Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Filed By 22 State Attorneys General Seeks To Block Net Neutrality Repeal (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A lawsuit filed today by the attorneys general of 22 states seeks to block the Federal Communications Commission's recent controversial vote to repeal Obama era Net Neutrality regulations. The filing is led by New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, who called rollback a potential "disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet." The letter, which was filed in the United States District Court of Appeals in Washington, is cosigned by AGs from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Washington DC.
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
When you can rule by fiat with just one.
As Yoda would tell you - there is another.
That Another is Congress. You know, the guys who are supposed to make laws?
So which would you rather have - an un-elected body making up whatever rules they like (FCC), or rules thought out be representatives from across the country (legislative branch - congress/house).
And they are making an effort to do so. It's WAY BETTER that rules that effect so many companies large and small, come from careful deliberation in the open rather than a handful of commissioners in secret.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the governments in these states really cared about having a free and open internet, they would repeal any state laws that restrict broadband competition or the roll out of new players (be it companies like Google, community groups, non-profit groups, municipalities or whoever else) and pass state laws that overrule any monopolies at the local level (be they monopolies put in place by local laws or monopolies granted via exclusive franchise deals).
And they would tell AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Charter Spectrum and the other last-century dinosaur ISPs to get stuffed when said ISPs complain about having to actually compete.
Why should a few smart people federally get to set federal NN rules all over the USA and enforce the use of monopoly telco networks?
Think of all the new community broadband that federal NN rules held back.
All the local communities that could have had better quality networks and ISP's blocked by federal NN rules that protected existing telco monopolies.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Almost every single one of these AGs is a Democrat. I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, but in so far as it has become one, it is pretty clear that there's a pretty massive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at play here. When people claim that the parties are functionally identical, they are ignoring things like this.
The fundamental issue with the Obama Admin regulations is that they were only regulations, and based on some reports the protections they tried to implement were better suited to bring enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Enough alreafy, flip a coin to decide if the DVD or the HTC should enforce it, write an actual LAW implementing Net Neutrality, and be done with it.
It's not hard to do, the language for the bill was in the ACC regulations, and the clear majority of the public agrees there should be something like the soon to be scuttled regulations, so do it the write way - these "one and phone" acts by the previous administration did little more than placate a voting constituency, they weren't bui!t to last.
Anything one DVD administrator can do, another can undo.
Anything a President can do, another can undo.
Laws passed by Congress, well, it takes an act of Congress to reverse it.
Ken
I was telling a friend exactly this recently.
Its a rule change, the 1934 title II rules don't seem to apply very well, and what exactly was so broken for the remainder of the years the internet has been around?
And the answer is not much but that set of rules appeared to have significantly deterred investment in upgraded internet infrastructure since it was enabled. Which was predicted and expected. Price controls almost always deter investment and drive away competition.
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Here's a short list of stuff the telecoms did before Net Neutrality:
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
And that's not all of them!
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
(Assuming the topic was not legislated by congress. NN actually went against a legislative directive.)
It just seems really weird that, in the future, random groups of AGs can file suit to force the federal government to do stuff.
Can they really do that?
I think the FCC is on pretty solid footing here, just like I did when they made NN happen. The FCC has the regulatory authority it needs to act here, so I don't see this lawsuit working. Hell, the lawsuits that made NN possible are likely to be used against this suit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing. This isn't surprising. It's mostly public infrastructure and what isn't was paid for by tax breaks and direct subsidies.
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And in all those cases there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept, and innovation of course, and probably other things including using another service.
I am shocked and appalled [...] States rights is also racist. Why are all these [...]
Oh racism - is there nothing it can't be applied to?
There is a process to change rules, and required justification. This was omitted. Note how it would really fuck up factory production if EPA rules changed randomly every 4 years.
And, if you recall, a few years ago, in between when Verizon got the courts to block Title 1 (in late 2014) and NN (in 2015), ISPs jumped straight into some pretty gnarly shit.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Honest question... for those thinking they only one because of gerrymandering or voter suppression... how would they be successful at such things if they hadn't won previously and been in a position to implement polices rules that they think benefit their own party?
Same Q can be asked about the Democrats... not 9 years ago there was talk of a permanent Democrat majority... which started to unfold come the 2010 election. During their time in power in different state or federal positions, they were not able to implement policies that they thought would benefit their own party? ... or were they just too honest and decent to do so? Or are they going about it from a different direction? https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I want a parliamentary system with proportional representation, and end to the Senate . . .
Then you will be continued to be (bitterly?) disappointed by the legislative arrangements of the United States of America.
Our entire system of government was designed by wealthy landowners to give themselves a disproportionate amount of political power at the expense of the working class.
There is no mention in the Constitution of "votes per acre," and any state requirements to own property to vote are long gone.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yes, being a common carrier would require them to comply with CALEA.
Without the rules, they just comply with CALEA voluntarily on Internet.
You still get wiretapped; you just don't get the projections that them being a common carrier would have afforded you otherwise.
