Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

First of all, the name-calling is unnecessary. I don't like O'Rourke either, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

Secondly, as I'm sure you well know, the small-government party line of the Republicans hasn't really meant anything since at least the time of Goldwater. Reagan and Bush Jr. presided over massive expansions of government power and expense, only pulling out "small government" talk in very strategic ways (attacks on PBS, etc).

A rough 95% of our leaders are completely compromised, whether from within or due to outside pressures, in favor of more power both for the state, and the corporations who it really represents. All else is theater.

There is one real issue that we should be putting all our energy into, and that is electoral reform.




Care to elaborate why this is THE issue? I don't quite see how that follows from the above. OTOH My gut says you may be right but I'm not convinced. Want to try?


In brief: (a) We have an entrenched two-party system that makes a big show of conflict and gridlock, yet manages to collude on a surprising number of issues on behalf of the same donors and powerful lobbies; (b) Elections have become a marketing game, and no one can hope to run on a national level without massive amounts of capital, which means not rocking the boat of the corporate welfare state, or upsetting any other PAC donors who are playing "asynchronous quid pro quo".

I see three possible solutions, any of which would help, but all of which I'd like to see:

- Campaign Finance Reform: there are many potential ways to do this, the most straight-forward being publicly financed elections. This seems expensive, except when you compare it to the "media-electoral complex" we have now. Congress should not have to spend as much time as it does on fundraising, and should not be so motivated to accept kickbacks to PACs.

- Instant Runoff Voting: This would give third parties a chance to actually win by removing the "spoiler effect". It's a richer way to measure what the voters actually want, instead of continually forcing a choice of lesser evils. Anyone who still wants to cast their vote for a single party still can. Meanwhile, the mainstream parties would take third parties as a more serious threat, and focus more on the desires of their base, rather than taking them for granted and spending all their energy on a handful of politically inactive undecideds.

- None of the Above: Allow voters to choose none of the candidates as an option, forcing a new election. This would bring the protest non-voters back to the polls, the people who are so jaded that they believe (with cause) that voting is pointless, and whose opinions are going uncounted.

There are also other ideas like Proportional Representation, but that would represent a massive shift in our political structure, and so is probably not realistic. The above three options could be bolted on to our existing framework on a state-by-state level, or (theoretically) by Constitutional Amendment.

The problem is, both major parties and their donors benefit massively from the current system, and so it would take a huge upswell of public support to force a change. (Media companies would also fight tooth and nail; political advertising is a major source of revenue.) On the other hand, those members of Congress who are not blatantly corrupt don't like having to spend so much time fundraising, so it's not a completely uphill battle once critical mass is reached.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: