absolute authority... but Congress will have to pass everything by a veto-proof supermajority in both houses. Have you met our Congress? They can barely pass anything with a simple majority.

But, if Congress would rather screw over this nation for 4 years instead of passing this (provably) popular legislation... that blood is on their hands.

Your whole plan is smoke built on wishes and a complete ignorance of the political system in the US.

The plan is to circumvent said political system in the US in order to install corrective measures... it's one of only a handful of ways this could happen, and most of the rest involve bullets.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[david_thornley]

Excuse me, I got the laws confused.

I am saying that corporations do not need to have Constitutional rights. A person in a corporation has free speech, and does not lose any Constitutional rights. Corporate property is owned jointly by the stockholders, so any arbitrary confiscation of 3M property is a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights.

Corporations have to have some legal standing, but it doesn't have to extend to anything so near personhood that they have Constitutional rights.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[jwhitener]

To restrict this is to violate this old notion that the king cannot restrict mass production of speech.

Many nations (including the US) categorize different types of speech and place differing levels of restrictions on them. Hate speech, as determined by a court of law, for instance.

There is no reason why we can't categorize political speech as something unique and place limits on it. It may require an amendment to the Constitution, but the general idea of different types of speech having different limits isn't alien to the US legal system.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[jwhitener]

A good chunk of the conservatives in the current Congress would love it if you vetoed every bill. Heck, shutting down the government is red meat to their base.

Re: Showed too much of his hand

[Dahamma]

"assault rifles" are not inexpensive.

You can buy an AK-47 for $300-400 (and that's probably a giant markup on a new one - there are so many of them our there, in Africa you can get one for $20). I think buying a weapon designed specifically for the military for that price is SERIOUSLY inexpensive.

Re:Showed too much of his hand

[msimm]

This isn't a Chinese election...

Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[The Real Dr John]

Both sound good to me. Let's see if Bernie can continue to gain support around the country.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanders/Warren 2016, we don't need Lessig.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody wants your blowup dolls or your nipple clamps.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[netsavior]

Millionaires and Suckers, which one are you? Check your wallet.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[thaylin]

Who is the communist? I assume you mean Sanders? He is a self-proclaimed socialist, not communist, and even then his ideas are not truely socialist.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[Rougement]

I'll drive you to the airport.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[Snufu]

Leave the keys under the doormat please. I know some hard working families who need affordable housing.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[sjames]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re: Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[epyT-R]

Well encouraging the US gov to play games with its funny money and go further into debt won't help you get there.

Re:Lessig/Sanders, Sanders/Lessig

[dywolf]

Sanders espouses policies that are no different from those that governed the country from the new deal up until the 70s.
ie, the greatest period of prosperity humanity, let alone this country, had ever known up until that point.

we should be so lucky to re-implement those policies.

Shifting election day

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> shift election day to a national holiday

I'd love to. How about April 15 when the feeling of just having paid our taxes is fresh?

Re:Shifting election day

[Anonymous Coward]

April 15 was chosen for tax day precisely because it was nearly 6 months away from election day.

Re:Shifting election day

[danbob999]

I don't know about the US, but in Canada April/May is typically the period where people get their tax *return*. Since most people pay too much taxes during the year (since it is taken from every pay as if you had no deduction for child, registered savings, etc.), they get a refund after filling their report.

Re:Shifting election day

[GlennC]

It's that way here in the US, too.

However, the "populist" view is that "I pay too much in taxes" and that view gets magnified every year in late March/early April.

In my opinion, the best option the next President can propose is to have a peaceful way for states to secede. That way hopefully Texas and the old Confederacy can create the Christian People's Democratic Republic of 'Murrica, and the "conservatives/libertarians" can flock to their Utopia.

Good luck to Professor Lessig...he's going to need it.

Re:Shifting election day

[GungaDan]

How about April 1, because it's just a sick fucking joke anyway? I'd wait in line to vote on April 1. There's nothing readable about slashdot that day.

Re:Shifting election day

[Coren22]

In theory, in the US, we fill out a form which is handed to the employer that give a number of deductions that you are taking. For me as a single parent of two, the computation comes out to 5 (one for each kid, three for me)

Here is the "I am an employee" version of the form, the W-4

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf...

Now, in practice, I always pay way to much taxes, and get a huge tax return, but there is a penalty for not paying enough taxes through the year on a routine basis, so it is not worth correcting. I end up getting about a 5% tax return, I have never really understood where the discrepancy comes from, but it just isn't worth correcting.

Re:Shifting election day

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And that's precisely the reason why it ought to be changed.

Re:Shifting election day

[StikyPad]

Withholdings, particularly over-withholdings, are terrible on so many levels. First, the government gets an interest-free loan. Second, that money is unavailable to you to use during the year, when you might actually need it, or at least could invest it, or spend it. Third, it makes people less cognizant of their taxes because they never "see" their gross earnings except on paper, just their net pay. Fourth, refunds feel like free money, which decreases what might otherwise be angst over forking over money.

Does it increase compliance? Of course. But compelling action from law-abiding people is the antithesis of freedom. The only time action should be compelled is in when someone's life or health is at stake, or when someone has broken a law.

And I say this as someone who fully supports levying taxes, not some nutcase who thinks we can have a first-world society without taxes and social services. But there needs to be a pain point to give people a closer connection to what they're paying for, to demand accountability, and to reduce apathy. Writing a check for hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars creates that pain point. You're parting with something. Withholdings remove that pain point, because it was never really in your possession.

Re:Shifting election day

[danbob999]

I agree that I would prefer to pay all my income taxes at the end of the year, of course. But I don't have that choice, unfortunately.
However I do not agree that withholding is a free loan. The government has to pay bills through the year, not only in April.
Also I understand that many people would not plan enough and would be bankrupt in April if there were no withholdings.

Re:Shifting election day

[StikyPad]

It doesn't have to be an annual due date; it could just as well be monthly, or quarterly, as it is for businesses.

Re:Shifting election day

[Obfuscant]

However I do not agree that withholding is a free loan. The government has to pay bills through the year, not only in April.

It is not withholding per se that is the free loan, it is the excess withholding. It doesn't matter when the government has to "pay bills", the fact that they hold on to your money and don't pay you interest for the time they have it is what makes it a "free loan".

Jan 1 through April 15 is, or should be, an eye-opener for all taxpayers, even those who get refunds. It is the one time when they get to see just how much money they ARE paying in taxes, in one number (two or three when including state and/or local municipalities) on one line on a form. Right before the feeling of "whee, look at my refund" should be the feeling of "holy shit, look at how much they still get to keep!"

Re:Shifting election day

[SuricouRaven]

"and the "conservatives/libertarians" can flock to their Utopia."

The United States of Canada.

Re:Shifting election day

[wasteoid]

excellent idea!

Re:Shifting election day

[Boronx]

I swear, some people think we are the only country on the planet.

Re:Shifting election day

[kwbauer]

Yup, all of the resource heavy states will remain capitalist and the others will go socialist/communist. How will that work out exactly?

Re:Shifting election day

[kwbauer]

Or maybe the government could use the previous year's receipts to spend the next year.

Re:Shifting election day

[david_thornley]

If you're self-employed, you don't have to withhold. You do have to pay your Federal income taxes quarterly. You can normally set your W-4 (as a regular employee) so you'll wind up owing money.

Taxes on income logically should be paid as the income comes in, which makes withholding reasonable.

Also, many people are basically incapable of saving a years' worth of income tax so they can send it in at the end of the year. Withholding gives these people the ability to pay their taxes, so they avoid legal problems and the IRS collects the money.

big words

[fche]

"fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs"

Hold onto your wallets and run for the hills.

Re:big words

[Anonymous Coward]

I am holding onto my wallet, I'm trying to keep the millionaires and billionaires out of it!

Re:big words

[fche]

The millionaires and billionaires have no way to extract stuff from your wallet involuntarily.

the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[nimbius]

I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs.

so you want to propose a mission statement? because as it stands 100 senators and 435 house representatives are and have been for more than 2 generations the "hack" used by oligarchs and plutocrats to ensure you dont get to just randomly pull the rug out from under them. They control the media, they control the message, and they ultimately decide what policies and procedures are adopted and enforced.

presidents dont make laws or set meaningful policy. they kiss babies, tour disaster areas, deliver platitudes, and offer a meaningful physical representation of a broad set of policies economic, social, and international that campaign donors can patronize and the average voter can gloss over until they have to juggle 2 jobs and a trip to the library to cast their vote for party A or party B before they pick up the kids and pay rent.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[gorbachev]

You're of course correct.

However, the president does have quite a bit of power in setting the legislative priorities.

The president can also more or less say: "I will veto every f***ing bill that comes on my desk until you hacks do what I want you to do. Get it done!" Obviously his veto can be overruled, but if he can recruit a large block of legislators in both houses, it would be difficult to overrule the veto for all but the most bi-partisan efforts.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[DarkOx]

That is the realy problem with the American system since FDR appeared on the scene and maybe even going back a little before that.

Presidents do set policy lots of it. Congress has abdicated responsibility over and over again and handed executive agency broad rule making powers. You can't take those powers back once you give them up either because the President has his veto pen. We gave the president the power to commit military forces without a vote. Its hard to say nope you can't run your war after he has been doing it for two months. What would Congress refuse to allow a covered retreat? Can't happen not really. The budget is two big and the president has to great a discretionary authority all ready to make shutdowns or default threats effective. Obama as your will recall pretty much threatened to make the House of Representatives a moot body and just issue a trillion dollar coin on the Treasury Departments executive authority. Essentially we have allowed the President to be above the law.

Lessig is right about the need to dismantle the two party system but that isn't the first step. In fact if you make that the fist step the consequences will likely be disastrous. It would dilute the 'will' of the Legislative branch even further. Only a near unified legislature can resist the presidency as it is. If we go multiparty now we almost certainly will end up with a President becoming a dictator we can never get rid of. Step one is a castrate the office of the President. We need to pass laws returning power to the Legislature, removing rule making authorities, removing standing authorizations, an "opposition" party that controls the legislature at odds with the sitting President is the only way that can happen.

We need more polarization not less. We need to build up a level of hostility that will cause a legislature to grit their teeth and say "We are gonna break this President" consequences be damned. After that you can begin trying to weaken the mechanisms that let those people stay in power.

     

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[Snufu]

"presidents dont make laws"

Except for the 34 executive order per year on average:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/...

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[towermac]

You wouldn't need to dismantle the 2 party system if the primaries were open. A two party system with robust primaries would be far better than a multi party system.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[Fwipp]

Which, you know, aren't laws.

Your link is *also* not a law, but instead, a story about one football player punching another player in the face. I don't think it's an executive order either, but it's been a little while since my highschool civics class.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[thaylin]

In what way?

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[thaylin]

I guess it is good we dont have Reagan and his 47 per year, right? Obama has issued the least since Cleveland.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[jfengel]

Presidents do have more power than that, though in a very different way from what's commonly portrayed. They lead the executive branch, and the executive branch does the majority of the heavy lifting of government. They set regulations, negotiate treaties, do scientific research (including judging grant applications), decide where to spend money on national infrastructure, etc. The President's relationship to it is usually indirect: he appoints the top-level people, who manage the career civil servants who do the work. The President is the ultimate arbiter between them; it's usually fairly hands-off but there is such a vast apparatus that there are hands-on things to do every single day.

