

Redditor Dr. Michael Ham announces his candidacy for US senate (New Mexico) - x3c
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ompzy/i_am_a_long_time_redditor_who_wants_to_take_our/

======
jordan0day
A week or two ago, I was wondering how long it will be (or perhaps, have we
already) before we've surpassed the usefulness of location-based politics.

That is, we have congressional representatives who are there to (ostensibly)
represent their constituency, with that constituency being defined
(gerrymandering aside) based on geographic location.

This is useful for things near me, like roads and schools, but not so useful
for other things we may care about, like the internet.

A "reddit candidate" in New Mexico may win a few hundred (maybe a few
thousand?) extra votes for being the "reddit candidate", but obviously they
still need to mostly focus on things more important to their local community
to win. There's a rather large population of people in the USA who care just
as much about whether or not their internet is censored as they do about the
nearest bit of highway construction, though.

What I'm getting at is this: how much does our geographic location still
define us? A great deal, no doubt, but in a more connected world, it's
becoming less and less important. I may have a great deal more in common with
a couple of hundred thousand other people scattered around the USA than I do
with the other people in my (geographically-defined) congressional district.
As such, am I being fairly represented?

~~~
newbusox
I think that's a really interesting point and, to some extent, it's an
argument that extends back to the idea of representation in a republic in
general. You can either think of your representative as functioning as your
agent in all matters--that is, someone to parrot your views on everything and,
inasmuch as your representative votes differently than you do, that is bad; or
you can think your representative as your trustee--that is, someone who you
empower with the ability to make decisions on your behalf, but you may not
care about, or be aware of, many issues that the representative makes
decisions on. If you favor the agentic model, you probably care more about
your individual desires and goals being met, whereas in the trustee model, you
probably care more about the "greater good" or "national interest" and so on
being met, and so care less if your individual preferences are supplanted for
the greater good.

If you adopt a trusteeship model, you would argue that your elected
representative can (and actually, should) make decisions based on what he or
she thinks is best for the world/community as a whole, including decisions
about the internet. That person would not be beholden to any "special
interests" (as in, whatever people in the constituency might care about like
roads or etc.) but would be beholden to whatever he or she thought most
important--so, presuming you elected someone with whom you agreed generally,
and who implicitly adopted this way of thinking about their role in
government, you would probably be "fairly" represented. If you adopt an
agentic model, then likely the interests that are most important to the
majority of people who elected that official will get priority. Since you may
have nothing in common with those people except that you live in the same
area, you would probably argue that you’re not being fairly represented, since
those people likely do not represent your views.

------
domador
Ham's Big List (<http://drmichaelham.com/?p=25>) is very appealing. I hope he
stays true to it if elected. May he not make moral compromises as he raises
money for his campaign.

~~~
zecho
Some of his items are ideal, but misguided.

For example, number 2, "it only takes one Senator to filibuster" is very
inaccurate. It takes 41 Senators to filibuster, as a vote for cloture takes a
60-vote majority on the floor. And most bills never make it to the floor
without a guarantee that it can overcome filibuster threat.

Regarding number 10, it's likely that a constitutional amendment would be
necessary to reverse Citizens United. As much as money in politics sucks,
shareholders are people, and "corporate personhood" is an extension of those
people, with certain protections and responsibilities. Furthermore, there is
already legislation to overturn Citizen's United in the Senate. Writing an
entirely new proposal may not make sense.

Lastly, number 8, (and to a lesser degree, all of these), depends heavily on
which committee assignments he receives. Assuming he wins a seat in the
Senate, one does not just join the Senate Committee on Finance and start
introducing bills. Seniority can take decades. Again, it's not ideal, but this
is the way the system operates, for better or worse.

------
x3c
Could someone (knowledgeable) comment on his chances to win the elections? I'm
not from US.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Virtually zero. He has no political experience at all and is running a
statewide race that would put him in the most powerful legislative body in the
US.

It is extremely unlikely he has the ability to pull this off.

He could conceivably influence the discussion in the election, but honestly
it's not too likely he'll even been enough of a factor for that.

Like most who aspire to office, he'd be much better off running at a local
level.

~~~
sophacles
Yeah! Lets all just accept that the same old crew keeps getting elected, and
instead complain and ineffectively "protest" the things we don't like (but
keep happening anyway) instead. We should stop everyone who thinks about
actually trying to effect a change, telling them to instead stop aspiring.
Just like we do with startups (given that most fail and whatnot)!

Or maybe, we could look at the fact that Reddit has become something of a
social powerhouse, having wide reaching impact on the world pretty regularly.
We can try to help out, maybe break down the traditional barriers to election,
and actually do what the internet has been promising for years: to reduce the
entrenched BS surrounding everything.

~~~
asolove
The parent post here is actually reasonable, not cynical.

Think about most of the things that actually influence your daily well-being
and the future of the country. We need good schools with good teachers. We
need natural places for kids to exercise and learn about the world. We need
sane neighborhoods with low crime and shorter commutes and people who actually
know and look out for each other.

While the federal government can debate and fund large projects for these
things, the people who actually make them happen have boring-sounding titles
like County Commissioner and Zoning Board Member. Even if the federal
government funds them well, the money gets misused unless local officials use
the money thoughtfully and non-corruptly. If you think the corruption on the
federal level is bad, you probably don't follow your local politics very well.
In most areas they involve not just corruption but also incredible, routine
incompetence even on fairlay basic matters.

So if you want to change the status quo, the real tradeoff is something like
this: you can either cheer someone's reddit campaign that will probably not
get them elected to Congress and pat yourself on the back for trying to make a
difference, or you could actually monitor and run for a local office and
concretely make people's lives better.

~~~
sophacles
I understood the point. It is a false dilemma though. I can participate in
local government (or in my case continue to do so) while still hoping and
working for someone to push a better status quo through at higher levels.
Suggesting only one or the other is the best possible way to maintain the
status quo - since real differences need to exist at all levels.

For example, I live in a place that zealously enforces wiretapping laws to
stop police filming. I can push my hardest to get my town to change their
enforcement policy, even to great effect, but the law is in place and a
zealous district attorney could still prosecute. The next town over won't
change their enforcement over my local actions. Perhaps while doing my thing,
I should endorse and support someone who will do the same thing at the state
level, no?

