Though I agree with your sentiment, more people graduate from high school now I bet than they did back during the American Revolution. And it's easier for people to get more information. Walk into a library for access to magazines and newspapers. Or to use a computer for internet access. Though I complain about how bad politics is today, it's nothing compared to when Thomas Paine wrote "These are the times that try men's souls".
I see no problem with limiting the "gain" available to limit the volume to a tolerable level.
Neither do I, they're called earmuffs. Or you can avoid it by going another way. Political speech is about having as many willing people hear your message as you can. Limiting that is limiting speech.
government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.
Oh really? So all that money congress spend investigating Rep Charles Rangel was wasted money? And Alaska Sen Ted Stevens was not convicted in 2008 for corruption in a court room not by an ethics board?
Actually, you did. Something about how not being able to gather a bunch of people together under a single legal entity and have it spend funds costs you your freedom of speech?
Point out where I even said "single legal entity".
As one of the Founders pointed out, people make different (hopefully better!) decisions when they have to return home and work for a living, alongside the people whose lives their lawmaking affects.
I agree compeatly. Where before there were citizen legislatures where those elected to office had other jobs today politics has become a career. Congress has a better pension than most people working for private employers do.
While I hate the idea of politics as a career, I also hate term limits. So congressional sessions need to be limited in length. Ninety days every other year would do wonders. Another step would be if the Constitution of the USA authorizes the law require most laws to have a sunset provision of say 5 years. If after 5 years the law was good then it could be reinstated for another 5 years.
The problem I have with that is then George Soros or the Kock brothers have the ability to drown out my free speech with their wealth.
So it's alright if their voices are drowned out by law? No it isn't, that was the entire basis of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech, that anyone can exercise their political speech. If I have the money to buy or build my own radio or TV station I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including broadcasting political speech, so long as I do not stop other from doing the same thing.
Personally, I'd just declare that money is not speech, period! Giving money to anybody should not be considered the same as speaking.
Oh, so Radio stations, TV stations, and websites as well as billboard companies allow free political ads? HAHA!!! That that does is make large media corporations more powerful, not less.
What good is speech without the ability to get a large audience, which takes money?
Still doesn't solve the problem of the media corporations being this special (and not particularly more trustworthy) category of corporation that, unlike every other corporation out there, gets to say what it wants.
Ah but there is a way to deal with mass media and large media corporations. Free the airwaves. As I've posted before the airwaves were homesteaded before the FCC, and its predecessor the Federal Radio Commission was created. Abolish the FCC, or at least airwave licensing, and the media corporation lose power.
To head off criticism that large broadcaster will drown out smaller broadcasters with higher powered transmitters, US courts had been ruling that the person who homesteaded a radio frequency in a given location "owned" that frequency there and others could not interfere with the owner broadcasting on said frequency.
"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.
You can disagree with me all you want, all I ask is for you to think and use reasoning, and not to make things up. Nowhere did I say I supported a plutocracy. I dare you to point how where I advocated government be run by a group of the rich and not democratically.
I don't want my tax dollars being used to support a war I don't agree with.
Neither do I. I opposed the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I opposed them when Dubya ordered them, I opposed them when his father sent troops to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, and I opposed Clinton ordering airstrikes in both nations too. Most of all I oppose it when both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam and hated when Bush and Clinton left Afghanistan to fester after the Soviet withdrew.
I don't want them used on entitlement programs that I consider to be straight-up vote-buying. I don't want them used to build a "bridge to nowhere" as part of typical pork-barrel politics. I don't want them used to support drug prohibition or any other victimless-crime enforcement because I oppose those on principle. I don't want them used to perpetually extend copyright. I don't want them used to pay a salary to people who spend even one picosecond looking for a way to censor the Internet.
Obviously you haven't read many of my posts dealing with politics and government. I oppose all these too, so don't say I do. No, for years and years I've posted right here on Slashdot how I hate big government and want the small government the USA Constitution authorizes.
I'd be glad to fund politicians I dislike. This would serve a crucial function. It would mean that other voters can choose to vote for those candidates even if I personally wouldn't. I want them to have that choice and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Come on, the lack of public funding does not prevent a person from running for office. If it were required no candidate would ever run, no one can simply decide to run and have public funds handed to them.
