
Larry Lessig: I'm All In - command_tab
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/referendum-presidency-larry-lessig/411013/?single_page=true
======
jacobolus
> _But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be
> president? Or was I just trying to make a point?_

Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a
publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any
credibility whatsoever.

> _But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was
> actually more viable than that of at least two of the other Democratic
> candidates,_

“More viable” meaning that when you add up the poll numbers for Lessig plus
those other two candidates, the percentage rounds to zero. Likewise they have
no budget, no endorsements, a tiny donor base, no institutional support from
the Democratic party, no grass-roots campaign organization, etc. etc.

Lessig’s approach to politics is to shout “HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT ME! I don’t
have any experience or support, and I haven’t tried to engage with the
political system before, but vote for me because all those other guys are
corrupt!” That works if you’re a billionaire with universal name-recognition
like Trump, running in a primary with a bunch of weak other candidates,
targeting primary voters responsive to knee-jerk racism and insults. Lessig
isn’t Trump though.

In the 2014 midterm elections his PAC raised a moderate amount of money mostly
from Silicon Valley VCs, threw it at a handful of congressional races, and had
absolutely zero impact on anything.

Seems like it’s not working out this time either.

~~~
AlwaysBCoding
The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70%
of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional
fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising
money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such
an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of
constitutes to think about: the voters, and the funders. And there is a very
small group of people who give > 50% of all campaign cash and more or less
have control over the entire country. This is why common sense laws that have
majority support from the voters (gun control, marijuana legalization etc...)
never get the traction they should. The funders don't want them, and they have
the final say, not the voters. It's crazy how complacent people have become
about government incompetence.

The becoming president and then resigning thing was weird. I'm glad he's
dropping it, because you can hate the method all you want, and I too think he
comes off really distant out of touch sometimes, but what he's saying needs to
be heard.

~~~
jensen123
> Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money.

Why do they do this? Because the politicians who spend the most money on
advertising generally win the elections, right? I'm wondering if what we're
seeing here is the failure of democracy with universal suffrage. Most of the
voters don't seem to be independent thinkers. They could have voted for
politicians who haven't been "bought". But they don't. For example, there are
other political parties out there - Green Party, Libertarian Party etc., but
almost nobody votes for those.

~~~
throwaway13337
This is more a problem with vote distribution.

The parties outside the main two cannot win because they're always going to be
a minority. If a minority could still hold a minority of the seats for getting
a minority of the votes, the landscape would be vastly different.

Instead, we have an average vote system based on geographic region that can
only allow for major parties to hold seats.

This is not the case in all democracies - most european parliaments have more
than two parties because of the difference in the way minority votes are
handled.

This is a failure of US-flavor representative democracy.

~~~
jensen123
I suppose you have a valid point. I have one question, though: aren't
political TV ads actually illegal in most European countries?

~~~
toyg
European political campaigns are usually cheaper than US ones, but they're by
no means cheap in absolute terms. We have corruption scandals here too...
before '92, a lot of political parties were almost entirely funded by either
the US or the USSR; they've been economically struggling ever since.

------
grizzles
Lessig is just as electable as anyone out there, but I am not sure he is much
of a strategic thinker. He just gave up the one thing that made his
#hackthepresidency style campaign interesting.

At this point & with the right campaign you could run a rump roast for the
presidency and it'd have a decent shot at grabbing a signficant share of the
vote.

I could name way more but Lessig top problems imo are:

He lacks conviction. That rump roast is more red blooded than he is. If you
are running for president, you can't just expect to win based on having a few
good ideas. You need forcefulness. Someone says you can't attend a debate? You
don't kick back and watch it on tv. You show up anyway and have your
supporters provoke a riot when they don't let you in. Hopefully the media
makes a field day out of it. Arrested? Even better. It fits in with your
narrative.

Lessig's next big problem is - He needs an angle. Lessig seems to be too
principled to participate in the usual games that gets people to the oval.
That puts him at a big disadvantage. If he doesn't like how the sausage is
made, he needs a strategy or SOMETHING to compensate for the power the machine
gives you. Trump is a natural showman. Rubio is handsome, Ben Carson is a
religious nut. Each of these guys is in the race, but Lessig isn't. Until
Lessig finds something that gives him some oomph, he might as well just curl
up into a fetal.

------
bsbechtel
I realize I'll probably get downvoted in this thread for saying this, but
allowing more money into politics is actually giving people more choice in
elections, and Lessig is becoming a victim of the problems with the system
before Citizens United. Between both parties, we have over 20 people running
for President. We have more choice than ever. Why? Because these individuals
can afford to do so, and don't need to rely on getting mainstream media
attention to find donors they need to finance their campaign. Lessig, on the
other hand, is running a campaign to fix campaign finance, and is running into
issues with what hobbled the system before - media gatekeepers who aren't
giving his campaign any attention. Yes, I understand that allowing the free
flow of money into politics favors the wealthy, but at least now there is some
sort of counterbalancing force to the media basically deciding who becomes our
President. I don't know what would be a true democratic equalizer (maybe
eliminating political parties), but Lessig's way of doing things had more
problems than many want to acknowledge.