For example: now that they are not common carriers, they no longer have to provide you with 911 service on your VOIP lines.
Absolutely true. When it comes right down to it, the Founding Fathers were basically rich wine snobs who just didn't want to pay their taxes. All the stuff about liberty and equality was just so much happy horseshit to make the yahoos think there was something noble going on while they set up their aristocracy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What jurisdiction do states have on guidelines for federal agencies? Now if they want to actually do something other than grandstand they're free to pass their own rules.
Yes, this was definitely one of those times where the Electoral College saved us from real disaster. I, for one, am very grateful.
This post is also a reminder that you set term limits with your vote.
This was an executive order, rules change only. No legal basis for them to challenge - since there is no law there in the first place.
And the lawsuit filed by the 22 AGs is ... well, a lawsuit, not a prosecution pertaining to some law.
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
That also exists in Venezuela: The government buys power by giving endless handouts to poor people. At first, that seems better than endless hand-outs to rich people, as practiced in the USA. But vote-buying from the poor really does the create the welfare-mentality that the American wealthy always claim is one hand-out away. That's why representative democracy evolved an upper house or senate with the ability to limit the power of the multitudinous poor.
To that end, the problem isn't the senate, it's the American voter duplicitous robbing the multitudinous poor of their voice. To be fair, the US party system is notoriously corrupt and the average voter didn't notice the Democrats deserting the liberal and the progressive while pretending to care. In the latest election, the Democrats didn't pretend.
The Republicans practice a different form of corruption. On one hand, they are fanatically devoted and brutally honest in their plan: Create jobs and kick-start the economy by endless tax-breaks to the wealthy and corporate welfare. On the other hand, they ignore the past 40 years where their policies have repeatedly failed.
Historically, the folks on the right of the isle (eg; Republicans) have ignored the best interest of their constituents, while their constituents applaud their actions and call Democrats "libtards" and worse. 22 congress critters oppose something isn't news. That 22 can spark a change would be news. I don't expect this to make a fart in the wind of difference.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Simple, irrefutable, facts, people.
using another service.
How nice when one is available, that actually competes!
there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept
Most of us prefer not to have to go to court every time the service goes to shit. Let's make a preemptive attack on that right now, it will save us time and fees. If the government wants to go one better it could nullify all state/local regulations that prohibit municipal/public internet and other exclusive contracts that lock out competition.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
That's not true if the "anyone else" is the FCC. The state AG's are able to sue on behalf of a state, though, which is why the AGs can take this action.
The possibility of court challenges AND/OR actions by congress are the checks and balances on the regulatory agencies, and in this case at the very least the FCC should have some explaining to do if their action is not inline with what the law says the FCC should be doing, or the actions aren't in character with the rulemaking processes of regulatory agencies, OR if the process seem'd to have been tampered with, or the proper public comments not given the correct consideration: for example, if the process was tainted by boatloads of fraudulent / fake comments.
I wish the U.S. had a well-functioning government.
It's easy to lie when nobody knows who you are, and you represent a change from the status quo.
By the second election, you ARE the status quo, and at that point (given the ability) will stack the deck in your favor, however possible. Gerrymandering is one way, vote tampering is another. Apparently advertising on Facebook yet another...
Yep. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The US is a great democracy, but its a prototype of a democracy at a time where there where not many examples to go by and forged by revolutionaries without the hindsight we have today. And sadly the old girl is definitely showing her age.
We know that no system is perfect (See Arrows Theorem) but there are many systems that are better. My personal favourite is instant runoff voting, used in Australia and a few others. Another good one is proportional seats, and there are others. And all of these have in common the idea of not wasting votes (Instant runoff does this by incrementally adding in preferences until a clear prefered candidate emerges as having 50+1 majority, good for presidents and individual seats. Proportional works by dividing seats by the number of votes. Good for houses of representation) All of these can be number crunched and manipulated, but so can "Just give it to whoever got the most votes". So if you really want to vote for the Greens or the Liberty, you can do so without endangering your prefered majority party candidate.
The problem is the current system is so favourable to the major parties, I highly doubt we'll see change anytime soon
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Our entire system of government was designed by wealthy landowners to give themselves a disproportionate amount of political power at the expense of the working class.
That is wrong.
The system was designed to have a somewhat democratic way of organizing a huge land mass, where travel etc. is expensive and time consuming.
Hence the "platform" (perhaps research how and why that term was coined) of politicians and "electors".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If you look at every other genocide in history, then yes.
Manifest destiny.