Right now it's a contest of who can raise the most money and if you don't believe that, do the research yourself. Organizations (incl. corporations) wouldn't be able to support candidates for the same good reasons that organizations don't get to vote -- they're not human beings.
I suggest you do your own research, the candidate with the most money does not always win. This tyme Obama, who had the most money, did win. And where did the money come from? Millions of voters.
And just like so many other imbeciles you concluded, without asking me or reading what I said elsewhere, that I support corporate donations to candidates or supporting one side of an issue or another. Nowhere did I say I did, but I have repeatedly said a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.
Now if you want an intelligent conversation we can have one, but do not make things up about me.
That's what your saying, cause if everyone gave a few dollars to be shared, then no one would have to worry about one entity giving billions.
What did I say? What I said was I wanted to support those I support and not give to those I oppose. I also want to freely be able enjoy my speech. If I want to pay for ads for a candidate, I don't want government telling me I can not do so. Whether I am in the the ads myself or I get others who also support the candidate to appear, or whether we pool our resources to produce the ads. Then place them.
I'm sorry that doesn't seem to make sense to you.
By the same terms, I'm sorry you can't understand that. I don't want my speech limited by you, government, or anyone else. I thought it was BS the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations could fund political ads, a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.
You seem to think that your individual donation means something It doesn't even make a blip on the screen compared to what a corp donates.
So thousands of people donating to Obama's campaign didn't help him get elected? HAHA!!!
he cares about the donation from the Koch brothers.
If anything the Koch brothers funded McCain not Obama, yet Obama not McCain is president. How intelligent does a person have to be to understand that? However much apparently you're not intelligent enough.
Oh, and not all of the wealthy support the same candidates. While the Koch brothers support Republicans, and anti-global warming groups, George Soros who Forbes ranked 35th richest person in the world in 2010 supports Obama. And Warren Buffet said raise my taxes.
Now can you understand that? Or are you too stupid?
So you want our politicians bribed by a select few.
No, I want to be able to give to those I support, and I don't want any tax money going to those I oppose. Years ago I used to check in a box on federal income tax forms saying I wanted a dollar to go to public financing, but I stopped doing it. I only want my money going to those I support.
Returning to a part-time Congress might help, too. Who said "politician" was supposed to be a career choice??
In a post up thread I referred to that. I'd add an amendment like what's in the Texas Constitution. The state legislature sessions are only 140 days in odd-numbered years. I might have it only 120 days though.
please explain how in the fuck you get labeled a "white hat" for showing up at black hat conferences and showing everyone how to MITM SSL?
He is not keeping what he dies secret or sells his tools for a profit. No, he lets the world know what holes there are so they can be fixed. Others have said he didn't contact vendors first, how do they knew that? Maybe the vendors were contacted and given plenty of tyme but never fixed the problem.
Nothing changes, only one person will be president. And second place is the VP.
You'll have situations where one candidate will get the majority of "5"s, but another will get more "4"s and when all the numbers are tabulated, the guy with more 4s wins.
Citation needed.
I say we keep the electoral college
The electoral college is not needed. The only reason it was created is because most Founding Fathers didn't think the average person was educated enough to make an informed decision. While I agree that still applies that's because too many voters let others make decisions for themselves. Back when the Constitution was drafted many people weren't very educated.
but eliminate the process by which a candidate can win the whole state, even if he/she only gets 51% of the vote.
This is not needed. If the electoral college is proportionally allocated what difference is there between that and a direct election? They come out the same way.
The way it is now, if you live in a state that votes predominantly toward one party or another, the people from the other party are essentially silenced in the presidential elections.
Direct voting eliminates that. And using a Condorcet method of voting eliminates any need for run-off elections, every voter gets to pick their first and second choice. Now I saved this for last:
And don't even get me started with your idea of negative numbers. Yowzah!
Instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for, in 2000 and again in 2004 I specifically voted against the candidate I opposed. A number of others do the same thing but by ranking and including negative votes, that eliminates any sense of the need to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I suppose that you don't want that.