They do all of this within the confines of law determined by Congress, but despite the incredible length that some bills go to, there's still an enormous amount of leeway for the various departments and agencies, and thus ultimately the President. It's not the glamour stuff; it's mostly the tedious stuff of managing parks, inspecting foreign trade, writing benefits checks (and dealing with the clients of that), and so on, but it actually has a more direct effect on most people's lives than the high-level stuff set by legislature.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[StikyPad]

Seriously? Presidents have nearly unchecked control over the entire executive branch. For the record, that includes the following agencies:

Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs

The President has more influence over foreign policy than anyone, and that's an enormous amount of authority. It's like your mom having control over who you visit, talk to, date, marry, or kill. Kissing babies is to keep up the appearance, real or perceived, of being human; it has nothing to do with the role of the executive.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[PopeRatzo]

The President has more influence over foreign policy than anyone,

With the possible exception of the Prime Minister of Israel, who believes he has veto power over US policies.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot, you don't need evidence or an expanded argument. We make broad statements as if they were fact.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[spacepimp]

Well after that .. I'm convinced.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[quantaman]

I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs.

so you want to propose a mission statement? because as it stands 100 senators and 435 house representatives are and have been for more than 2 generations the "hack" used by oligarchs and plutocrats to ensure you dont get to just randomly pull the rug out from under them. They control the media, they control the message, and they ultimately decide what policies and procedures are adopted and enforced.

presidents dont make laws or set meaningful policy. they kiss babies, tour disaster areas, deliver platitudes, and offer a meaningful physical representation of a broad set of policies economic, social, and international that campaign donors can patronize and the average voter can gloss over until they have to juggle 2 jobs and a trip to the library to cast their vote for party A or party B before they pick up the kids and pay rent.

I doubt he actually expects to win. At best he might have a short blip as the main anti-Hillary but even that's a long shot.

The most likely his winning scenario is he makes a bit of noise and another candidate see the policies could give them a better shot at beating Hillary. At that point the idea is in the political arena with a champion, maybe that person wins or maybe Hillary takes up portions to undercut that person's campaign.

It's still a long shot but it's not completely hopeless and another candidate passing those policies would be just as good a victory by his objectives.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[ChrisMaple]

Open primaries allow a party to promote the worst member of the opposition. If both parties succeed in this effort, the result is the two worst candidates running in the final election. Hooray! Everybody loses.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[ChrisMaple]

Executive orders aren't law, but they have the force of law and are worse because there's no public discourse, no debate, no delay between public knowledge and going into effect, inferior checks and balances, etc.. Properly, an executive order should be the president commanding to federal agencies the implementation of existing law. Under Obama, it has been become commands to everyone flouting existing law.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[fnj]

You wouldn't need to dismantle the 2 party system if the primaries were open. A two party system with robust primaries would be far better than a multi party system.

The Constitution does not even say there have to be primaries at all (especially since it doesn't even mention parties in the first place). Since the parties create primaries in the first place, the parties get to decide whether they want open or closed primaries.

The claim is often made is that primaries give the people more power to select candidates than the old system of smoke-filled rooms in Conventions. However, the process is so under the thumb of the party establishments that this is illusory.

Certainly open primaries tend to "water down" the parties and make their candidates more appealing in the general election, since from the start they have to make voters think the candidates are not strongly against any of the voters' opinions and preferences. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is arguable. My belief is that it strengthens the uber "uniparty" establishment, so that neither of the selected two candidates ever inspire any real enthusiasm. The inspirational contenders almost always get weeded out in the primaries.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[towermac]

You're right, it is not in the Constitution, it's up to the states.

In Mississippi, anybody can vote for anybody in the primaries. That's a dozen or two people to choose from, on either side of the isle. That's at least as much choice as Europeans get with their multiple parties and coalitions.

In Florida, you have to register as a Republican or Democrat to vote in that one's primary. And only that one. As a registered independent, I can vote for dogcatcher and some obscure judge in the primary. (Assuming the dogcatcher doesn't have a party)

I would not only argue that your 'watering down' is a good thing, it's irrelevant, in that everybody should get a vote, even if they waste it trying to damage the other party.

The way it is now, a candidate has to satisfy the most extreme elements in the party before standing in the general election, and that's a big part of the intractable gridlock we have today.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[david_thornley]

The President has had the ability to commit military forces pretty much for the lifetime of the country, not just from FDR forward. Nor is it an inherent problem if executive departments issue regulations, since they have to be in line with acts of Congress. If Congress changes the law, the departments have to change their regulations to match.

The trillion-dollar coin would not have made the House of Representatives powerless. It was a means to get around Congressional debt limits, nothing more. Presidents and Congress have been going back and forth like that for a long time.

It doesn't take a unified Congress to give the President problems and limit his power. We've seen that a simple majority in the House of Representatives, or 41 Senators, can disrupt the President's plans.

Re:the worst summary for the worst proposal.

[david_thornley]

Nothing has the force of Federal law except for the Constitution, ratified treaties, and acts of Congress. Executive orders can only influence how such laws are enforced. As far as selective enforcement goes, government executives everywhere are responsible for allocating resources to enforce laws, and have a great deal of discretion as to what resources go to enforce what law.

Re:Socialism

[The Real Dr John]

You are talking about communism, not democratic socialism like in parts of Europe. In fact, you can't have free market capitalism without restrictions on money in politics, and still have any kind of democracy.

Delay the Resignation

[sehlat]

Keep him in office with the incentive of time off for good behavior.

Nope, near 100%

[Anonymous Coward]

So, he's announcing a priori that he'll be a lame duck. Chances of Congress cooperating with him: 0.01%

Chances of them pretending to cooperate so that he resigns, a regular politician assumes the role and life goes back to normal: 100%.

What could possibly be go wrong?

[davidwr]

Now: I promise to resign.
January 2017: Nevermind.

To be an American...

[MagickalMyst]

Considering that politicians are essentially self-serving slimebags, I would happily vote for the guy who genuinely wants to be elected to he can make things better.

My Canadian vote wouldn't help though. Damn.

Re:To be an American...

[towermac]

That is Trump's support in a nutshell.

Doesn't matter how mean he is or anything like that. And it takes somebody as arrogant as he to believe that he can make things better. And make no mistake, he totally believes it.

The establishment will find a way to burn him down though...

Re:To be an American...

[Obfuscant]

Doesn't matter how mean he is or anything like that. And it takes somebody as arrogant as he to believe that he can make things better. And make no mistake, he totally believes it.

Do you not listen to ANY of the candidates? They ALL know they can make things better. Every one of them. They're ALL as "arrogant" as Trump, which isn't saying much. Even the candidates for local city council know they can make things better.

As to Lessig, it will, of course, require 8 years before he's anywhere close to successful (in his opinion) and isn't it an interesting coincidence that 8 years is the term limit?

Re:To be an American...

[Coren22]

They sure seem to be making shit up about him left and right.

I still have yet to find any account of what he actually said to the Fox presenter that CNN is complaining was so bad. It seems like they are just throwing shit at him until something sticks.

Re:To be an American...

[thaylin]

Did you look at only the first word? Is implying that she asked him the tough questions because she was on her period not considered bad in your opinion?

Re:To be an American...

[Coren22]

So, "blood coming out of her eyes" must have something to do with a period, because she is a woman?

My point is that CNN has been coming out with these hit pieces on him since he declared his intention to run. Just do a search on CNNs home page for the word Trump, there are 8 mentions of him on their page, 4 mentions of Clinton, 0 about Cruz. Search for whatever name you like.

Look at the pieces, them freaking out because he allegedly said something about blood coming out of her eyes. Or the article about him asking a woman not to breast pump in front of him. Do you honestly think that this isn't an attack on the man because CNN simply hates him? There was also the story about the immigrants and crime rates when he first declared, but did you see much about the fact that he was quoting a Hispanic news site owned by Univision?

If you go to Fox News, you have 6 mentions of Trump, the very first one from the person he supposedly said these things to, saying we should move on. I can't get the video to play, but I would expect that she is in some way saying that it was a misunderstanding, but I don't know.

Re:To be an American...

[Coren22]

Here is the quote I refered to:

Trump brought up the statistic — actually released by a Univision-owned magazine and repeated by the Huffington Post — that 80 percent of women who attempt a border crossing are raped in the process.

“I don’t mind apologizing for things,” Trump said. “I can’t apologize for the truth. I said tremendous crime is coming across. Everybody knows that’s true. It’s happening all the time. When I mention crime, I’m a racist? I’m not a racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” (H/T Breitbart)

from: http://conservativetribune.com...

So, it is racist and terrible to bring up a real problem happening at the border because it is mostly Hispanics effected. But when it is a Univision owned magazine, or Huffington Post stating the statistic, it is quite all right.

Re:To be an American...

[thaylin]

ahh it was only out of her eyes.....

"blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever"

If it was just her eyes then there would not be this issue, but he implied more.

or the fact that the woman wanted to take a break to breast pump, there is no evidence she wanted to do it in front of him, other than solely what he said, not her.

If it is an attack on him by CNN, then CNN and FOX have found a mutual enemy because FOX has attacked him about as well

As for the comment about immigrants, he said they're rapists, he did not leave it up to some being rapist, he vastly generalized them.

Re:To be an American...

[Coren22]

From http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

“The crime is raging and it’s violent. And if you talk about it, it’s racist,” Trump told Fox News, three days after a purported illegal Mexican immigrant deported five previous times allegedly killed a woman in San Francisco.

“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best,” he said during the announcement. “They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."

“It’s about safety,” he said. “Some of the people coming here are very violent people, not all.”

The comment was about 80% of the women crossing the border illegally getting raped. It was a quote from Huffington Post, which was a quote from a Univision owned magazine, according to Trump. He didn't say that all immigrants are rapists, just that rapes happen to women crossing the border.

I already commented on the other two pieces, but you can persist in your opinion, everyone is entitled to their's after all.

Re:To be an American...

[thaylin]

And because 80% of the women coming from deep in South America are raped by the time they cross the border it all had to happen in MExico? or by Mexicans?

And no, he did not say what you claimed he said, he said

And no, you did not comment on the other 2 pieces

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists

That is generalizing Mexican immigrants as rapists.

Re:To be an American...

[thaylin]

Except that is not what he was refering to when he made the comment, he never mentioned that in the comment.

Re:To be an American...

[ChrisMaple]

Cutting off the quote the way you did is flagrantly dishonest.
Trump is a nasty man deserving truckloads of criticism and japes. Lying about him only undercuts the opposition he so richly deserves.

Re:To be an American...

[ChrisMaple]

You supply citations every time you speak?

Non biased?

[argStyopa]

Yeah, sure: he only wants radical leftists as 'running mates'.

Fuck you Larry for marginalizing what's otherwise a reasonably non partisan position on the 'brokenness' of government.

Of course, the last time someone tried attacking the machine, the Left Wing, the Media, and the "bosses" of the Right decided that none of them wanted such a message to succeed, so they cheerfully and successfully painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals.

Re:Non biased?

[aaronmd]

Yeah, sure: he only wants radical leftists as 'running mates'.

Fuck you Larry for marginalizing what's otherwise a reasonably non partisan position on the 'brokenness' of government.

Of course, the last time someone tried attacking the machine, the Left Wing, the Media, and the "bosses" of the Right decided that none of them wanted such a message to succeed, so they cheerfully and successfully painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals.

He's a lefty so he is leaning to lefties. Would love the right to come forward with someone offering the same kind of promise. Then we can have our reform AND still vote for the candidate that appeals to our issues the most.

Re:Non biased?

[DrEasy]

"Radical lefties"? They're claiming Sweden as their model. Sounds very dangerous!

Re:Non biased?

[DrEasy]

Bernie Sanders, for one.