~~~
mtgx
I disagree. Do you want "more choices" that are paid and pre-selected by the
same 200 richest families? Or do you want actual choices supported by the
_People_ , who get their money not from few large donations, but from many
small ones.

In the latter's case, you can have serious campaign finance reform, without
restricting your _real_ choices. What we want is for the money "vote" to be an
equalizer just like the regular vote. If 200 families can pick a "winner",
despite millions of other people actually wanting someone else to win, then
something is seriously wrong with that democracy, and the money vote is way
too skewed in favor of a few.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Your reply is completely nonresponsive to bsbechtel's point.

The point, stated more explicitly. There is a relatively small overton window
permitted by the media - this is essentially what Chomsky would call "flak
machines" and Moldbug would call the "cathedral". The "People", as you call
them, will simply support whoever the media chooses to anoint. This set of
candidates will basically be nothing but a few left wing Republicans and
establishment Democrats (think Bush/Romney/Hillary) and we'll get more of the
same.

In contrast, the richest 200 families are far less monolithic than the media.
Money actually makes it possible for choices that the media establishment
dislikes to get real traction. For example, Ross Perot or Donald Trump. If the
People like such a candidate, they can then vote for that candidate.

tl;dr; The media has network effects which enforce a narrow overton window. In
contrast, one eccentric rich guy can - if he chooses to spend lots of money -
break through that and get other ideas out there.

------
smacktoward
_> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the
others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to
democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for
every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising
without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why
isn’t it your first priority?_

But in all these words he never gets around to explaining how as President he
would _actually make the reform happen_ , other than saying it'd be his "first
priority" and (twice) that he would "work with Congress."

Oh, is _that_ all it's going to take to completely upend the deeply entrenched
systemic power of elites who are richer than Croesus, Larry? We just need a
President who _wants_ it bad enough, and is willing to ask Congress for it
nicely? Huh.

I bet Barack Obama wishes he'd thought of that. All this time he could have
just gone down to Capitol Hill, clicked his heels three times and made the
Koch brothers disappear! Who knew?

Lessig is such a paradox to me. His heart's in the right place, he's clearly
earnest, and he's managed to accomplish some remarkable things, like Creative
Commons. But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways
that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so
high. It's Mr. Bean Goes To Washington.

~~~
parasubvert
"But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are
so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high."

Same was said about a big-eared Senator from Chicago with a funny name, that
gave a good political speech in 2004.

Lessig is trying to find a mix between himself, the platform, and the process.
You need to be naive if you ever hope to solve any seemingly intractable
problem.

~~~
jacobolus
Obama was a career politician with lots of support and credibility, a best-
selling author, and a charismatic speaker, with an absolutely incredible
campaign organization. He was running on an anti-war platform during a highly
unpopular war.