This argument has never made any sense to me as a European and a proponent of democracy, especially for the electoral college because what the EC does is flip the situation upside down by giving a minority of people the right to elect a ruler of the country. How's that superior? It's now put you in a situation wherein some states are fundamentally worth more than others to candidates, and you can moneyball the entire election process by competing for those more valuable votes that decide the end result. It in fact makes you more susceptible to groupthink, because you now only have to manipulate a minority of the voterbase to believe you're on their side (as Trump successfully did) and you'll be elected. How does this 'ensure' you against anything? To me it's obvious at this point that it makes the system weaker to populism of the Trump kind, where all you have to do is make grandiose and baseless promises to a minority of people (and it's easier to fool a minority than a majority) and the groupthink of these people will help you get elected. As a 'safeguard' measure it's an utter failure, not to mention fundamentally undemocratic. You're all citizens of the same country, you all have the same president. Trump rules just as much over California than he does over Ohio, so why on earth should votes from Ohio be more important that votes from California? There is no rational justification for this.
Again, this statement has nothing to do with the fact that the EC is fundamentally undemocratic because what it does is it ties the significance of ones vote to one's geographic area, which is irrational and can in the end used to manipulate the result by either side. There is absolutely nothing about a person living in a given area that means he/she will think in a certain way or hold certain beliefs, yet the system as it now is treats people differently based simply on where they happen to live. Democracies have mechanisms which are meant to safeguard minorities from tyranny by the majority, the most important one usually being the constitution and that uphold it. On top of this you have the local elections on a city/state level giving people further influence over the governance of their immediate area, but what you're saying that certain people should have more power in selecting who rules over everyone simply because the happen to live in place X instead of place Y, and that to me is thoroughly irrational. Your place of residence does not determine your intelligence, your values, political beliefs or set them in stone, so it should also rightfully not affect the weight of ones vote.
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where 10 people set up a camp in the woods. 6 of them live in the same building, while 4 people set up tents further away. What you're saying is that those 4 people should get to decide who is elected as the leader of the camp simply on the merits that they're located in a different spot because you want to avoid 'the groupthink' of the 6. So your suggestion is 'hey, let's give power instead to this even smaller group of people, after all, a smaller group of people cannot possibly fall victim to groupthink' . It just makes no sense, from the perspective of equality and the western democratic principles. If indeed you hold, as many Americans so proudly proclaim 'that all Men are created equal', then this system is the very antithesis of that statement and should be done away with.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Net Neutrality relied on and enforced a law from the 1930s that in the case of the Internet was repealed in the 1990s. We are only returned to status quo pro ante 2012.
The lawsuit should fail for lack of standing. Further, the federal government has supremacy under our Constitution in this regard due to the interstate nature of the Internet, so states cannot pass their own equivalent.
The only way to meaningfully change this is through Congress. All else is political smoke and mirrors.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, essentially, the US was the same it ever was. A country of rich guys not wanting to pay their tax.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You kinda lost me at racist, care to explain how it's racist?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why do Democrat assume businesses are evil trying to hurt people?
The cynic in me would say "experience". The realist would simply say that businesses don't give a shit about people, they do what's profitable. If it was not profitable to dump large amounts of waste into the sea, businesses would not do it. They're not out to be "evil", they're out to maximize profits and minimize expenses. At some point, generating more profit means screwing someone else over because the point where lowering cost without screwing someone over is no longer possible.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
go look at the shitshow the nc district map https://www.washingtonpost.com... thats how
States rights is racist as hell. The only people who ever advocate it are racists. There's a long history of it and it didn't start yesterday. I learned about it in school which was a long time ago. Look, your side tried the whole states rights thing and we kicked your racist asses and burned down Georgia doing it. Mess with us and we'll do it again.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
My side is Europe. I don't know US history that well, hence the question how it's racist. In return I get a lot of rhetoric, a few accusations and some more rhetoric. Explanation, I got none.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Think of all the new community broadband that federal NN rules held back.
Net neutrality didn't hold any new community broadband back.
Net neutrality doesn't protect telco monopolies. Local communities protect telco monopolies.
You sound like Ajit Pai. Everything you say is ass backwards.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
If more than a double digit number of people voted for Trump/Congress as single-issue overturn NN voters I would be shocked.
Almost. If you worded it "...single-issue (to) overturn over-regulation (of which NN is part)" you would be correct. Many voters voted on the basis of government over-regulation.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
bingo!
I think they should call the attempted senate bill to block the repeal the:
Net Neutrality Repeal Repeal Act
The US government does not have the unquestioned level of blind following they used to enjoy in the cold-war era, and only through repealing net neutrality as a means to control the hearts and minds of the people through communications manipulation, do they stand a chance (in hell) of getting a decent propaganda machine back up and running.
The single biggest obstacle to the propaganda machine is an informed public. If the information is filtered, controlled and censored, then propaganda can start to get traction, as there won't be the flood of "I call B.S." feedback, coupled with cited facts that shoot really big holes in any form of crafted misinformation.
They want to bring back fear-driven, knee-jerk reactions so that the people pulling the strings can make the public dance again, and the unfiltered internet is their biggest stumbling block.
The Good Ol' Days of the government having an iron-clad grip on the Media is long gone, and anything put out there that does not line up with the Government Agenda is branded as Fake News. Not that there hasn't been a batch of unfiltered B.S. flowing from the media for a while, it's just more obvious when it involves information contrary to officially issued "facts"...