Re:Non biased?

[Coren22]

The right has Trump, and you see how the media is trying to crucify him.

Re:Non biased?

[PopeRatzo]

radical leftists

You wouldn't know a "radical leftist" if one blew off an M-80 in your underpants. Your concept of what makes for a "radical leftist" is a complete fabrication of Fox News and professional propagandists like Mark Levin.

There isn't a single "radical leftist" anywhere on the US political stage. You'll know if one shows up when you pick up and newspaper and find out about his assassination by a "lone wolf" or his death in a plane crash.

Re:Non biased?

[Whorhay]

I would have more empathy with Trump if he didn't fell the tree, trim the lumber, smelt the iron, forge the nails, craft the mallet, and then haul it all up the hill and demand that the press perform the honors of nailing him to his own cross.

I really can't fathom why the right seems to be picking Trump as their front runner. Not that Hillary is much more palatable on the left. At this point it really is a race between two very unpleasant lizards.

Re:Non biased?

[Coren22]

So far, the right hasn't chosen anything. It is the media choosing Trump as the whipping post.

Re:Non biased?

[Cro Magnon]

Agreed. The media has blood in its eye!

Re:Non biased?

[Coren22]

I have only ever heard that phrase in reference to this thing, but perhaps he meant to say she was spitting venom?

Re:Non biased?

[PraiseBob]

Yeah, sure: he only wants radical leftists as 'running mates'.

they cheerfully and successfully painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals

A fairly large certain percentage of left wingers and right wingers agree that the govt is broken. The centrist response is to keep the status quo. The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society. The right wing response is to blame government for being bad at governing, and the solution is to dismantle the government, in particular using the starve the beast methodology, to cripple the power the government has by limiting money, and reducing taxes.

The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers. Needless to say, that goes against Lessig's goals, and is why he chooses a left wing running mate.

Re:Non biased?

[Triklyn]

he is a very talented craftsman

Re:Non biased?

[PraiseBob]

Counterpoint- Lets say your goal to reduce funding to national security succeeds-

Do you think the spying components will lose money first? Or will the oversight components be first on the chopping block? You want a weaker govt, that means less oversight, right?

OR
Since the govt can't afford to run the program, maybe it will be outsourced to a private company that can provide national security features, and as a bonus they can monetize the information they get by spying, to fund the program by selling directed advertising. Its a win-win for you: Now the govt doesn't have any information on you, and you don't have to pay extra taxes.

Is that the future you want? I understand that point of view just fine, but you are not following it to the logical conclusions.

Re:Non biased?

[ChrisMaple]

Trump is very loudly pointing out the egregious problems that many people see, and that's a large part of his success. Other parts are claiming "I can fix it" and when forced to say how he'll fix it, naming something bold.

The flaws that hopefully will bring him down are that his "fixes" are frequently nonexistent, unworkable, wrongheaded, or missing a critical component.

Too many politicians are narcissists (Obama, for example) who believe that people will do as he wishes because he's so charming and obviously wonderful. Trump's different, Trump believes that people will do as he wishes because he can gain psychological leverage through intimidation, rudeness, brashness and raw intelligence, backed up by money. Obama was half right domestically, but failed at foreign affairs. Trump's approach, backed by the US's power, may succeed against our enemies, but whether it will work domestically among those he's supposed to be helping is an open question.

Re:Non biased?

[ChrisMaple]

A radical is someone who organizes his policies consistently from fundamental roots. (Radical derives from a Latin word meaning root.) There is nothing inherently wrong with being a radical if your policies are properly derived from good roots. The Tea Party is more radical than diffuse groups like Democrats and Republicans

Right wing is one of the basic choices available, the others being Left wing, and various bits of confusion/moderation/indifference/etc. I'd argue that right wing is a good thing, but that's time consuming and not my point. The Tea Party is Right Wing.

Far more so than Democrats, Republicans, or most any large group you can name, Tea Partiers are decent people and not racist. Their basic decency can be seen by comparing their rallies with those of other organizations; Tea Party meetings leave behind neither damage nor scattered garbage. There are loons who believe that saying "all lives matter" is racist, and it takes that level of looniness to believe that the Tea Party is racist.

Re:Non biased?

[Raenex]

The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers.

It's only irrational if you believe that taking a dollar out of government results in being penalized worth a dollar (or more) of corporate power. You haven't proved that case. There are many factors at play here, but I think the bottom line for the Tea Party is that they'd rather have their money to spend on themselves than tossed into an inefficient, bloated bureaucracy which oftentimes ends up doing more harm than good. They aren't calling for a complete dismantling of the government, but rather one of limited scope and size.

The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society.

I can take that to the "logical" extreme, too, and say it's already been tried with communism and failed spectacularly. It really isn't a black and white issue.

Re:Non biased?

[fnj]

That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all.

Nice hyperbole. Some of us prefer the expression of a certain admirable thinker:

"That government is best which governs least..."
-- Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience[*]

[*] Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine, but not found verbatim in their writings. It is found verbatim in Thoreau, and impressed both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. very favorably.

Re:Non biased?

[Obfuscant]

Trump is very loudly pointing out the egregious problems that many people see, and that's a large part of his success. ... The flaws that hopefully will bring him down are that his "fixes" are frequently nonexistent, unworkable, wrongheaded, or missing a critical component.

Step one in fixing a problem is to admit there is a problem.

Saying that the correct fix for illegal immigration is to just hand out amnesties isn't admitting that there is a problem, it's pandering to it.

Once you admit the problem you can work on the solutions. The President isn't supposed to come up with unilateral fixes, he's supposed to work with Congress. It doesn't really matter if his proposed solutions are "unworkable" (in your opinion), they're a starting point for finding real ones.

I'll point out that he's not the first politician to come up with unworkable, unrealistic solutions to problems. I recall a recent electee who thought that "closing Gitmo on day one" was a workable solution to Gitmo. Turned out it wasn't.

Trump's different, Trump believes that people will do as he wishes because he can gain psychological leverage through intimidation, rudeness, brashness and raw intelligence, backed up by money.

Trump believes that people will do as he wishes because they believe he is right. He is rude, brash, and speaks directly -- a quality that has been lacking in politicians who try to pander to everyone. As for "money", he's already donated tons of money, and he readily admits that. Will he donate such sums after he's elected? Would it make any difference? No.

but whether it will work domestically among those he's supposed to be helping is an open question.

Do you not believe that dealing with the crime problems created by illegal immigrants will help everyone who is supposed to be here? You use the word "supposed" as if you think he is supposed to be helping the illegal immigrants in preference to the law abiding citizens, or that it won't help those law abiding citizens.

Silly Lessig!

[Anonymous Coward]

He should know he can't STUMP THE TRUMP!

Re:Catch 22:

[MagickalMyst]

"You're a looser either way."

Better to be a looser than a loser ;)

No chance

[NaCh0]

A lot of candidates are said to have no chance of winning the election. Here we have an actual case of no chance.

In Lessig's case it's less than no chance, it is negative chance. Every time he runs one of these stunts his cause is hurt more than it is helped.

Tell me how well Lessig's Mayday PAC is doing these days. How many super pacs has he ended with it?

Re:Socialism

[DrEasy]

Yeah, Sweden is such a dictatorship...

Unfortunately

[Rassleholic]

The ones needed to fix the system are also the ones who are either rigging it or benefitting from those that are/were rigging it.

Re:Professor?

[JoshuaZ]

Please don't get hung up on arguing over definitions. It isn't productive. The point Lessig is making is that there's very little say that the general population has in what actually is happening. That statement, whether true or false, is independent of choice of labeling.

de-facto, mob rule

[micahraleigh]

Hacking the Constitution for the citizens sounds like de-facto rule of mob.

Re:Professor?

[danbob999]

One doesn't exclude the other.
A republic simply means that there is no monarch reigning over the country. Adding "constitutional" before it simply means that the basic law is defined in a document, instead of being arbitrarily defined by the feelings of a human being on that day.
You can have absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, constitutional republics and I guess even absolute republics (North Korea comes to my mind, as the leader is above the constitution, but is technically not a monarch either, at least on paper).

A democracy simply means that the people have (at least some of the) power. Adding "representative" before it simply means that the people elect representatives, which then votes laws, instead of letting the people vote laws directly.

Pretty much all democracies at the state level are representative, even tough some offer some elements of direct democracy (Switzerland).

There are constitutional monarchies which are also representative democracies, like the UK.

No Thanks

[KermodeBear]

Based on his choices for Vice President alone, he's completely lost any curiosity I might have had.

Socialist policy is one of the things that has been screwing things up in this country, and I don't want more people pushing it. Also, we currently have a leftist law professor in the presidency. That hasn't worked out so well.

No sir, I don't want another.

Re:No Thanks

[SuricouRaven]

America can't even remember what socialism means any more.

Hint: It doesn't mean giving subsidies to private insurance companies to cover high-risk patients.

Re:No Thanks

[KermodeBear]

"-1, Troll" is not a substitute for "I disagree."

If you disagree with me then post about it. Don't hide behind the moderation system.

Re:No Thanks

[DNS-and-BIND]

It commands an incomparably more precise, logically structured, generally comprehensible and, in essence, extremely flexible ideology that, in its elaborateness and completeness, is almost a secularized religion. It offers a ready answer to any question whatsoever; it can scarcely be accepted only in part, and accepting it has profound implications for human life. In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one's own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority. The principle involved here is that the center of power is identical with the center of truth.
-- Vaclav Havel on socialism, "The Power of the Powerless"

Re:No Thanks

[david_thornley]

If nothing else, Havel was commenting on actual socialism, likely extreme versions. There are sufficiently few actual socialists in the US that no Socialist is going to get a prominent government or political position. There's actual Socialists in Europe, enough to matter politically.

Re:No Thanks

[prof_robinson]

just because you don't remember, doesn't mean that we all don't remember, And if you need a reminder...just look at Venezuela.

Interesting hack...but

[Anonymous Coward]

I think revealing what he is going to do is interesting, and novel. But it won't change the way people vote, they'll simply either not vote for him, or vote for him knowing there's a good chance his running mate will become president in a short time.

Having said that, there are fundamental structural changes that need to be made to the US Electoral system before things in the congress/senate/executive will get better.

I would say reversing Citizens United and/or amending the constitution to exclude personhood from corporations would be a good first step.

Banning superpacs and limiting campaign spending to a fixed number of $$$ based on what position you are running for office, and then having that money provided BY the government would not only prevent massive spending on elections, it would also limit or remove the influence of lobbyists, and also allow anyone to run.

I'd much rather have a ballot with 100 nutjobs on it than have one with only 2 candidates, both owned by corporations and lobbyists. So much so, that I'm willing to have their campaigns funded by my tax dollars.

Re:Interesting hack...but

[random coward]

Ah, but why is so much being spent to get a specific person elected? There must be some massive return on investment for that. There is the rub! If you want to get the money out of politics, you must get the money out of government. The real issue is that paying for lobbying or for candidates has such a large return on investment that it beats stocks or bonds. You remove that ROI and people will stop spending such massive amounts of money on elections. But it won't happen before that.

Conservative against big money

[rtkluttz]

I'm primarily conservative but hate the way the republican party panders to corporations. I would almost vote for Lessig because of this. My belief though is that government shouldn't be in the business of giving ANYONE free shit short of people who absolutely cannot be denied are incapable of providing for themselves. Severely disabled, damaged war vets, etc. For this I would have trouble with Lessig handing the reigns over to a true died in the wool Democrat which would be what gives me pause in voting for him. Free shit is just buying votes and regardless of the good intentions of either side it needs to stop. It causes corruption and bad decision making where everyone is beholden to their paid constituency instead of doing what is right for AMERICA in the LONG run.

