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.
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.
Oh my, someone told this gent there was going to be a primary race. Sorry, we've only got a coronation scheduled here.
It's the Democrat Party and the media that is keeping him out of the debates. The Electoral System has nothing to do with it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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?
You are all Cows. Cows say MOOOOOOOOO. MOOOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOOOOO! Mooooooooooo cows moooooooooo. mooo say the cows. YOU VOTER COWS!!!
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.
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.
Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.
Some would say that she could have avoided Obama exposing her corruption by not being corrupt in the first place.
Lol, stop with the crazy talk!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
Lessig seems to think that people who have power will give it up willingly. Why, because "it's the right thing to do"? Ha, Lessig, tell us another funny one.
We're not going to get approval voting or any other method that satisifies the Condorcet criteria, because Duverger's Law, simply restated, ensures the power of the current political elite.
Lessig did some reasonable work with Creative Commons (even if CC0 is the only free license, CC is still successful). He should use those talents to try to educate people that the "Two Party" system is a cabal of political oligarchs who fleece the people by convincing them they have a choice when in reality there is only "fork over your money or something bad might happen".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If your goal is to get money out of politics, you have to get politics out of money, which is ... good luck with that. My point is that the entire notion that you can remove money from politics, when the fact is that politics is all about stealing some people's money by using power that is provided to the governments by the mob, who want that theft to happen, shows that people who want to see money out of politics without addressing the larger issue of government oppression of the individual is dishonest.
Politics are used to create the divide between those, who make more money and those who make less. Politics are used to create the notion of so called 'just society' based on disproportionate taxation of those, who are in a complete minority of-course by their very definition. To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous.
Taxes are created by the governments to steal money from those, who have money, tax loopholes are then provided to those, who are willing to subsidise specific politicians. Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
...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!
The idea that there was no security risk here should be patently absurd to anyone reading slashdot.
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.
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
So, government would have no say in the business realm?
Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.
And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money.
That power can be used that way, and is, but that is because our choices in any given election are dictated by wealth/power.
Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state.
The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth.
That you don't seem to see that indicates a narrow or willful view to me.
Taxation, disproportionate or otherwise
A, money should not equal speech.
B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
Paying more seems fair to me.
C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.
" To tax in a disproportionate manner while expecting the votes to have equal power is disingenuous"
Oligarchy/ plutarchy.
Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings
Your statement amounts to "those who pay more should have more say". That is not democracy.
"Get rid of income and wealth related taxes and then you may have your equal voting, but you will not have equal individual voting power with disproportionate taxation of individuals"
Why is this so? Excepting that greed among those who have want it so, what principal makes this necessary and definite.
emt 377 emt 4
You are all owls. YOU OWLS!
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.
If any serving member of the armed forces had done what she did they would be living in the Fort Leavenworth bed and breakfast for years.
A certain General Patreaus might disagree with you. Now, if you were talking about just peons, then you have a point. But the double standard is enchantingly broad.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You sound like Dr Evil, thinking $1 million is real money.
Overall spending, 2012 Presidential Election:
Dems: $964 million
Repubs $1.12 billion
(https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/)
Yes, when the amount you've raised is 1/1000 what EITHER candidate in 2012 spent, that is precisely a "sneezing at" amount. It's nothing.
-Styopa
Second, mishandling classified material is a FELONY
Stop using bold and CAPS. It is annoying. I am all for a witchhunt and I do think Hillary is a witch, but she did not mishandle classified material. The emails were classified after the fact. When she received it, it was ordinary correspondence.
From TFS:
Yes, that's precisely why he can't get on the stage. The entire circus is predicated on the illusion that the rocket can get off the ground. Circus de-bunkers are not, pretty much by definition, members of the circus.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.