Antitrust action is very week in the United States. The telecoms are, by and large, an oligopoly and for the most part antitrust suits are only successful against monopolies. It's like Microsoft in the 90s—they were able to point to Apple as competition, so they were able to get away with their anti-competitive behavior.
Furthermore, the current FCC has demonstrated that it certainly doesn't exist as a layer of reprieve for consumers. The "Justice Department" is redundant with antitrust action. Regarding innovationthat's a pretty broad statement. Libertarians are always telling us that innovation will cure all. But innovation always gets bought out by the big fish and it never leads to a diverse market in the long term.
As for "use another service," pretty much all the services available are on that list. I guess you just have to pick your poison.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Like chaining down innovation to a 1930' telecom law. For the love of God just stop
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re "Why is net neutrality such a partisan issue? "
One monopoly telco in each state to get campaign finance from?
If the federal NN rules stop then every state would have its own new networks. Some states with more skill and better state and city governments would allow the private sector to create impressive local networks.
Walled communities, wealthy parts of some towns, states would attract skilled people, new innovative business would grow in states with the best new telco systems.
Other less skilled states would be left with their paper insulated NN monopoly telcos as their spending goes to welfare payments in their cities and states.
How to make everything equal, politically correct all over the USA?
Federal NN rules keeps the monopoly networks all over the USA equal so none of the better, smarter states can show what political and network progress and innovation can look like.
Federal NN rules hold the USA back to a paper insulated wireline NN network so all US communities in every state are kept socially equal.
No state with good leadership can create its own advanced new networks and become the place in the USA to invest in.
Common sense would have seen the US filled with new community broadband and innovative regional ISP competing on service quality without federal NN rules to block them.
Freedom of choice and the freedom to innovate without been stopped by federal NN rules.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
None of those people care about NN. They saw another AG fund raising like crazy by suing the Trump administration. They want a piece of the action.
Nothing will come of this other than fund raising emails sent out in mass. Simple, irrefutable, fact.
This is what we call the "intentional fallacy." It's funny how obvious fallacies are so often posted AC.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Monopolies with federal party political protection don't like new private sector state and city competition that is better than their NN paper insulated wireline.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is EXACTLY how our government is designed.
Sent from my TARDIS
No ISP has a plan like you described, the closest I've seen is that ISPs will offer to "zero rate" traffic from certain websites for a nominal fee - this is the exact opposite of what you allege is the outcome of a world without Net Neutrality.
Ken
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Here's a short list of stuff the telecoms did before Net Neutrality:
Your short list includes multiple things unrelated to net neutrality. When you buy a smartphone locked to a carrier the carrier may make deals with the phone maker to bundle or block features on the phone. For example, I have a legacy at&t unlimited plan, and the plan prohibits tethering. Net neutrality has no bearing on this restriction.
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
And he also said
"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."
A different wise man once said "all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword".
Statewide gerrymandering doesn't impact Presidential elections, because with 2 exceptions, electors are determined by statewide results winner-take-all.
State borders do NOT constitute gerrymandering.
I was with you up until the point you said "you're all citizens of the same country." Technically true, but the North and South have always been -- I'll say it -- enemies. The intensity of the conflict rises and falls but they were enemies in 1783 and they're enemies in 2018. The only reason the North and the South are still the same country is because a half-million soldiers died in what we call the Civil War, and the secessionists lost. We can blather the rhetoric of "shared values" and a "common heritage" ... if our heritage is so common, why the controversy over Confederate flags and monuments?
The Electoral College is really derived from the apportionment of representatives in the House and Senate. In principle sparsely-populated states get more Representatives and Senators per capita, to protect rural, minority interests. We all get that. Whether it's a good idea is debatable -- it was necessary to get the Southern states to join the Union when it was constituted. Bear in mind that the Constitution was written four years *after* independence. Giving the agrarian states disproportionate power was a compromise to prevent the North and the South going straight to war as soon as they were finished fighting the British.
In practice, the result is an invitation to gerrymandering and a powerful incentive to suppress the non-elite from voting. When you're already enjoying disproportionate representation in the House, you can stretch that advantage by gaming the district boundaries and being selective about who gets to vote in key districts.
So yeah, the Electoral College was a questionable idea to begin with and it's been abused since. It works great for some Americans, though, and those Americans have disproportionate power and a lack of democratic scruples ...
I don't get why we Americans think it's better to keep trying to live with our frenemies on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line instead of agreeing to an amicable split.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
As opposed to the current system in the US where the greedy leeches in the rural areas suck the cities dry while simultaneously voting for politicians that are doing their level best to destroy the cities and any possibility of prosperity.
Ultimately, if there aren't the necessary votes in rural areas, they shouldn't be getting anywhere near as much representation as they currently are. We wouldn't have had Bush or Trump as Presidents if not for the disproportionate influence that rural voters and small state voters have on the process.