Re:Conservative against big money

[KermodeBear]

If you hate the way the Republican party panders to corporations, you may want to consider looking into Ted Cruz. He is running a strong anti-corruption platform. Many of the other candidates will bring us "more of the same," but Ted, if nothing else, wants to clean up the corruption and I believe he would. He's already made tons of enemies in his own party which means he must be doing something right.

Re:Conservative against big money

[fnj]

I'm primarily conservative but hate the way the republican party panders to corporations.

You're not alone, man. But that's just the Republican wing of the Uniparty sellout corporate tool.

Re:Professor?

[Racemaniac]

I'm always wondering if that's actually a problem or not.... There are ofcourse some downsides to it, but if people had more of a say, wouldn't we just amplify the prisoners dilemma to an epic scale? everybody would just vote what's best for them, not the community, taking everything down with them.

I'd like him to run, but not resign

[LetterRip]

I think he is far more suitable as President than those he has suggested as VPs. So his resigning would be a mistake in my opinion.

So much wrong with this

[sideslash]

From Lessig's pitch:

the greatness of America will be reflected in its government too. It once was. When we are finally equal citizens, it will again

Bovine excreta. Lessig doesn't actually believe that. America's government used to be elected by white male landowners. And all the freedoms and founding principles that were important to the Founding Fathers --- er... "Parents" -- is stuff Lessig and Sanders totally hate and want to demolish. The whole continuum from European socialism to forms of communism is simply not compatible with the founding freedoms of America as articulated in our fundamental documents.

My basic problem with Sanders was very well expressed by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." So let's radically change our government so we can start confiscating and spending other people's money even faster, because that will make everything better!

Re:So much wrong with this

[ConceptJunkie]

The reason socialism is gaining traction in the American electorate is that the level of ignorance has reached the point where the average voter isn't aware that TANSTAAFL.

Re:So much wrong with this

[sideslash]

So for you the key is the Vice President. Lessig has one agenda - fundamental electoral reform to bring Congress back in sync with the American populace.

Nope, it's part of the same ball of wax. The "purer" a democracy, the shorter the time until that system of government collapses. This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property.

The VP gets to do all those things you believe destroy America...

Not destroy America, just destroy American prosperity. You know, like Greece. Or Detroit.

Re:So much wrong with this

[sideslash]

The only reason for you to say that must be that you are hoarding more than your fair share of wealth, which is a limited resource and you didn't build that. I demand full equality of... ooh, is my TV program on? brb...

Re:So much wrong with this

[phantomfive]

America's government used to be elected by white male landowners.

That doesn't preclude them from being great. It is possible that there were great white male land owners, and you know it.

The problem with not having diversity is that you are preventing great people from other sectors from becoming leaders. On average this will pull down the level of greatness, but there still can be great leaders.

Re:So much wrong with this

[sideslash]

America's government used to be elected by white male landowners.

That doesn't preclude them from being great. It is possible that there were great white male land owners, and you know it. The problem with not having diversity is that you are preventing great people from other sectors from becoming leaders. On average this will pull down the level of greatness, but there still can be great leaders.

Probably if you backed him to the wall, Lessig would admit that judging by today's standards the Founding Fathers were horrible people with nasty primeval ideas; but that for their time and historical period, their ideas were at least a great improvement over the European status quo.

Re:So much wrong with this

[SuricouRaven]

"This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property."

Or vote to oppress or exterminate anyone who offends them.

This is why the US has the Bill of Rights. Contrast with the events after the French revolution, where they had no such protection. They called it the 'Reign of Terror.'

Re:So much wrong with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, modern socialism is incompatible with what the founding fathers envisioned. But so is modern international corporate capitalism. And more importantly I don't care, because they're dead, we're in charge, and the world is different. Honestly I think the founding fathers would be offended that you took their message to be one of conservatism rather than reform; I think they'd argue that you missed the point of the revolution.

TLDR; If the best idea you can come up with is to faithfully re-enact the 1750s you are not qualified to make decisions in 2015.

Re:So much wrong with this

[phantomfive]

Probably if you backed him to the wall, Lessig would admit that judging by today's standards the Founding Fathers were horrible people with nasty primeval ideas;

Look at it like this. Imagine we were to have a constitutional convention today. What would the constitution look like? Would it look as good as one written by the people who wrote The Federalist Papers?

No, our current politicians are not anywhere near as competent. It would look like some crappy partisan document and would ultimately break down over abortion, leaving us with a bunch of un-unified states. The task of creating a combined nation out all those disparate interests was not an easy one, yet they did it.

Re:So much wrong with this

[sideslash]

It would look like some crappy partisan document and would ultimately break down over abortion, leaving us with a bunch of un-unified states.

Funny you put it that way, since they really had the same problem, albeit with slavery. At least slaves were counted as 3/5 persons by the time of Clay/Webster/Calhoun. It seems our current president and his favorite organ trafficking chums at PP prefer not to count late/full term babies as people at all. Getting human rights straight is a continuing challenge for the USA and we surely ain't there yet.

Re:So much wrong with this

[DrEasy]

Funny then how the most educated countries in the world tend to elect socialist or social-democrat governments.

So don't worry, socialism has no chance in America.

Re:So much wrong with this

[Orgasmatron]

The 3/5ths thing was for census purposes only. It gave the southern states more representation in congress than they would have had otherwise. The south would not have joined the union without that security (plus the promise in Article V).

Re:So much wrong with this

[ConceptJunkie]

Don't tell me. Explain that to the U.S.'s creditors. They're the ones you need to convince.

Re:So much wrong with this

[Beeftopia]

My basic problem with Sanders was very well expressed by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." So let's radically change our government so we can start confiscating and spending other people's money even faster, because that will make everything better!

Actually you can print up a pretty hefty amount - see Japan and the US Quantitative Easing (QE). How long that can last, who knows, but it's really appealing to politicians. And some Nobel Laureate economists are big fans of it too.

Re:So much wrong with this

[thinkwaitfast]

According to wikipedia, there are only 4 socialist countries with socialist governments: Cuba, North Korea, China and India.

Re:So much wrong with this

[ChrisMaple]

The Constitution set up a system to protect rights and organize government based on human nature. The founders studied human nature and government far more thoroughly and carefully than any person now living. Human nature hasn't changed, and there are no fundamentally different forms of government that have been introduced since the Constitution.

I don't care, because they're dead, we're in charge, and the world is different.

And you're so shallow I wouldn't get my feet wet stepping in your soul.

Re:So much wrong with this

[DrEasy]

Well, then Wikipedia is wrong. France has a socialist president and government. Greece just elected a socialist prime minister. There's plenty more in Europe.

The brand of socialism advocated by Sanders is NOT North Korea or Cuba. It's the Scandinavian model that is democratic.

The problem is that the term "socialism" is overloaded and means different things to different people. In America, due to cold war history, it has taken on a very pejorative meaning.

Re:So much wrong with this

[olau]

The "purer" a democracy, the shorter the time until that system of government collapses. This happens precisely because people will cheerfully vote to give themselves other people's property.

[Citation needed]

Not destroy America, just destroy American prosperity. You know, like Greece. Or Detroit.

Ah, so the prosperity of Greece was destroyed because they had a well-functioning democracy?

Re:So much wrong with this

[Perky_Goth]

When used at a proper time, like at the zero lower bound, it's the only thing that works, as seen by the Great European Recession Without End.

Re:Catch 22:

[Krishnoid]

you're premise for running is false, and you won't be elected.

People running under false premises don't get elected?

Re:Professor?

[DarkOx]

Please don't get hung up on arguing over definitions.

WRONG - That is the kind of post modernist thinking that has gotten us into all this trouble in the first place. That is how you end up with "kinetic military actions."

Definitions and ensuring we have a common understanding are VERY IMPORTANT. If fact its the cornerstone you need for the very idea of "codified law". This is why Trump is polling so well. People want someone that says what he means. They are truly tiring of weasel word soup. If Trump actually had ideas, that were not vapid, offensive, irrational or some combination of those, he'd have the GOP primary locked already. As it is I know people who don't agree with a single thing he has said since he announce his candidacy yet they still pick him over the SIXTEEN other GOP candidates. That really says something!

Stupid

[mbone]

So, Larry, if the Congress ignores your "mandate for the fundamental change," and presents you with a hacked-up, watered down Bill (or no Bill at all), what are you going to do? Resign in shame having accomplished nothing? Or, stay on and violate your pledge to resign while you try and make tweaks and recover something of what you want?

This is the same sort of bright thinking that lost him the Eldred copyright-extension case.

I've considered this

[bluefoxlucid]

I have considered running for a congress seat due to a desire to effect tax policies. Once I'm out of policies, it's time to move on; that may mean down, to capitalize on city council positions for more complex initiatives--notably, education.

I could stay high up and attempt to restore the power of the individual worker, but I doubt I could gain popular support--and, thus, moral authorization--of the voting base to tear down any and all government support of self-driven college education. People are quite so attached to this sense of moral freedom to train themselves into a vocation that they wish to sell themselves into slavery for it, trading away all of their humanity in favor of being cheap tools to be used and discarded based on the fancy of their employer, rather than quite expensive and important tools which their employers must maintain properly. It doesn't help that the position of an individual predicting the market for such tools is untenable, and inevitably leads to oversupply of labor, which is why 74% of STEM degree holders work in non-STEM jobs (despite people claiming CompSci degree workers in "healthcare" means they're working in computer network engineering for a hospital--that's a STEM job--and not as a clerk managing documents and paperwork).

I like to think one day I'll enact policies to give every single individual worker the bargaining power of a trade union; the truth is I have the right policies, but I'll never have the political support. Given a 1 pound silver bar in one hand and a 1 pound Hershey bar in the other, people would probably take the Hershey bar over a useless block of metal.

Re:I've considered this

[phantomfive]

It isn't necessary to have a college degree to live well in the United States. You need to have some skill, but it's a fallacy to force everyone to get a college degree to improve their employment, or even to encourage it.

Re:I've considered this

[SuricouRaven]

South Korea reached a sort of 'education inflation.' They got educational standards up so high that even the lowest-skilled positions were getting applicants with degrees - and employers went for those with degrees, because even if the degree is in astronomy and the job is in shelf-stacking, having obtained one still shows a level of dedication, devotion and attentiveness. As a result it's practically impossible to get employment without at least the equivilent of a college education in some field - which means absolutely everyone tries to get that education and so perpetuates the problem.

Re:I've considered this

[bluefoxlucid]

It's not that. I'm not discussing the validity of a need for a college degree to succeed at employment; I'm discussing the behavior of markets.

The system of supporting college degrees per individual--student loans or free college--means employers only need to plan out a year or two ahead, set budget, and then demand a flood of hundreds of applications in the 2 months leading up to urgent need. Chickens scratching at barren ground, begging for whatever bits of fragmented grain they can find. Your marketable value is nothing; you are a tool to be picked, used, thrown off if you don't fit comfortably in the hand, and purchased or rented for as little as possible. If your skills become obsolete, you're replaced--else you go out yourself and append new skills, working full time PLUS college while some new student only goes to college once to get the summary course of the same effort as your initial single effort.

I've worked for businesses whose HR instigates a policy of paying around the 25th percentile for all labor, and rolling the revolving door to get rid of crap labor. Poor benefits, low salaries, 30-40 applications per cycle, and spend a year or three building each department on the backs of people underpaid by $20k/year. The strategy works quite well as of these last decades.