How then does the candidate pay for advertising? Town meetings? Websites? They have to be paid for. And unless you want only the wealthy in office then candidates have to raise donations.
It would be even better if there was public financing for all politicians.
I don't know about you but I do not want any of my money, your money, or others money, and that is where those tax dollars come from, to support any candidate I oppose. If you want to support that candidate then you can contribute to them. Nor do I want my throat to be denied airtime.
How come you believe that I should have to give money to get my voice heard.
Ding Dong!!! That is exactly what taxpayer financing is stupid!!! How idiotic and imbecilic can you get?
Which means that corporations have a much louder voice then I do. Thats wrong
I said nothing about corporations having the same rights. I have actually said corporations should not them.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.
You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".
It is not bribery when one person helps another person get elected. And yes, a pool of low income individuals can help a candidate get elected. Obama was elected relying on many small donations.
Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.
And if they do a good job helping them get reelected. But if they don't then help get someone else elected instead of them, even if that someone else is "none of the above".
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think they're educated now?
Though I agree with your sentiment, more people graduate from high school now I bet than they did back during the American Revolution. And it's easier for people to get more information. Walk into a library for access to magazines and newspapers. Or to use a computer for internet access. Though I complain about how bad politics is today, it's nothing compared to when Thomas Paine wrote "These are the times that try men's souls".
Falcon
I see no problem with limiting the "gain" available to limit the volume to a tolerable level.
Neither do I, they're called earmuffs. Or you can avoid it by going another way. Political speech is about having as many willing people hear your message as you can. Limiting that is limiting speech.
Falcon
I simply think that it's absolute bullshit that campaign contributions are considered "speech."
Whether you like it or not it costs money to advertise. Heck without ads I doubt Slashdot would exist now.
Falcon
More noise, I'm done.
Falcon
government officials can't do something illegal because they make the laws which define what is legal.
Oh really? So all that money congress spend investigating Rep Charles Rangel was wasted money? And Alaska Sen Ted Stevens was not convicted in 2008 for corruption in a court room not by an ethics board?
Falcon
Actually, you did. Something about how not being able to gather a bunch of people together under a single legal entity and have it spend funds costs you your freedom of speech?
Point out where I even said "single legal entity".
Falcon
But it's not and until you convince the government to change the laws, those drugs and other things are checked for by customs.
Unfortunately I agree with you. Unfortunately, because they never should have been made illegal to begin with.
Falcon
Montana's state legislature is 90 days every two years.
Really? Yeap! That's even better.
As one of the Founders pointed out, people make different (hopefully better!) decisions when they have to return home and work for a living, alongside the people whose lives their lawmaking affects.
I agree compeatly. Where before there were citizen legislatures where those elected to office had other jobs today politics has become a career. Congress has a better pension than most people working for private employers do.
While I hate the idea of politics as a career, I also hate term limits. So congressional sessions need to be limited in length. Ninety days every other year would do wonders. Another step would be if the Constitution of the USA authorizes the law require most laws to have a sunset provision of say 5 years. If after 5 years the law was good then it could be reinstated for another 5 years.
Falcon
The problem I have with that is then George Soros or the Kock brothers have the ability to drown out my free speech with their wealth.
So it's alright if their voices are drowned out by law? No it isn't, that was the entire basis of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech, that anyone can exercise their political speech. If I have the money to buy or build my own radio or TV station I should be able to do whatever I want with it, including broadcasting political speech, so long as I do not stop other from doing the same thing.
Falcon
Personally, I'd just declare that money is not speech, period! Giving money to anybody should not be considered the same as speaking.
Oh, so Radio stations, TV stations, and websites as well as billboard companies allow free political ads? HAHA!!! That that does is make large media corporations more powerful, not less.
What good is speech without the ability to get a large audience, which takes money?
Falcon
Still doesn't solve the problem of the media corporations being this special (and not particularly more trustworthy) category of corporation that, unlike every other corporation out there, gets to say what it wants.