The same place were DACA should have been done. Hell, even Obama knew that when he said things like "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true." and "I'm president, I'm not king." and "there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."
Unfortunately for Obama, he chained much of his legacy to executive orders and executive policy statements rather than real legislation. Those can get undone.
There is little doubt that whatever Obama accomplished via executive actions can be undone by Trump's executive actions. All these lawsuits on Trump executive actions are going to end up in SCOTUS and lose, simply because he has the authority to make these policy actions (like the travel ban)--exactly the same way that Obama had authority to implement his policies (within proper scope...Obama policies were overturned by SCOTUS several times especially cases of regulatory overreach).
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
Corporations are the Government.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, it was bad you stupid shite. If the regulation was so innocuous, why did Trump and Pai push so hard for it's repeal? Who stands to benefit, the people or the corporations?
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
It's a bit like we learned that colonies are actually baggage instead of boon. Instead, make them independent on paper but keep them fully dependent. On weapons, on "aid", on anything that lets you dictate the price of whatever you want to get from them.
Same with governments and corporations. Yes, corporations dictate what becomes law. But paying for it, that's something YOU are supposed to do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.
Of course the overall quality of the courts have dropped precipitously recently. A primary example is Judge Alsup, ruling on DACA after having just been slapped down twice by the Supremes.
In a 5-4 ruling issued Dec. 8, the justices temporarily lifted Alsup’s order, though the majority did not reveal its reasons for doing so. The order was fairly remarkable, as the Supreme Court does not generally involve itself in discovery disputes. The ruling provoked a short dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
In a second ruling issued two weeks later on Dec. 22, the high court ordered Alsup to reconsider two government arguments about the court’s power to review DACA’s termination before making a final determination on the shielded federal documents. The second ruling appears to be a compromise among the justices, as there were no noted dissents.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But the one thing you _can't_ argue is that they're ruling by fiat. America got exactly what we voted for. And if you didn't vote for it, well, this is what happens when you don't show up to the polls.
I think this may have been hammered home forcefully in 2016. There are still some big issues regarding what happens to those votes once they enter networld, but iit is batshit crazy that the party that has more registered voters gets hammered at the ballot box.
And yes, for what I hope is the last bloody time this _is_ a partisan issue. When a Dems was in the Whitehouse we had NN. When the Dem left a Republican appointed an additional Anti-Net Neutrality FCC chair who did exactly what he was appointed to do. Hell, the Republicans central plank is eliminating regulation, of which NN is one. Meanwhile every Democrat Senator just signed on to undo the FCC ruling. When one party supports an issue and another party doesn't that _is_ partisan politics.
The whole "They are all the same" mantra is just that. A handy way for the supporters of the guilty to deflect responsibility. Note even in this case, the Republican deniers note that Pai was appointed by OBlama. They conveniently forget that he was just another member of the ruling group, not the guy driving the bus
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You assholes can try to revolt if you want, but the last time you traitors tried it, we kicked your racist asses and burnt Georgia down doing it. If we have to do it again, but burn Southern California and New York down, then so be it. Fuck you rebel scum, there is only one America, indivisible. Mess with us and we Americans will fuck your shit up, you dirty traitors.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Where it starts getting weird is when the party that is iin the majority at the moment starts looking at the voting results and arranging the districts in such a manner that is advantageous to the party.
At this point, might as well issue the disclaimer that both parties do this
The interesting thing is that it can be used in an opposite manner, of grouping a lot of likeminded voters together so they don't affect others. Case in point is in North Carolina, the Democrats wanted a Black elected to state government, so they gerrymandered a district that would ensure that.. When the Republicans took over, they realized that the white population in other districts was pretty racist and could be counted on to vote for the people who shared their views, so they cut their losses and allowed the few blacks who would be sure of election.
The problem isn't Republican or Democrat, it's that gerrymandering exists in re-districting. It has the tendency to elect extremist candidates who vote by party line. In a computer age, this redistricting can be done without purposeful gerrymandering.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
In common law countries such as the USA, in the absence of legislation or in the case of conflicting legislation, including conflict between the legislature and the Constitution, the courts do create law and set public policy.
For a quick overview, read the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I'll quote one sentence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Please, help in the fight for what is right.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
The suggestion is to "give those areas of the country who can't muster a vote against major urban areas a chance to get their own issues laid out." That's why you vote for the house, senate, president in the US.
All three favor rural areas over urban areas. The Senate because there are more heavily rural states than heavily urban states, the House through gerrymandering and concentration of liberals in cities, and the Presidency through the electoral college. As it stands, there is no part of government that puts urban issues first, or even coequal with rural areas.
The US doesn't have a FPTP system for electing who leads the country.
Yeah, it does. Not exclusively, as that's up to each state, but it's more common than not.
On top of that, it ensures that the other sections of the government have a check against their own powers.