Each business can see, plainly, their markets, their competition, their strategies, their current growth, and their predicted growth. Knowing these things for a few years out is part of running a business. Aggregating this across markets is speculative, carrying much higher risks; likewise, predicting what everyone else will do is even harder. That means businesses can reliably build a precisely-tailored workforce, while individuals in charge of their own development can only oversupply at their own expense.

Removing the ability for individually-driven vocational training--and college is really just career training with embellishment (yes, you must know Chemistry and Biology to be a computer programmer, somehow)--means businesses suffer first. The businesses have no option: should they fail to train a new workforce, they won't accomplish their strategies, and a competitor will destroy them by building a solid workforce. Likewise, as they develop an employee, that employee becomes an asset: it's favorable to keep and extend the employee, providing new training, rather than to try to find a replacement. Employees become valuable and important.

100 individuals who go to college and come out hunting for 10 jobs means 90 individuals with no jobs, and 10 desperately clinging to whatever they can scrape up; 100 individuals facing 10 jobs with no qualified competition means those businesses must select 10 individuals, pay them, employ them, train them, and pay for their formal education, and so the individuals are no worse off. Businesses have a distinctly different position between these as well: those of the first group are replaceable; those of the second aren't, unless you're prepared to build new stock through large investments of time, effort, and the risk of hiring lazy and useless employees whom aren't recognized as such until they've spent several months simply not taking to training.

Who makes out better when the Government initiates a plan to give every individual the capacity to put himself through college: the individual or the business? Oh, it doesn't matter if both benefit--in fact, that would distinctly create wealth, costing less (in taxes, hardship, and labor) and providing more (benefit to all individuals in aggregate and all businesses in aggregate). In point of fact, however, the individual *suffers* while the business *benefits*; and the benefit in aggregate to businesses is outweighed by the hardship in aggregate to the individual, thus destroying wealth, destroying personal freedom, and destroying personal wealth. This business with public college isn't simply expensive and wasteful spending, as some dull-minded conservatives may conclude; it is, as a more li

Re:I've considered this

[phantomfive]

ok, it's not entirely clear to me what you are suggesting, but let me try to pose another example. For example, welders.

You can go to a school and learn to weld. You can learn welding, and skip Literature and Biology and whatever else. However, businesses don't go out and pay for people to become welders, that is something you have to do yourself.

So, how are you going to get companies to pay for employee training?

Re:I've considered this

[bluefoxlucid]

So, how are you going to get companies to pay for employee training?

Like this:

You can go to a school and learn to weld.

There are 1.5 million Welders. Businesses need 1.7 million Welders. They need to hire 200,000 Welders.

Rich people don't become Welders.

Middle-class people have jobs already.

Adults coming out of middle-class households have no way to independently afford a vocational education as a Welder.

Businesses requiring Welders can't find applicants. They're facing an inability to acquire talent, choking off their growth and diminishing their profits. They face the immediate threat of a competitor somehow finding additional staff to expand across the market demand, overstepping them, capturing their market, expanding their brand, potentially reducing the legitimacy of their business as they struggle to meet contracts and deadlines while their competitor is always able to say yes to every technically reasonable demand, thus threatening their business with collapse.

They really, really need welders if they're not going to lose profits and experience a massive tumbling of stock price and loss of shareholder value; but welders aren't going to come out of nowhere. Nobody who actually wants to be a welder can really afford to train themselves.

What a pity...

Welding may be a poor example, as it's moderately niche and cheap--welding school costs, what, $15,000 in total? On the other hand, most companies hard-up for welders are quite aware that welding is a niche--people aren't going to college in droves to become certified welders--and so will pay a hobbyist with an interest in a career in welding to go to school. I've known quite a few welders and electricians that got in that way, even so far as BGE hiring a new electrician, paying their salary, and sending them off to school for a full year without giving them any work--you get a paycheck, you get free school, and you get no actual job to perform--before sticking them in an apprenticeship where someone can keep an eye on the new fish.

It's quite a different landscape than IT. It's fairly uncommon, but far from unheard of, for a welder's job security to fail largely by way of his boss being a dick, him constantly telling his boss to fuck off and die in a fire, then eventually spitting in his boss's face and walking off the job to go find someone who's not a bloody cocksucker to work for. I wouldn't bet my career on that, but it happens often enough, and typically because the boss in question wants to stroke his ego and display authority, and is afraid of firing a good technician and having trouble filling the gap (thus looking like an incompetent assclown in front of everyone); in IT, you're practically begging daily to keep your privilege of serfdom.

I don't want to bring the tyrannical guilds back; nor do I want to legitimize their evil cousins, the trade unions. I would like, however, for the individual to have, within all career paths, the type of personal power that a trade union carries, without swearing fealty to the fiefdom of the guild or union. That means pressing the knife into the palm of the businesses on all fronts, just enough to extract a wince of pain, so they work to produce a workforce--and work to maintain that workforce in an earnest attempt to keep pressure off that blade.

There is one other argument I could make, although it's fairly uncivil; you'll forgive me that, I'm sure.

how are you going to get companies to pay for employee training?

If they don't, then, obviously, they don't need to. Either employees can pay for training themselves anyway, or they have no need of the excessive labor force we're building. Your question begs the question of why should they pay for employee training, which only has one answer: it provides an advantage over not doing so. That advantage would only be manifest in the need for labor, without which we achieve nothing by sending anyone to learn any sort of vocation.

In other words: you asked a silly question. The logical argument in that manner is a tad uncivil, as I've said.

Re:I've considered this

[phantomfive]

There is one other argument I could make, although it's fairly uncivil; you'll forgive me that, I'm sure.

I'm sure I've said less civil things before on Slashdot.

Re:I've considered this

[thinkwaitfast]

Do you think that might have anything due to (in the US at least) a high school education not being worth as much as it used to?

Re:Professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they wanted someone who said what they meant, they'd *love* Obama. What they (the minority of Republicans drooling over Trump) actually want is someone who is willing to get out there and be an asshole to all the people that they'd *love* to be an asshole to, but don't dare because they'd get their asses handed back, finely diced, and on a silver platter.

So...

[Snufu]

we would really be voting for the vice president as president?

I don't see the point

[bigdavex]

Why doesn't he just endorse Sanders or Warren? I don't see the point.

Re:Socialism

[dywolf]

Says someone who knows very little about world governments, political theory, and related definitions under those headings.

Re:Socialism

[bluefoxlucid]

I've written a patch for capitalism that fixes that.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You are talking about communism, not democratic socialism like in parts of Europe.

Europeans have social democracies, not democratic socialism. From Wikipedia:

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy.

Yes, the difference matters a great deal. I know of no European country that is governed as a democratic socialist country. Many countries nominally have "democratic socialist parties", but they largely do not actually pursue democratic socialism anymore.

Re:Professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I think you fail to see is that, in a democracy, that is exactly the goal! If you vote for someone only thinking of yourself and everyone else does the same, what you end up with is a working system. Everyone gets a little bit of what they want because, as a representative, if you give more to one than to the rest, you will be voted out of office next time by the rest. Of course, this is only the theory behind it, in practice things are much less elegant. All political systems, from true Anarchy or Fascism to Democracy and even Communism, suffer from human greed. Not to mention, ignorance is so easy to manipulate!

As for the original post the U.S. is, by definition, a democratic republic (or representative democracy, as the article put it). "Constitutional" is implied by democratic, but "democratic" is not implied by constitutional. A pure republic, like ancient Rome, is where only some people have the right to choose a representative. A pure democracy, like Athens of old, the people voted directly on every bill. The U.S., like most other countries, have the people vote for representatives who then vote on the bills, hence, democratic republic. A constitutional republic could mean anything, really... Lets say you had a constitution that only allowed land owner to choose their representative; or one where old people over the age of 40 could choose representatives.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

In fact, you can't have free market capitalism without restrictions on money in politics, and still have any kind of democracy.

If by "democracy" you mean "strict majority rule" aka "mob rule", you are correct. But that is only one form of democracy, and not a very desirable one. In fact, most democracies are set up with significant safeguards against majority rule.

When it comes to wealth and personal property, the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed that private property and wealth needs to be protected against the desires and whims of the majority.

"That hasn't worked out so well"

[Brannon]

What is it that you miss so much from the Bush years? the trillion dollar war searching for nonexistent WMDs? the insanely mismanaged response to Katrina? the disastrous economy with bank bailouts and huge unemployment? the political outing of undercover CIA agents? the debunked evidence of yellow-cake uranium presented as fact to the UN? Abu Ghraib prisoner torture? How about his complete failure to find Osama Bin Laden? Or do you just genuinely miss having the rest of the world hate us?

No thanks. I'll take the current economy with its strong dollar & 5% unemployment, 15+ million people newly with healthcare, no more wars, a nuclear agreement with Iran, regularization of relations with Cuba, legalized same sex marriage, strengthened bank regulations (without hurting the economy), a dead Osama Bin Laden, DADT repeal, etc. BTW: it's also nice to have a president who can speak in complete sentences.

Good luck with Jeb!

Re:"That hasn't worked out so well"

[Whorhay]

To be perfectly fair the economic collapse can't really be blamed on a single president. That disaster was decades in the making. The bailouts are more attributable to him but they couldn't happen without the agreement of congress. And not bailing out the finance sector could have made the collapse much more serious than it was. What I would say that he definitely has responsibility for is not imprisoning any of the responsible parties, or really levying any punishments at all. Although it's not like Obama did any better on this front at all.

Not finding O.B. faster isn't really anything that I think the President could have affected very well. He already had the various 3 letter agencies, and the DoD hunting for him, and those efforts did eventually pay off, although it's questionable in my mind if the money was worth it.

Abu Ghraib could have been handled better with more punishments for the leadership that was involved. But so far as actually preventing it from happening, that's pretty much a lost cause once the war in Iraq was started. War is horrible and it'll bring out the best and worst in people. Which is why, even when morally justified, we should be very hesitant to start beating those drums. I definitely feel we can blame Bush for the war in Iraq but I think Abu Ghraib is just a piece of that and not necessarily something you can hold him individually accountable for.

Re:"That hasn't worked out so well"

[dinfinity]

Or do you just genuinely miss having the rest of the world hate us?

I'm sorry, but we still do.

Drone strike executions, active secret lawless torture institutions, and the NSA and the public not giving a fuck about spying on allies give the rest of the world plenty of reason to dislike the US.

Re:"That hasn't worked out so well"

[KermodeBear]

You seem to think that because I don't like Obama that I must gush all over Bush.

You couldn't be any further from the truth. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

You should know better.

Re:"That hasn't worked out so well"

[Anonymous Coward]

To be perfectly fair the economic collapse can't really be blamed on a single president.

To be fair, the multi-systemic deregulation leading to the 2008 collapse can really be blamed only on a single party. Presidents hardly enter into it. Who is blaming a President for 2008?

Re:"That hasn't worked out so well"

[ChrisMaple]

You are astonishing. 13 lies and 2 bad things presented as good in only 148 words.

Re:"That hasn't worked out so well"

[andydouble07]

Care to elaborate on that?

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Sweden is nominally a constitutional monarchy. In practice, it is a social democracy, modeled on the German welfare state. In no way is Sweden a "socialist" country. In fact, on the Heritage index of economic freedoms, it ranks quite highly. http://www.heritage.org/index/...

Re:Professor?

[jfengel]

With 300 million people, is it really possible for them to have a "say" in what's happening? The present system is far from ideal, and there's a lot I would do to change it, but even if you implemented every procedural change I had in mind your individual vote still isn't going to add up to much.