Ah but there is a way to deal with mass media and large media corporations. Free the airwaves. As I've posted before the airwaves were homesteaded before the FCC, and its predecessor the Federal Radio Commission was created. Abolish the FCC, or at least airwave licensing, and the media corporation lose power.
To head off criticism that large broadcaster will drown out smaller broadcasters with higher powered transmitters, US courts had been ruling that the person who homesteaded a radio frequency in a given location "owned" that frequency there and others could not interfere with the owner broadcasting on said frequency.
Falcon
Like so many others, you're making things up. You must be a troll.
Falcon
"Supporting what you like and opposing what you don't like" describes many systems of government. Democracy requires that votes be weighted equally (discarding for a moment the issue of unequal representation of populations via e.g. electoral colleges). What you're describing is plutocracy.
You can disagree with me all you want, all I ask is for you to think and use reasoning, and not to make things up. Nowhere did I say I supported a plutocracy. I dare you to point how where I advocated government be run by a group of the rich and not democratically.
If you can't then I have nothing else to say.
falcon
I don't want my tax dollars being used to support a war I don't agree with.
Neither do I. I opposed the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. I opposed them when Dubya ordered them, I opposed them when his father sent troops to evict Saddam's army from Kuwait, and I opposed Clinton ordering airstrikes in both nations too. Most of all I oppose it when both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam and hated when Bush and Clinton left Afghanistan to fester after the Soviet withdrew.
I don't want them used on entitlement programs that I consider to be straight-up vote-buying. I don't want them used to build a "bridge to nowhere" as part of typical pork-barrel politics. I don't want them used to support drug prohibition or any other victimless-crime enforcement because I oppose those on principle. I don't want them used to perpetually extend copyright. I don't want them used to pay a salary to people who spend even one picosecond looking for a way to censor the Internet.
Obviously you haven't read many of my posts dealing with politics and government. I oppose all these too, so don't say I do. No, for years and years I've posted right here on Slashdot how I hate big government and want the small government the USA Constitution authorizes.
I'd be glad to fund politicians I dislike. This would serve a crucial function. It would mean that other voters can choose to vote for those candidates even if I personally wouldn't. I want them to have that choice and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Come on, the lack of public funding does not prevent a person from running for office. If it were required no candidate would ever run, no one can simply decide to run and have public funds handed to them.
Right now it's a contest of who can raise the most money and if you don't believe that, do the research yourself. Organizations (incl. corporations) wouldn't be able to support candidates for the same good reasons that organizations don't get to vote -- they're not human beings.
I suggest you do your own research, the candidate with the most money does not always win. This tyme Obama, who had the most money, did win. And where did the money come from? Millions of voters.
And just like so many other imbeciles you concluded, without asking me or reading what I said elsewhere, that I support corporate donations to candidates or supporting one side of an issue or another. Nowhere did I say I did, but I have repeatedly said a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.
Now if you want an intelligent conversation we can have one, but do not make things up about me.
Falcon
That's what your saying, cause if everyone gave a few dollars to be shared, then no one would have to worry about one entity giving billions.
What did I say? What I said was I wanted to support those I support and not give to those I oppose. I also want to freely be able enjoy my speech. If I want to pay for ads for a candidate, I don't want government telling me I can not do so. Whether I am in the the ads myself or I get others who also support the candidate to appear, or whether we pool our resources to produce the ads. Then place them.
I'm sorry that doesn't seem to make sense to you.
By the same terms, I'm sorry you can't understand that. I don't want my speech limited by you, government, or anyone else. I thought it was BS the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations could fund political ads, a corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights.
You seem to think that your individual donation means something It doesn't even make a blip on the screen compared to what a corp donates.
So thousands of people donating to Obama's campaign didn't help him get elected? HAHA!!!
he cares about the donation from the Koch brothers.
If anything the Koch brothers funded McCain not Obama, yet Obama not McCain is president. How intelligent does a person have to be to understand that? However much apparently you're not intelligent enough.
Oh, and not all of the wealthy support the same candidates. While the Koch brothers support Republicans, and anti-global warming groups, George Soros who Forbes ranked 35th richest person in the world in 2010 supports Obama. And Warren Buffet said raise my taxes.