I think the current situation shows pretty conclusively that that those checks don't do their job if every branch is selected with the same bias. We need to change the bias in at least one branch. We can do that by eliminating the electoral college, or by switching the House to some form of proportional representation.
fundamentally undemocratic
I'm not going to defend the EC, but I must point out that your criticisms are based on an oversimplified definition of democracy. "1 person 1 vote" is too narrow, and thus you are misjudging the electoral college.
Greece, for example, believed that rotating offices was one of the key concerns of a democracy. So they had lots of different offices and councils. Some positions were filled by drawing lots.
some states are fundamentally worth more than others
This is one of the biggest problems with direct democracy. The EC actually tries to combat this problem be counterweighting less populous states.
significance of ones vote to one's geographic area, which is irrational and can in the end used to manipulate the result by either side.
It is not irrational at all. The Greeks had local governing bodies and large and small bodies. The intention here was to make sure that geographic areas were represented. They knew that 1 person 1 vote was too simple, and could result in tyranny of the majority. The EC is yet another way to address this problem.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying, not at all. Of course the people living in the tents have a different situation than the people living in the building, but that statement does not get you to the conclusion that therefore the people in the tents should have the deciding vote on who rules over everyone. Living in a sparsely populated area does not mean you should automatically get more political power over decisions that affect everyone.
Yes, yes it does, because the weight of the group is made up of the votes of the individuals in it. Using the 'winner takes it all approach' 75 % of the smaller group can choose the ruler for the whole group of 10, meaning that each of those 3 votes is weighed at over 3 times that of everyone else's.
Nope. If you can get elected with 33 % total votes, that does not a 50-50 split make.
The whole setup makes even less sense when you consider that people can move and the size of the groups can change. If 3 out of the 4 people in said example move into the building, then the 1 remaining guy in the tents gets to choose the president every single time because his 'group' of 1 now controls the majority of electoral votes, which just further underlines the fault with such systems.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
EC does very little to avoid such, they still can only vote for 1 or 2 candidates.
Democracies don't put nearly all power in one function like the US president, but has a parliament with representatives from all over the country that is the legislative.
The actual government should have only one task, to enact the laws passed by that parliament.
An independent legal system should oversee the parliament and government for following the laws of the land.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
No we don't. The EU elections have no electoral college, it's a system of proportional representation and while individual countries are free to set some conditions of their own, the rules of the Union dictate that either a party list system or a single transferable vote system has to be used for selecting the members. Neither of these is present in the EC process of US presidential elections.
Secondly comparing the EU elections to the US presidential elections is foolish to begin with. The EU elections are used to select members for the parliament, not a single ruler with significant ruling power over the entire block of nations. The US presidency by itself is a much more powerful position than the whole of the EU parliament combined.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
There you go!.
It absolutely has bearing.
You buy a certain bandwidth and data amount, what you use it for is none of the ISP's business, THAT is net neutrality.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The Internet was Title II in the days of ARPAnet and NSFnet. That's pre-Obama by a few decades.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
EC does very little to avoid such, they still can only vote for 1 or 2 candidates.
You mean, other people don't actually care to run or can't run for various reasons. Remember Ross Perot? Right. If he hadn't pulled the BS he did, he'd likely have won.
Democracies don't put nearly all power in one function like the US president, but has a parliament with representatives from all over the country that is the legislative.
The US has decentralized power compared to most democracies. Each branch is clearly defined by the constitution. Most countries with parliaments where the leader is selected, not elected have higher concentrations of power. In most of those parliaments, the senate is also not elected but selected by the PMO's office, this can create long-term "one-sided" senates that simply rubber-stamp legislation because they're beholden not to the voter, but to the party that gave them that seat -- in many cases for life. The PMO's office has far greater reach in terms of "what can be done" then the presidents office for example because when the leader is selected in nearly every case their party also holds the majority of seats in parliament. That means the only way that "things don't happen" is by having an opposition that's close to breaking their majority hold, or the government in question has some other fail back that allows the minority party(s) in question cause the government to collapse.
The actual government should have only one task, to enact the laws passed by that parliament.
An independent legal system should oversee the parliament and government for following the laws of the land.
And this is where the US shines, because not only is there the house. There is the senate. And then there is the president. Each one creates it's own layers and obstacles to get something done, this "stalls" legislation that otherwise could be pushed through by a majority government. Let's look at recent examples in Canada where the "trans-rights" bill was passed, it was rammed through the senate and pushed into law despite the numerous legal problems that it's created. In another case, but with a motion(m106), where the government pushed the motion through against all minority parties with specific language for only one religion(islam). Where the minority parties wanted "all religions." This has already been used as the basis to try and create islam-specific blasphemy laws. Or the UK which just passed censorship legislation restricting freedoms further.
Om, nomnomnom...
Rural ridings are generally less populous then urban ones so so there's already some counterbalance built in.
Yeah? Why don't you go explain that one to a farmer that's paying $11k/mo to keep their cows, chickens or turkeys warm in the lovely -15C weather earlier today, and in 2008 they were paying $1k/mo. But it's the direct policies of the provincial government that got them there. Or maybe you'd like to explain why Prime minister Justin "Not-so-Bright" Trudeau, wanted to tax employee discounts and slap massive taxes on family farms(which incorporated because taxes were already too damn high).
