Slashdot Mirror


Electoral System That Lessig Hopes To Reform Is Keeping Him Out of the Debate (usatoday.com)

schwit1 writes: Lessig has raised a million dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at, but he's being given the cold shoulder by the Democrats when it comes to participating in the debates. I think he's got a good argument for being included — he's certainly as serious a candidate as some of the others, and I'm hearing a lot about his campaign.

Why are they keeping Lessig out? According to Lessig, it's for the same reason he wants in: "My view is that if we can get this message [of reform] into the debate it would change the dynamics of this Democratic primary entirely. This issue framed in this way totally blows up the Democratic primary."

Hillary and Bernie, he says, are promising the moon to voters, but can't deliver. Lessig told me, "If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.

15 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Whoops! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh my, someone told this gent there was going to be a primary race. Sorry, we've only got a coronation scheduled here.

    1. Re:Whoops! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. Anyone that doesn't support the narrative will never get within a mile of the debate stage, let alone the election.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Whoops! by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Parties are only allowed one nomination for Primary, and primaries are completely (non-partisan) open.

      The PURPOSE and REASON for a primary is for the parties to select the candidate they put forward for the general election. Limit the primaries to one candidate for each party, and allow everyone to vote for anyone, and you need to explain how this differs from the general election. If you want to eliminate primaries altogether, just say so.

      And that doesn't answer the question "why should Democrats be allowed to select the Republican candidate and vice versa?" Why should people who deliberately choose no party affiliation have ANY say in what candidates the parties put forward?

      This means that the party must present its best candidate (and only one) at the primary.

      And that candidate is selected specifically how? By the party leadership? Is that better than allowing the party members to select from the several options? I suggest that it is not, simply because it will result in people voting for the lesser of two evils where they consider even the lesser evil to be needlessly moreso than the candidate that would have won the primary -- had there been one.

      Why should the American voter be forced to pay for a partisan election?

      I agree. Reinstate the poll tax, and only those people who want to vote will be required to pay for it. In this case it isn't a way of keeping people from voting, it's how the election itself is funded. And then people who live in more affluent areas can choose to pay a higher poll tax to pay for more efficient voting systems while those in poorer areas get the voting system they choose to pay for. Really?

  2. The Republican House by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Republicans are currently blowing up their establishment. It takes some balls to do that, especially if you're a politician. They're trying to shake things up and get the Old Guard to move on. This has come from the ground up over the past few election cycles and it appears to be working.

    Why can't the Democrats do that same?

    1. Re:The Republican House by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because building up a huge all-encompassing governmental establishment is what the statist Democrats are all about.

      Then they would have been pushing universal health care, universal higher ed, a national pension system, four weeks paid vacation for even part time employees, a massive investment in high speed rail, etc etc. But of course, Democrats have the same range of antipathy to outright hostility to all those items as any Republican.

      But, don't let facts get in the way of a little mindless partisan tribalism. You meet up with Obamabots for coffee on Tuesdays?

  3. Except Bernie is already fighting the game by gQuigs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    by showing up as competitive without having a SuperPAC at all.

    I don't see Lessig's referendum only strategy to be any more likely to come to pass than his previous let's build our own SuperPAC attempt. He could have actually ran for senator and had some impact from within the system. It would have also gotten him more of a podium for advocating for these changes.

  4. Political lightweight by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lessig has raised a million dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at

    A million dollars is nothing. Sorry to break this to you but that's not even enough to be a serious contender in a lot of state level elections. A million dollars is a rounding error in current day presidential elections. Someone like Hillary Clinton can raise multiples of that in a single evening. $1 million might seem like a lot to some people but it really isn't.

    but he's being given the cold shoulder by the Democrats when it comes to participating in the debates. I think he's got a good argument for being included — he's certainly as serious a candidate as some of the others, and I'm hearing a lot about his campaign.

    No he really isn't a serious candidate at this point. Almost nobody knows who the guy is and he has (near as makes no difference) no money to buy recognition with. He's a political lightweight with essentially zero name recognition. I have nothing against the guy and I think he's got some interesting ideas but right now he is definitely not a serious candidate. He's basically a one issue guy who has offered to resign after fixing those issues (campaign finance, gerrymandering, voter access) which basically makes him a non-starter. Basically that means that even if he were successful (which he almost certainly wouldn't be) you'd be voting for his VP to be president and a new VP to be named later.

    1. Re:Political lightweight by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe, but I don't think anyone spent $500 million to win an election in the 60's or 70's or 80's.

      They didn't need to spend that much back then to win an election.

      Yes, I agree, there has always been money in politics, but it seems have reached epic (and unhealthy) proportions.

      What I am saying is that it has always been the case that money buys elections. Given that, how much should an election cost? Is it better if the election is cheap or expensive? "Taking the money of of politics" doesn't change the fact that the election is for sale, it just makes the election cheaper and more random.

  5. Re:Coronation my ass - Hillary!'s public execution by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.

  6. Because Hillary by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lessig is being kept out for the same reason the DNC is vehemently resisting having more debates: nothing shall put Hillary's candidacy at risk.

  7. Being right doesn't matter if you can't get electe by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, a political lightweight who's the only one with the intellectual courage to put his money where his mouth is and take on the the core political distortions from which most other political distortions flow.

    Being right doesn't matter if you can't make a difference. He cannot and (probably) will not get elected, nor does he have a big enough voice to influence the campaign. Trump is an ass with nothing useful to say but he's an ass with a big enough wallet and enough name recognition to make himself heard.

    Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with Mr. Lessig on the issues he's concerned about. But I don't think he's going to even make a ripple in this election much less actually affect the public debate in a meaningful way.

  8. Re:Coronation my ass - Hillary!'s public execution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What corruption? The only leaks have suggested she might have miscategorized the security status of some emails, an administrative error not an issue of corruption.

    When it comes to Hillary Clinton, you idiots will believe pretty much anything.

    First, it's several hundred emails, at least.

    Second, mishandling classified material is a FELONY, not an "administrative error".

    Third, even if one accepts your patently risible characterization of "administrative error", how FUCKING TRUSTWORTHY DOES THAT MAKE HILLARY!? Yeah, NOT TRUSTWORTHY AT ALL and therefore unqualified to be President.

    Finally, Hillary! has downright LIED multiple times regarding her email server - WHICH NEVER SHOULD HAVE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE as it was an ILLEGAL METHOD TO CONDUCT GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROPER CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGALLY-MANDATED FOIA OVERSIGHT.

    Geez, you're one Thalidomide-brained moron of a shill.

  9. That's not the electoral system... by smithmc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that's the party primary system. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are not an official part of the electoral process.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  10. Is a candidate who plans to resign really serious? by Corporate+T00l · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much as I like his platform, it's hard to treat him as a serious presidential candidate in the context of what a debate is likely to cover when his stated position is that he cares only about passing campaign finance reform and then will resign.

    From Lessig's own campaign page (https://lessig2016.us/)
    "He will serve only as long as it takes to pass the reforms necessary to fix our corrupt political system. Once passed, he will resign, and the vice president becomes president of a government that works."

    That means if you want to have a debate about foreign policy, talk to the VP. Tax policy? Talk to the VP. There may be some people who like the single-minded focus this implies, but since we're talking about a 4-year term, that leaves a huge swath of debate issues left in an unanswerable state, especially since he hasn't named his VP yet.

  11. Irony by jratcliffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is ironic that a candidate whose campaign is based on denying others the ability to speak is complaining that he is being denied the ability to speak.