Now can you understand that? Or are you too stupid?
Falcon
That is exactly what democracy is, people supporting what they like and opposing what they don't like.
If you really believe that is not democracy I don't know what your definition of democracy is.
Falcon
So you want our politicians bribed by a select few.
No, I want to be able to give to those I support, and I don't want any tax money going to those I oppose. Years ago I used to check in a box on federal income tax forms saying I wanted a dollar to go to public financing, but I stopped doing it. I only want my money going to those I support.
Falcon
Returning to a part-time Congress might help, too. Who said "politician" was supposed to be a career choice??
In a post up thread I referred to that. I'd add an amendment like what's in the Texas Constitution. The state legislature sessions are only 140 days in odd-numbered years. I might have it only 120 days though.
Falcon
please explain how in the fuck you get labeled a "white hat" for showing up at black hat conferences and showing everyone how to MITM SSL?
He is not keeping what he dies secret or sells his tools for a profit. No, he lets the world know what holes there are so they can be fixed. Others have said he didn't contact vendors first, how do they knew that? Maybe the vendors were contacted and given plenty of tyme but never fixed the problem.
Falcon
we have problems choosing ONE president
Nothing changes, only one person will be president. And second place is the VP.
You'll have situations where one candidate will get the majority of "5"s, but another will get more "4"s and when all the numbers are tabulated, the guy with more 4s wins.
Citation needed.
I say we keep the electoral college
The electoral college is not needed. The only reason it was created is because most Founding Fathers didn't think the average person was educated enough to make an informed decision. While I agree that still applies that's because too many voters let others make decisions for themselves. Back when the Constitution was drafted many people weren't very educated.
but eliminate the process by which a candidate can win the whole state, even if he/she only gets 51% of the vote.
This is not needed. If the electoral college is proportionally allocated what difference is there between that and a direct election? They come out the same way.
The way it is now, if you live in a state that votes predominantly toward one party or another, the people from the other party are essentially silenced in the presidential elections.
Direct voting eliminates that. And using a Condorcet method of voting eliminates any need for run-off elections, every voter gets to pick their first and second choice. Now I saved this for last:
And don't even get me started with your idea of negative numbers. Yowzah!
Instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for, in 2000 and again in 2004 I specifically voted against the candidate I opposed. A number of others do the same thing but by ranking and including negative votes, that eliminates any sense of the need to vote for the lesser of two evils. But I suppose that you don't want that.
Falcon
Other than their recently uncovered fetish for porn the intention of customs is good.
What is that intention? To stop the importation of drugs which should not have been made illegal to begin with?
Falcon
Generally, I agree with the mission of customs, inspect stuff coming into the country.
Inspect what stuff? That kilo of cocaine, hash, or opium? They should all be legal. As well as marijuana, it should even be legal to grow.
Falcon
Money is not free speech as far as I'm concerned.
How then does the candidate pay for advertising? Town meetings? Websites? They have to be paid for. And unless you want only the wealthy in office then candidates have to raise donations.
It would be even better if there was public financing for all politicians.
I don't know about you but I do not want any of my money, your money, or others money, and that is where those tax dollars come from, to support any candidate I oppose. If you want to support that candidate then you can contribute to them. Nor do I want my throat to be denied airtime.
How come you believe that I should have to give money to get my voice heard.
Ding Dong!!! That is exactly what taxpayer financing is stupid!!! How idiotic and imbecilic can you get?
Which means that corporations have a much louder voice then I do. Thats wrong
I said nothing about corporations having the same rights. I have actually said corporations should not them.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Keep that in mind next tyme.
Falcon
I can't think of any way that campaign contribution != bribe.
You then need to learn the definition of "bribe". That definition is "to give money or presents to someone so that they will help you by doing something dishonest or illegal".
Falcon
It is not bribery when one person helps another person get elected. And yes, a pool of low income individuals can help a candidate get elected. Obama was elected relying on many small donations.
Influencing your elected representatives should be a simple matter of writing a letter and nothing else.
And if they do a good job helping them get reelected. But if they don't then help get someone else elected instead of them, even if that someone else is "none of the above".
Falcon