Besides, you apparently don't even know the 3 biggest population centres in Ontario.
Sure do, but apparently you don't live in Ontario. Otherwise you'd know that's how it's referred to politically, because some ridings are so mashed together that they're considered one gigantic block. Like the GTA/Horseshoe.
Om, nomnomnom...
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.
Perhaps you should try reading all the way to the end of the First Amendment?
It appears they're trolling. My own subthread on this is being stonewalled with completely outrageous claims. Not just saying it's racist, but that it's not even the law of the land - despite state's powers being explicitly listed in the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
The EU seems to be modeled after what the US was supposed to be, independent states with a common government to regulate commerce and common good between them. OP seems to think that because the Civil War was fought over states' rights over slavery, that this means that states are supposed to completely acquiesce the last shreds of individuality to the federal government. This despite the fact that states still very much have their own governments.
Nonsense. None of the Founding Fathers came anywhere near facing consequences for their actions. I suppose if you count Washington, who was a general fighting the British, but he wasn't one of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence, so he really isn't a "founding father".
Thomas Jefferson somewhat famously fled across Virginia in advance of the British invasion of the state in 1779. Some of the actual founding fathers had honorary military commissions, as was custom for aristocrats of the time, but Hamilton was the only one who got anywhere near combat, and in fact ended up dying at the hands of one of his fellow American aristocrats. None of the founding fathers was injured or killed in the bloody Revolutionary War. None lost their fortunes or income streams. In fact none of them were put out in the least.
They were rich guys who didn't want to pay taxes and who knew that if it came to fighting, it would be poor people who bore the brunt of the fighting and suffering. As usual.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's a correlation/causation thing. A majority of the time, people who are pushing "states' rights" are doing so because they don't want the federal government preventing them from discriminating against minorities. Historically, it's mostly been racial minorities, but homosexuals are common targets as well, and religious minorities get attacked once in a while too.
So no, "states' rights" isn't racist, but you do find them together a lot.
You forgot to finish with "with liberty and justice for all." :-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
It only "doesn't make sense" if you assume that the structure we have today, of United States, was always the case. It wasn't.
If you are being asked to join an assembly of states, many of whom are much more populated than your own (and by completely different ethnicities and religions), are you going to advocate for a straight democracy? Just willingly throw away your right to have a say in the new government? Or maybe you hold out until they come up with a compromise that gives you greater proportional influence.
If you're going to advocate changing to a direct democracy, then you must recognize that you are negating a very important carrot that was used to convince states to join the union. That's grounds for voiding the compact and every state should now be allowed to leave or demand new incentives from the federal government in exchange for remaining.
It makes perfect sense to me - the United States is exactly that, a set of united independent states. In your example, you're arguing California should have more power/representation than Ohio. The EC removes that, and put states on equal footing, as it should be. Population imbalances shouldn't change that core approach, which has worked better for longer than most European governments.
Second, exactly how are the European democracies any better? Many have systems of non-proportional representation, and multiple parties, meaning the party candidate that gets elected in an average riding typically has less than 30% support among all voters, let alone the entire population.
No explanation, but it is a strange form of virtue signalling that can be difficult to understand, until you compare it to religion where constant penitence is required for the absolution of sins. This is how something as necessary as a separation of powers can be convoluted into being as abhorrent as slavery itself, stemming from an indoctrinated need to constantly express outrage over racism so as to prove to others that they themselves are not racist.
no, but the electoral college system does a pretty good job of giving voting power to all those cows and rocks in montana, at the cost of voters in california, NY etc
that red in the middle of the country is mostly all empty space. land shouldn't get a vote, only people should. the electoral college sucks.
rural areas are the opposite of powerless - rural areas disproportionally affect the outcome of the house, senate, and presidential elections.
you want an accurate election results map? obligatory XKCD - https://www.xkcd.com/1939/
california has nearly 4x the population & GDP of ohio. it SHOULD have more power & representation, because it is a much bigger chunk of the country.
One-person-one-vote, no dilution by the EC. Makes sense to me.
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
.
Ahh, but tha's the secret sauce of Government by corporation. They get to determine how they profit without putting back. We're in the pecuniary extraction phase of the US now. No need to worry though, as soon as we are finished, they will move on to the next country to extract it's wealth - so they will be just fine.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1. The original AC (probably you), asserted that "[n]one of those people care about NN." You didn't provide any evidence that this is true.
2. Your link suggests that one individual listed has boasted about the suit in fundraising activities. This doesn't mean that he doesn't care about NN. It's not true that he must either only care about fundraising or only care about NN. This is what we call a "false dichotomy." It's possible that he cares about both. Furthermore, his individual case can't be extended to the other AGs on the list. This is what we call "the fallacy of composition."