Real issues aren't binary. I can't think of any way for 300 million people to meaningfully collaborate on writing a bill. It's hard enough getting a few hundred Congressmen to do it. The binary part comes at the very end, when there's a vote, after the difficult compromises are hammered out, and it's really the least important part of the process.

I'm not crazy about the fact that our checks and balances mean that even very popular bills are impossible to move, but they're in there for a reason. If I could I would tweak the balance, but minority protections are a good thing, even if they're also ripe for abuse. And I just can't envision any scenario where those protections don't make people feel like their vote is insignificant.

The national politics is ultimately a process by which those 300 million people (or at least, the quarter or so who turn out to vote) make group decisions. Given how hard it is to get six people to decide on pizza toppings I really don't see how we're going to get to a place where the populace feels it has a lot more say than it already has. We can certainly do better than we do, but even in the best of all possible worlds I can't imagine a case that people all feel like their voices have a significant effect.

Re:Socialism

[Archangel Michael]

Sweden is fairly monolithic in nature, a singular people and culture, so socialism's failures haven't reached it yet, but there are cracks even there. Whenever another "culture" invades, it will succumb to the inevitable failure when the minority culture realizes that it can vote itself goodies from the public trough.

Here is a good article on this topic: http://www.newsmax.com/Herbert...

I would vote for him in a heart beat.

[WindBourne]

At the least, let it send a message.

I will say that I prefer a different approach. Most states have the ability to amend their constitution via ballot. It would be useful for the group to put together a measure that should match what would go into our federal constitution. Yes, SCOTUS, esp this current activists SCOTUS, would kill it as a threat to the status quo. BUT, in each state that it passed, it would send a message to any CONgress critter running that we want our democratic representation back and to drop the fascism that we have become. Hell, my CONgress critter takes money from a company that is owned by the CHinese gov. That is fucking sad.

He's got my vote

[ferro lad]

Just wondering where he'll pull the 100 million dollars needed to run these days...what do professors make these days? But he's fundamentally right that it's rigged or a game for misogynistic millionaires!

A better option is to be VP...

[vinn]

There's no way LL can get the name recognition he needs to raise the funds to be loud enough to get his message out. That's a shame in our society and one of the problems hopefully he could fix.

A better option would be to approach Bernie Sanders and ask to be his VP. They could run the same campaign and the same platform. As VP a majority of LL's time could go to implementing the changes needed once elected. A president simply does not have the time to focus 100% of their time on "fixing things". And honestly, given the framework of the constitution, I have no idea how you could ever do such a thing without the legislature helping - there's no way that would happen right now.

The only way to really make these changes is to get amendments added to the constitution and do that via a direct vote of the states/people - something that's never been done before. Things like campaign finance reform, procedural rules in congress, lobbying/lobbyists, voting, and gerrymandering pretty much all need to be addressed. To get it done, everyone needs to drop the labels of liberal, socialist, libertarian, and conservative. It takes elements of all of those overrated vague concepts to get it done.

Lastly, the candidate that wins this election will spend over $1 billion. The 2016 election will very much be bought. If Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros all got together they could purchase this election.

Re:A better option is to be VP...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> approach Bernie Sanders and ask to be his VP

Two old white dudes won't happen. If Bernie makes it that far, the dems will slide a non-white woman into the VP slot on the ticket, particularly after all the trouble he's had on the campaign trail with the "Black Lives Matter (and All Lives Don't)" crowd.

Ditto for Hillary. She looks old and has-been enough already; I'll bet her running mate will be a demographically-appropriate Hispanic in his/her forties, or a black woman (dressed up to resemble Oprah but not Michelle) in her fifties.

Re:A better option is to be VP...

[david_thornley]

A two-woman candidacy isn't going to happen either. Either the President or Vice-Presidential candidate can be female or non-white or inexperienced or whatever, but the other one is going to be a white male member of the Establishment. (I also don't think non-white females are going to be on any ticket for some time.) Now, Sanders counts as an Establishment white guy, but Clinton is non-male and needs an Establishment white guy as a running mate.

Eventually, and possibly fairly soon, the electorate won't sweat the sex or skin color of the candidates, but that time is not here yet.

So close and then a miss.

[random coward]

Right now there are large urban areas that have enough people to vote to favor them over the rest of the populations in their state. Chicago does this to IL and NYC does this to to NYS. Until you get back to a republican form of government for the states, which is required by our constitution, these people that live over large areas of the country are being held hostage to the policies of the large cities. Take a look at a vote map by county some time. Sectionalism is going to cause a Civil War in this country if we continue on this path. Giving more power to democracy will just further strengthen the large urban populations to control policy over those who are more diffuse in the states and the federal government. It is no the answer to the problem, it is the problem. Some kind of splitting up needs to happen, while it can happen peacefully, instead of further entrenching the status quo.

Look here is a map showing voting by counties Why should the Dense Urban areas control the Rural areas policies? Its going to be ugly if we have 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on whats for dinner, or rather Urban Density voting for policies that favor them at the expense of the Rural areas.

Re:Professor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't get hung up on arguing over definitions. It isn't productive.

You are dead wrong. Defining the terms used in any discussion is critical.
"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another..." - Voltaire

What socialism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialist policy is one of the things that has been screwing things up in this country

And the rest of the world looks on in incredulity as one US right-wing party accuses another US right-wing party of socialism ...

You guys have absolutely no clue what the term "social" means in political organization. Hint: it doesn't mean looking after your own wallet and personal interest to the detriment of everyone else.

Re:Socialism

[The Real Dr John]

It is obvious what I meant when I mentioned Europe. Social democracy.

Sorry Larry.

[wezelboy]

Dear Larry-

I liked you, but you are pulling a Nader on the Democratic primary. Not cool.

Re:Socialism

[PopeRatzo]

When it comes to wealth and personal property, the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed that private property and wealth needs to be protected against the desires and whims of the majority.

And that had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the authors of the US Constitution were men of wealth and property.

Let me get this straight

[MerlynEmrys67]

So you create a government, that by its mere whim can decide to grant/take away billions of dollars from individual companies (See Tesla vs. Coal) and then you expect companies not to want to have a say in the outcome. The easy solution to the outside influence problem is a less intrusive government that doesn't make it worth the money to spend on politicians. If the government had less influence on the economic outcomes of people and companies - people and companies would spend less money on getting the outcomes that they want.

Lets start with a mandate that ALL congress critters must go into a sealed room with a pencil, calculator and a land line that only dials the IRS help line (where they can wait in the queue). They get to do their annual taxes, turn them in and have a super audit with published results (ok, lets say %accurate). Hopefully this will lead very quickly to a new tax code that is significantly simpler without all of the carve outs, and fancy working that can be misinterpreted.

Next lets start with regulations - make congress responsible for following all of the laws that they pass, lets start with minimum wage - Yes interns should be paid at least the minimum wage.

Re:Professor?

[ArmoredDragon]

That usually doesn't work, a common analogy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The founding fathers were very adamant that there must be certain inalienable rights, and a balance of power between the have's and the have not's.

And thus, a republic was born.

Re:Professor?

[SuricouRaven]

"absolute republics"

“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”

Definitions Please

[trout007]

Everyone confuses the political and economic systems.

Socialism is pretty specific. It means public ownership of the means of production.
Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

You are confusing Socialism with a welfare state which is at least partially Capitalist because that is what is taxed to provide for the welfare state.

Most of the so-called "Socialist" Scandinavian countries are very Capitalist which is why they started out so wealthy (along with staying out of the world wars for the most part). They are also large welfare states with high taxes.

Re:Definitions Please

[Archangel Michael]

Socialism suggests that the state has a RIGHT to the rewards of work, as if his work is owned by the state. The "means" of production are just a waypoint to that.

This is why we have confiscatory taxes at just about every level, which the poor and middle class cannot avoid, while the rich can.

All taxes are regressive.

Re:Professor?

[ArmoredDragon]

Likely not. There's a lot of research that shows that the optimal collaborative team size is 4 people, and once you go beyond 8, voices get lost in the noise. This is why a republic is better IMO.

Veto Power

[sladman.returns]

As a 'Referendum President', he promises to only shepherd one piece of legislation into law: The Citizen Equality Act of 2017.

He promises to resign once this is done, which causes his Vice President to take over as President. (I expect their ticket would also need a VP-in-waiting who the VP-turned-president would promise to make their new Vice President.)

He promises to DO NOTHING ELSE UNTIL THIS IS DONE. To me, that means he is promising to VETO everything else until his Citizen Equality Act is law. Congress and the Senate would have no choice but to follow the clear mandate given him by the electorate on this one, single issue. To do otherwise, they would be going against the will of the people and committing political suicide in 2 years... AND be forced to continue to deal with Lessig at every turn.

This would totally work, as long as Lessig stuck to his guns -- which knowing him and his passion for this issue, he would.

Re:Veto Power

[TWX]

Congress can override a veto.

One of the dangers in creating such a scenario is that if the executive branch no longer has its confimed long-term appointees, the highest-ranking lifetime bureaucrats that are not appointed and serve through multiple administrations become the de-facto leaders of their departments. You end up with Deputy Directors with more power than cabinet secretaries, and if those Deputy Directors do not go along with the plans of the President they can make the President little more than a figurehead.

One should study the Presidency of Andrew Johnson, who was impeached but whose conviction fell short by a single vote if memory serves. He basically just filled a chair the rest of his Presidency.

I gather I would agree with a good chunk of what Mr. Lessig wants to achieve, but I don't think that his proposal for how to go about changing it is workable. Politics is local. Local people run for local offices, and then run for regional offices, then statewide office, then Federal office. If one doesn't pay attention to those people at the local level one can't complain too much for what crap floats to the top.

Re:Veto Power

[bondsbw]

Congress can override a veto.

... by cooperating.

If he can get Congress to cooperate enough on important matters to override a veto, he will have done something that is thought practically unimaginable today.

Taking votes away from Sanders

[NoKaOi]

If Lessig runs in the primary, he'll just be taking votes away from Sanders. Most anybody who would vote for Lessig would otherwise vote for Sanders, so if Sanders vs. Clinton would otherwise be extremely close, it could give Clinton the edge she needs to win the primary. If Lessig really cares about his ideals then he won't run.

Re:Taking votes away from Sanders

[The Real Dr John]

I had thought about that too. I am glad you mentioned it. I don't think Lessig will actually run because it takes a huge amount of organizing that he has never had to do. Sanders is a pro at running for office.

The good news is that the conversation is turning to our broken political system. It needs to be a top priority for all voters to end the control that Big Money has on politics, and the "news" agencies that report on politics.

Re:Socialism

[DrEasy]

Well, that's all socialist Bernie Sanders is using as his model. It's doesn't take an authoritative government, just people who are willing to pool their resources for the common good. France also had a socialist president and socialist governments in the 80s, and nobody lost any freedom.

Re:Professor?

[mspohr]

You are right. With 300 million people there are just too many opinions. We've simplified the process. The USA is run as an oligarchy where rich people and corporations tell congress and the president what to do. There only a few thousand people who really "matter" (Oligarch lives matter!) in the system so it's much easier. You can just ignore the rest (and send in the goons if they get too rowdy).

Re:Professor?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The same Obama who was against gay marriage back in 2008? He's a career politician just like the rest of them, going wherever the wind blows and lacking personal integrity in his opinions. That's not to say his opinions lare morally wrong on an ongoing basis, just that they change whenever it suits him politically. Trump, not so much, and that resonates with a lot of people tired of seeing the same cut-outs mouthing the same trendy platitudes for years now.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It is obvious what I meant when I mentioned Europe. Social democracy.

You juxtaposed "communism" and "democratic socialism". Of course, you were confused about the difference between "democratic socialism" and "social democracy"; don't try to pretend otherwise.

And the difference matters a great deal.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Well, that's all socialist Bernie Sanders is using as his model.

I assume Bernie Sanders knows enough about socialism to understand what that means.

What you are saying is that what he is really doing is performing the same kind of "bait and switch" that "national socialists" performed in 1920's Germany; if you look at their 1920 party program, perhaps you're right. That makes him even less acceptable as a candidate.

It's doesn't take an authoritative [sic] government, just people who are willing to pool their resources for the common good

People willing to pool their resources for the common good is what a free market accomplishes.

What Bernie Sanders and socialism advocate is some people "willing" to pool other people's resources for what is ostensibly the common good. No matter whether you think (like Sanders) that such coercion is justified and useful, don't try to pretend that it is voluntary; such coercion takes authoritarian government.

(Whether government is ever "authoritative" is debatable.)

... So He Can Reign

[kjhambrick]

There ... Fixed that Typo for ya

Democratic Party?

[wisnoskij]

He lost all possible respect I might of had for him. Any one who thinks that the Democratic party is any different form the Republican party is an idiot.

Could someone please explain?

[BlackPignouf]

Could someone please explain?
I'm not well versed in US politics, and don't understand what that would achieve.
What's the problem, and what would his proposal do?
Thanks in advance.

Proportional Representatives

[trout007]

I always thought a good way to run the House would be to have in each district the representative would have the power of the number of votes cast for them. That way both the republican and democrat (along with third parties) would go to Washington DC. To get a bill passed you would need 50% of the total votes cast in that election. So if there were 120 million total votes cast and a congresswoman had 200,000 votes cast for her she would be allocated that many votes and you would need 60,000,001 to pass a bill.

As for the Senate repeal the 17th amendment and turn it back to the state governments.

Re:Socialism

[The Real Dr John]

I am not pretending. I am not a political scientist, I'm just a voter. I had no idea that reversing the order of the two words completely changed the definition. But this sounds like a distraction from what I was talking about.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And that had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the authors of the US Constitution were men of wealth and property.

It had everything to do with that. It also has everything to do with the fact that the US is so prosperous and free compared to the rest of the world.

Re:Professor?

[epyT-R]

Actually definitions of words are at the very heart of the matter. Your statement is an example of the sloppy thinking that's gotten us into the messes we're in.

Not a good idea to leave VP slot empty

[Software]

Once the new VP becomes President, then filling the VP slot will require the approval of Congress. I doubt that a Republican Congress would be willing to approve someone who would be acceptable to Democrats. Lessig's whole idea also robs the voters of the ability to choose the VP.

Plus, leaving the VP slot empty and making Boehner a heartbeat away from the presidency is a terrible idea.

Re:Socialism

[Archangel Michael]

I would love to see the exact part of the Constitution that deals with property in light of governance.

Re:Socialism

[Archangel Michael]

Taxes, are a threat to freedom. Because behind just about every tax, is the threat of government guns. Regardless how how justified you think taxes are, they require FORCE. Or else, nobody would pay them.

And since the silly season of politics (in America) has begun in earnest, take a long look at who thinks taxes are a good thing, and who thinks they are not.

If you want my prime example, see Eric Garner's arrest. For selling untaxed cigarettes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Socialism

[Kjella]

Yes, the difference matters a great deal. I know of no European country that is governed as a democratic socialist country. Many countries nominally have "democratic socialist parties", but they largely do not actually pursue democratic socialism anymore.

As a general case no, but for services the government provides there's always debates of whether they should be provided by public employees or purchases from private companies. Say 25 years ago it was public employees building our public roads, the phone system was publicly owned, everything from the drivers of public transport to the garbage men were employees of the state. Today all of those are privatized but still about 30% here in Norway work in the public sector, primarily in child care, education, healthcare and care for the elderly. The overall trend is that the government is paying but not performing though.

The arguments are fairly classic, the government is a monopolist and has no true incentive to improve and cutting funding only leads to politically unacceptable service levels, not higher efficiency. The counter argument is that there's very little innovation in helping the elderly get dressed, fed and washed so the private sector is just cutting costs by cutting corners, creating worse work conditions and providing poorer service in all the ways you don't manage to measure in a contract and adding a profit margin on top. And the staff just rotates between the companies that get the contract.

We have mixed services but there's always a debate if you're comparing apples to apples, for example in public healthcare you typically have young doctors in training, experts for the really difficult cases or obscure treatments and such while private healthcare is typically an experienced doctor doing routine work to maximize the number of procedures he can bill the government for, making them seem far more efficient when they're skimming the system for easy money and leaving the rest to the public system. Many of the same arguments are also repeated with regards to consultants or employees.

What is his plan though? No details

[lamer01]

Seriously, you can't announce you will do something so revolutionary without explaining how.

Uhhhh.... No.

[Timex]

Lessig seems to forget that this country is not, nor has it ever been, a "democracy". This nation has always been a Republic.

The rules in place that he describes as "fixed" are an attempt (however feeble) at preventing the balance of power from being held by any one part of the country. Who would really enjoy it, for example, if California got choose presidents all by itself, simply because they had more people than most other states? (Yes, I'm quite aware that a few other states on the East Coast also have a lot of people, but at this writing, California has more Representatives in Congress, and therefore more Electoral votes, than any one of them.)

Besides that... His choices for VP would be Elizabeth "Hoaxahontas" Warren and Bernie "Socialism or bust" Sanders? Please.

Disqualified!

[reboot246]

He firmly believes that this country is a democracy. It's not a democracy and never was intended to be a democracy. Democracies simply don't work. The founders knew that and that's why we're a representative REPUBLIC. That's why the country is so far off the tracks now. We need to save the republic and steer clear of any thoughts about a democracy. Don't argue with me about semantics. Words have meanings. Go study your history.

Re:Disqualified!

[greysondn]

Lessig's point isn't moot.

Democracies don't work because the masses tend to be undereducated in ways that matter to make policy decisions. So you set things up as representative systems - which we have in our republic.

But what if someone found some way to buy the favor of every single person that matter at the level of representatives? And which levels of such in a stratified system matter?

My home county has 3 people in the state congress to represent us (two of which represent a district made up of several counties). If you wanted to buy the local politics, it's probably pretty cheap - two out of three is easy enough, after all. You could cut off every person who voted for those three by giving them some incentive to do things your way instead of everyone else's way. So that's a great way to silence the voices of some, I don't know, let's just give a generous estimate at 20,000 people? (It's rural here.) 20,000 people silenced so that one person can have their way.

And, yes, I'm well aware that those still have to vote in the state senate and there's all these other elected officials they're voting alongside, but what matters is *those people would only actually be voting on behalf of one person instead of all the people they were elected to represent*. And more likely the stuff that doesn't matter to the one person... don't matter. It's where it's down to who paid the piper that they'll sing his tune, so to speak. ...

Now, scale out to something national and ask yourself this: The state of West Virginia has "only" 2 Senators and "only" 3 Representatives in the national Congress. That's only one more you need than at the local level to functionally silence all of the state of West Virginia, and maybe the numbers are larger but the point remains that - if you could find the right incentive - you only need to tempt three or four people enough to get your way and functionally silence ~1.85 million people when it comes to getting your way. ...

We would hope such people would be incorruptible. And certainly Manchin has always been a good man in person and seemed to have his head on straight so far as what West Virginia needs (no, I'm not proud of coal, but it drives our economy) since before he was a Congresscritter. But the reality is that they're only human and could be tempted, and our system is set up in such a way right now that offering temptation isn't only legal - it's *trivial*.

I'm not a very wealthy man. I can't just have my way.

But I'd like to think that my vote is 1/1.85 millionth of what ultimately goes into my representative's considerations. Wouldn't you, if you hailed from West Virginia? And if something prevented that from being the case, wouldn't you be quite angry? And that's where Lessig's come from consistently with his MayDay PAC and his movements related to it. It would appear that they vote in line with where the bribes are at, and we need to make it at least less trivial to make such offers. Bribes aren't unexpected, but they need to be less easy to make.

This comment's a novel. My head is never quite clear, but I think the point is graspable.

"Representative Democracy"

[rea1l1]

"In no plausible sense do we have a representative democracy in America today."

I'm glad he noticed this. We were never supposed to have a democracy at all. We are supposed to have a constitutional republic. Our founders explicitly decided against a democracy. They wanted the rights of the people to remain vested in the people, and a democracy has the power to strip rights based on majority vote.

A republic is a form of government in which the governing body has no greater power than any individual citizen.

We are so far from our roots to the point that our government resembles a Frankenstein monster.

We can repair the foundation of our republic, but not through the "democracy" that has been forged in order to strip the rights of the people.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Well, and that's why I responded. I'm not trying to be pedantic; these distinctions matter a great deal, because a free society, a democratic socialist society, and a social democracy are three very different kinds of society, with very different levels of wealth and economic success.

But this sounds like a distraction from what I was talking about.

No, it's not a distraction. The second statement you made "In fact, you can't have free market capitalism without restrictions on money in politics, and still have any kind of democracy." is also clearly false. There are many forms of democracy that are possible without restrictions on money in politics. What you seem to be saying is that majoritarianism and/or the progressive ideal of rational government are impossible without restrictions on money in politics. Neither of those two are desirable forms of democracy as far as I'm concerned.

I suggest reading Milton Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom", Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Ludwig von Mises "Socialism", or Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy".

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I didn't say the Constitution dealt with this, I said "the authors of the US Constitution explicitly believed"; that is, they expressed these views separately from the Constitution.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

As a general case no, but for services the government provides there's always debates of whether they should be provided by public employees or purchases from private companies.

Government purchasing services from private companies is not a "free market choice".

while private healthcare is typically an experienced doctor doing routine work to maximize the number of procedures he can bill the government for

Again, you are comparing one broken, corrupt government scheme (government-run healthcare) with an even more broken, corrupt government scheme (private doctors paid for by a government-run or government-regulated health plan).

Re:Socialism

[ChrisMaple]

People willing to pool their resources for the common good is what a free market accomplishes.

People willing to pool their resources for their own good occurs in a free market. That this results in the common good is natural and nice, but not fundamental. The rights of the individual (which are the only rights that exist) are above the claims of the common.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I don't know what exactly you're trying to get at.

My point is simply that the only system in which everybody who contributes to the common good does so willingly is the free market.

Bernie Sanders does not advocate government in which people willingly contribute to the common good, he advocates government in which people are coerced to contribute to what other people declare to be (but rarely is) "the common good".

So, you're right: only individuals have rights, and free markets respect those rights, while socialism and social democracy necessarily violates the rights of at least some people.

Re:Professor?

[thinkwaitfast]

There are literally dozens of people who tell me what to do all day and every day. That doesn't mean that I do what they tell me to do.

Re:Professor?

[Boronx]

Give me a break. In a world where people dismiss Sanders because "he's a socialist" without any further thought, getting hung up on labels is a huge problem.

Re:Socialism

[Boronx]

GP is just taking for granted that you shouldn't refuse someone health care because they are broke, or break them if they aren't. GP doesn't understand how barbaric the position of American conservatives is.

Re:Socialism

[Boronx]

You aren't addressing the point, that too much money in politics erodes democratic virtues in politics.

Re:Socialism

[Boronx]

Taxes are a measure of government power. A government that cannot or does not tax is showing itself to be powerless.