3. The intentional fallacy has nothing to do with what people are doing. It only relates to their intentions. The original post made a claim about the intent of these AGs, and that is a fallacy. You could have Googled "intentional fallacy," or looked it up on Wikipedia or maybe even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Then you wouldn't look like a buffoon when you title a post "Debate fail" when you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
they never were.
blue states generally contribute more federal tax dollars than they receive back.
red states generally receive more federal tax dollars than they contribute.
and this while blue states also generally tax themselves higher, and have stronger economies, and better supported lower and middle class populations.
its almost like the GOP mantra of low low taxes doesn't actually help the majority of citizens.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This was an executive order, rules change only.
No, this was a regulatory decision by the FCC, not an executive order.
No legal basis for them to challenge
Weirdly enough the courts have decided otherwise in previous court cases.
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Actually before 2014 or so there was net neutrality. The courts killed the existing rules in verizon v fcc and explicitly told the fcc that they had to regulate internet providers under title II. So no, before 2015 we had net neutrality and after 2015 we had net neutrality. We're now back to that one year where we didn't have it
If the United states was not supposed to be a democracy, why didnt someone stop the founding fathers from making one.
You seem confused by terms. Lets look at those terms.
Republic;- A country without a king or queen.
Examples: United states, North Korea.
Monarchy;- A country with a king or queen:
Examples: Australia, Saudi Arabia.
Democracy:- A country where people vote for their leaders.
Examples: United States, Australia
Dictatorship: A country where the people dont vote for their leaders.
Examples: North Korea, Saudi Arabia.
So the United states isnt JUST a democracy OR a republic. Its a democratic republic.
Examples: United States, Australia
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Ignore the last line. Its supposed to read: United States, Mexico
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Are you sure the FCC followed legal process in reversing their decision? I don't know the law well enough to tell. Ajit Pai was not acting with decorum, and may have made legal mistakes. That's up to the courts to decide.
If you think a government agency has violated the law, you can indeed take it to the courts. That's part of what they're there for. When the Executive Branch does something not authorized by the Legislative Branch, and the Legislative Branch doesn't act effectively, you go to the Judicial Branch. Something about checks and balances.
If you want me to believe the courts have gone downhill lately, you're going to have to convince me that things weren't as bad or worse in the past. It's easier to see the problems with modern courts, as we tend not to remember when courts were slapped down a long time ago.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Electoral College was set up for two reasons, as far as I can tell from the documents and actions of the time. One was to give slave states more power in Presidential elections, and one was to keep people like Trump out of office. (Go ahead, read Federalist Paper 68(?) for more savory reasons for the EC.) Obviously, neither reason applies now.
The EC caters to states with small populations and groupthink. I haven't noticed rural Republicans being particularly articulate on how they understand my politics and why they disagree. The EC enables tyranny by the minority.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The US is a democracy by design. Try again.
Democracy in a large country is also far more practical now than in the 1700s.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The thirteen original colonies were originally independent states. So were Texas and Hawaii. I may be missing one or two others. All others were formed out of Federal territory and made states, and never were independent.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm far from convinced that North Korea isn't a monarchy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The choice in the EC is between two people, because the EC only selects if a single candidate gets a majority of votes. Otherwise, the top three go to the House, and one of them is elected. (This is a less democratic election than the EC, since it's by state delegation. California's dozens of representatives have the same voting power as Wyoming's one.) Had Perot gotten significant numbers of electoral votes, the House would have decided.
The Prime Minister normally can be removed by a vote of no confidence at any time. The President is very difficult to remove from office (cf. Trump) and has a lot of power. The main bastion of law and liberty in the US is the Judicial Branch, backed up by the Constitution.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Even in Canada rural ridings have less people than urban, and thus their voters count more heavily. We just have a higher percentage of our population in cities (especially the big 3) than the US does.
And while we are supposed to have a countermeasure in the Senate, it's toothless.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thanks for the added info.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Prime Minister normally can be removed by a vote of no confidence at any time. The President is very difficult to remove from office (cf. Trump) and has a lot of power. The main bastion of law and liberty in the US is the Judicial Branch, backed up by the Constitution
Nope. It requires more then a "vote of no confidence at any time" it's easier to turn around and file impeachment against the president of the US then it is to get the entire house caucus to vote no confidence in a government and crash it around it's knees.
Om, nomnomnom...
Rural votes count for less then urban areas. I don't know where you get the idea otherwise, the number of seats in parliament(provincial and federal) are determined on the number of people living in a particular area. More people, more blocks of people in a riding. Once the cap is hit, a new riding is created out of the existing block. That means during such a split, the cities gain *more* votes and more representation in either federal or provincial legislatures, not less. That's why in Ontario, the premier can run simply in Toronto/GTA and hold a simple majority of the provincial parliament.
Om, nomnomnom...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ontario_provincial_electoral_districts
Look at those ridings. Which ones have fewer than 100K people? Those would be the rural ridings.
And the GTA, sadly, has almost 50% of the province's population anyway.