Re:Catch 22:

[kwbauer]

Unless two of them want to pool their money to buy an ad (the modern equivalent of printing a pamphlet). Being able to say what you want inherently requires the ability to say it to a large enough audience to matter and that takes money. Not allowing people to pool their money for the purpose of getting their message out only means that the common people are not able to make political speech.

Yes, now you understand that the left, the only ones opposed to Citizens United, are actually trying to make it the law of the land that only the wealthiest can make political speech.

Re:Socialism

[DrEasy]

Wow, Godwin already?

There's been plenty of free and democratic countries in Europe who willingly voted in a socialist government, willingly accepted to be taxed to pool their resources and together achieve greater things (free education, better infrastructures and healthcare, etc). And when they were unhappy with the amount of tax they were paying or how it was utilized, they voted for a different government. Nobody stopped them. Nothing oppressive. No coercion.

Re:Socialism

[wertigon]

The first paragraph in your link says this:

It is not merely the preemptive conciliation that afflicts politicians who are ready to subordinate Christian civilization to Islam;

Which tells me that:

a) This person is suffering of islamophobia
b) This person is furthermore suffering of delusions of paranoia, more specifically that there is a conspiracy to turn western democracies into theocraticly run islamic states. If anything, we're much more likely to become theocraticly christian states - but I wouldn't really worry about that either. The chances of either happening is less than the chance of you specificly dying in a terrorist attack (which, coincidentally, is less than the chance of getting hit by lightning).

Both notions means that anything this delusional person says is to be taken with a few kilograms of salt, and thus your information is unreliable at best and pure lies at worst.

Go on implement socialism and run!

[pecosdave]

Whoo hoo hoo

Re:Socialism

[The Real Dr John]

Milton Friedman's idea of freedom is capitalist freedom, not worker freedom. You have made it clear that you prefer your government to be run by rich elitists. Freedom in Friedman's view is the freedom to pollute, the freedom to exploit workers, bust unions and enrich the rich at everyone else's expense. Now I understand your position completely. You need say no more.

You are living in another century if you have to bring up Milton Friedman to support your position. His opinions are worthless to me and I wouldn't spend one second reading his nonsense.

So I'll chalk you up as supporting the Citizens United decision, which puts you at odds with most Americans.

Re:Socialism

[dywolf]

and here comes the racism

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

willingly accepted to be taxed to pool their resources ... Nobody stopped them. Nothing oppressive. No coercion.

You're pretending that the 10-20% of the population who voted for a socialist party and somehow put it into power then legitimize that party doing whatever it wants to to the remaining 80-90% of the population; that if they show up with guns to take people's property (which is what tax collectors do), that doesn't represent coercion. That's of course nonsense. Even if a majority of voters voted for instituting socialism, it would still represent coercion of the minority voting against it. In practice, socialist governments in Europe are installed

There's been plenty of free and democratic countries in Europe who willingly voted in a socialist government,

Voting in a socialist government (usually, a coalition led by a socialist party) doesn't make a country "socialist". Many European "socialist" parties are socialist in name only, and they couldn't deliver socialism even if they wanted to, because they are constrained by their coalition partners and their constitutions.

and together achieve greater things (free education, better infrastructures and healthcare, etc).

Having actually grown up in several of those countries, I can tell you that there is little that's "great" about it. Furthermore, the US has more government spending per capita on education, health care, and infrastructure than many of those countries you refer to, so clearly whatever you think is wrong, insufficient spending isn't the problem.

Wow, Godwin already?

Well, you better pay some attention to history, because Sanders programs and what you advocate are indeed awfully close to such historical models. And keep in mind that German voters voluntarily and willingly gave up their democracy and installed a leader who was supposed to fix the economy, restore fairness to wages, and give everybody old age pensions, health care, and free education.

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Milton Friedman's idea of freedom is capitalist freedom, not worker freedom.

Correct. That's because the kind of "worker freedom" socialists imagine isn't attainable. That is, capitalist freedom is highly imperfect, but it's the most freedom we know how to achieve and the economically best outcome for everybody. Socialist "freedom" just ends in totalitarianism, and socialist economics ends in universal poverty.

Freedom in Friedman's view is the freedom to pollute, the freedom to exploit workers, bust unions and enrich the rich at everyone else's expense.

Those are just your economic delusions. They are not actually consequences of the political choices Friedman advocates.

So I'll chalk you up as supporting the Citizens United decision, which puts you at odds with most Americans.

Of course I support the Citizens United decision. I very much believe that in a free country, people ought to be free to spend their private money on making a film critical of Hillary Clinton.

His opinions are worthless to me and I wouldn't spend one second reading his nonsense.

What is "worthless" is the political opinions of wealthy pampered American, people like you, who have no idea at all what socialism is like in the real world.

Re:Catch 22:

[Lab Rat Jason]

I guess I should have said: "You're premise for running for false, and is not a socialist platform, and you won't get elected."

Re:Socialism

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You aren't addressing the point, that too much money in politics erodes democratic virtues in politics.

For something to be "eroded", it has to be present in the first place. When exactly do you think this "democratic virtue" was present before money eroded it? And what exactly do you think constituted this "democratic virtue" when it was present according to you?

Re:How is this tech related?

[Cederic]

Lessig and his activities have been mentioned on Slashdot every year for around 15 years now. Of all the presidential candidates he's probably the most closely linked to traditional Slashdot subjects, and has been influential in a number of Slashdot community interest areas.

Re:Professor?

[mspohr]

We have found the one person in the world who doesn't respond to financial pressure. The rest of us do what we are paid to do. Politicians get paid to pass legislation which favors the oligarchs. Our government is bought and paid for by corporations and rich people. The rest of us don't matter. We do what we are told or we get cut off. We think what we are told by the media (which is controlled by the oligarchs). Fox news sets the agenda for the Republicans. MSNBC, CNN and the others are controlled by the oligarchs and tell us what is "important". It is important that we have continuous war in the middle east to keep the oil flowing, etc. It is important that we have the "freedom" to choose our doctor (as long as he/she is one of the approved private doctors who will ensure that we buy their expensive services and buy only approved high price drugs).

Re:Uhhhh.... No.

[david_thornley]

A Republic is a country without a hereditary monarch. A Democracy is a country where the ultimate power is held by the people. They are orthogonal concepts.

The US is a democracy and a republic. The UK is a democracy and not a republic. China is not a democracy, but is a republic. I'm classifying North Korea as a non-democratic monarchy, since two hereditary successions is not likely to happen in a republic.

You may be referring to direct vs. representative democracy, and the US is indeed a representative democracy.

Re:Socialism

[david_thornley]

Who the heck modified a Godwin (+3, Informative)? Does anybody really thing Bernie Sanders is comparable to Adolf Hitler?

Re:Socialism

[Archangel Michael]

I disagree. Power is not found in taxes, but rather in the threat of government over its citizens. But lets go with your definition, just for a second.

What about a government that HAS the power to tax, but has restrained itself? My question here, raises the idea that power and restraint = control. Uncontrolled power is a tyranny.

Bad Idea

[gamemank]

I am a big fan of Lessig and his work and I agree with what he is trying to do but I think this is a terrible idea. The best that could come out of it is if he uses the presidential debates as his pulpit and bows out. Even then he will have spent a lot of money and done damage to his cause by hurting his own credibility and MayDay.us PAC's credibility. If he goes any further, he will also hurt the primary chances for Bernie Sanders, whom Lessig all but endorses in his post. Even if he were somehow to win, he would not have the power as president to do what he wants to do. He had the right approach with MayDay.us to swing the congress, and he should stick with it.

Re:Professor?

[jfengel]

The power of the oligarchs is easy to restrict. The government has a fair bit of power to constrain them, if the Congress authorizes them to. The problem is that the Congress is deeply divided between two nearly equal parties, and we've designed the rules so that it takes overwhelming support (the House plus the Senate plus the President plus the Supreme Court) to do anything.

The Congress is divided because the people are divided. You can complain about the oligarchs, but your real problem is with the 150 million or so voters who disagree bitterly with your solutions. You can try to appeal to some of the 150 million or so who didn't vote at all. (And that's for a high-turnout year. The numbers are worse in the off years.) The voters *do* have the power. They just have to be unified, or rather, a lot more unified than they are.

I disapprove deeply of those voters who support the "oligarchs". I think they're stupid for buying into the line of BS that the "oligarchs" spew through their media channels. And so I blame them more than the oligarchs themselves. But the worst part is, they blame me just as much, and it doesn't do any good to just rail against either the oligarchs or their stupid voters. You change their minds, not mine, if you want something.

Re:Professor?

[jfengel]

The actual laws get written in committees a bit bigger than that, around one to two dozen. Actually, the original text is generally written by 2 or 3 people (and their aides, another 4-8 people), and then tinkered with by the group as a whole.

The laws then get amended by the full group, 100 or 435 people, but that doesn't generally change the fundamental structure of the bill.

The process does kinda sorta work. Or at least, it used to, a couple of decades ago. These days, there's usually enough incentive for one party or the other to make sure it doesn't happen, that nothing does. But at least in theory, it's a decent enough structure for a republic, as long as the public doesn't actively hate each other.

Re:Professor?

[mspohr]

When the oligarchs have bought nearly all of our government, it is not "easy" to restrict them. There are minor divisions between Republicans and Democrats primarily over social issues (civil rights) but all of the politicians support "the free market" to the detriment of everyone except the oligarchs. Only Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren seem to be immune to the power of the oligarchs.
Several interesting studies have been done surveying voters on their public policy preferences regarding health care, civil rights, gun rights, minimum wage, etc. and the public policy preferences on these same issues among the rich 1%. As might be expected, there were striking differences between the population in general and the rich. They then looked at what public policy laws were actually enacted and guess what?... the public policy preferences of the 1% were enacted, not the preferences of the rest of us.
The voters are united in their beliefs (in spite of some social divisions) but they can't overcome the power of the rich to buy legislation favoring their "needs".

Democracy: Lessig (a lawyer) is in not error!

[bussdriver]

Most people, (especially Lawrence Lessig who is a lawyer) does NOT mean "direct democracy" every time the word democracy is used. It should be obvious to everybody who doesn't have a propaganda stick up their ass.

A REPUBLIC by definition (look it up) is where the ultimate power is held by the people, thru their representatives; the implementation is not really specified. The creation of the word itself even gives you the meaning!

People who are paying attention should have known for some time that the public does not have the power anymore.

the stupidest thing I have ever heard of

[prof_robinson]

Seriously, what is the point? You're going to run...and resign...just to get your VP elected...? Which means that anyone voting for you, would have to vote for you, *knowing* that your VP was actually going to be president...and since they know that, they might as well just vote for them in the first place, right? I *used* to think Lessig was *kinda* smart; obviously he's a freakin' moron.

Re:Professor?

[JoshuaZ]

Missing the point. The point is that you need to focus on the effects, not what you or anyone else calls it. The problem with "kinetic military actions" is precisely that - that it disguises the actual impact in question. That's an example where exactly this sort of thing- not focusing on definitions and looking at consequences is what matters.

Re:Professor?

[JoshuaZ]

No. When people are arguing over definitions, the best response is to just drop the terms and look at the actual impacts in question. This is called tabooing your words http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/. Words don't have intrinsic meanings, one can of course discuss specific definitions, but that isn't by itself helpful. One can when people disagree over definitions say things like "This is an example under Definition 1, but not Definition 2" but however you are defining terms like "constitutional Republic" or "Representative democracy" will not in any way shape or form alter the fundamental question: whether people have a say in what our government does.

Donate Here...

[msimm]

Cut the shit /... Donate link here.