Lessig doesn’t have any of those things.

~~~
parasubvert
Obama released his first book to coincide with his first political campaign.
And his second book 1 years prior to announcing his run for president.

Lessig is a reasonably charismatic speaker.

The rest I agree, Lessig is no Obama.

Look, I don't expect Lessig to make much of a dent in 2016. I wouldn't say
he'll never make a dent. The only way TO make a dent is to naively keep
trying, and learning, and being willing to look dumb in the process.

------
thomasfoster96
Observations from Australia:

* Lessig is trying to reform US politics with minimal grassroots support and from the outside. That's pretty much impossible, even without the sort of broken system he's trying to reform.

* Bernie Sanders seems to be offering similar reforms, though not as a No.1 priority. Lessig is essentially arguing that he'll implement one Sanders policy as a priority, and then get out of the way - that sounds completely silly to me, and I don't see why you wouldn't just vote Sanders instead.

* I'd contend that the problems in US politics run much deeper than campaign finance - voting systems, the structure of government, separation of powers, etc all need a thorough look and possible overhaul. Any campaign finance reform would probably end up being disappointingly ineffective compared to how it's being sold.

------
logn
Lessig is not thinking this through. If he wants to be taken seriously as a
candidate he's going to need to address every single issue the others have. By
the time he's done that, his message will be diluted and sidetracked, and
he'll have groups of people who may support him on the corruption issue but
disagree on other issues, e.g., how to handle Syria.

At this point he kind of reminds me of Donald Trump who also has not taken
time to formulate many policy positions but just wants to the voters to trust
him it'll all be great.

Additionally, a big part of being President is just the relentless work at
championing your causes and causing your opponents to fail if they refuse to
compromise. Lessig seems allergic to this type of work, politics, and
campaigning in general. I don't know how he expects to get his legislation
passed.

Even on the issue of corruption, I'm not sure he's effectively explained his
solution. He's just laid out legislation to pass, but hasn't detailed how
he'll get Congress to pass it without amendments that destroy it, how he'll
keep the Supreme Court from eviscerating it, and how the rules could withstand
attempts to game them.

~~~
hga
_He 's just laid out legislation to pass_

Errr, as far as I know he hasn't entirely done that. From his web site,
[https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/](https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/) he has two
specific "Equal Right to Vote" laws plus " _In addition, we will enact
automatic voter registration and turn election day into a national holiday._ "
Then there's a Ranked Choice Voting item with specific language, but the third
item is not specific, and as other discussions here have noted, here the devil
is in the details:

 _CITIZEN FUNDED ELECTIONS

All citizens deserve an equal ability to choose our leaders.

The Citizen Equality Act will end pay-to-play politics by changing the way we
fund campaigns by taking the best of Rep. Sarbanes’ Government by the People
Act, and Represent.US’s “American Anti-Corruption Act.” That hybrid would give
every voter a voucher to contribute to fund congressional and presidential
campaigns; it would provide matching funds for small-dollar contributions to
congressional and presidential campaigns. And it would add effective new
limits to restrict the revolving door between government service and work as a
lobbyist._

------
bsimpson
It'll be interesting to hear his foreign policy. He's probably the smartest
guy running, and the least corrupt. That said, I'd have a hard time voting for
someone whose only official job is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces and whose only platform is to be a placeholder representing the concept
of reform. I want to know how he's gonna handle {the Middle East, Russia,
etc.}.

~~~
Asbostos
Does it matter how he'd handle those other issues if he gets his reform done?
You seem to be saying that continuity in handling those issues in a way you
like is more important than the reform he's proposing. Wouldn't it be worth
having a few years of "bad" foreign policy in exchange for a whole future of
reform?

~~~
bsimpson
Yeah, it does. It's pretty damned important to trust that the Commander-in-
Chief would be a competent leader of the armed forces. How would he respond to
an act of war? What would he do to stabilize the Middle East and neutralize
ISIS?

Of course every outsider wants reform. It's nice to see a smart person
thinking creatively about how to achieve it. Still, you don't get to be
Commander-in-Chief unless you can instill trust that you can handle being
Commander-in-Chief.

------
natch
I love Lessig but speaking of mistakes, he should do a poll about his glasses.

Whether he switches to something more likable or not will be an indicator of
how savvy he would be on the job.

~~~
fmjrey
I'm assuming half of your point is humour and the other is the fact you don't
like his glasses.

It is on this second half I'd like to comment.

It shifts the focus on form rather than content. Sure form has its non-
negligible role, but in politics and most domains it should never take
precedence over content, the actual message itself. And here lies one part of
the problem Lessig is trying to go after: the corruption of our mind in its
ability to be seduced by form at the expense of content. It is that kind of
corruption that makes it possible for movie actors without real political
substance to become president. It is that kind of corruption that makes the
present political system a democratic farce.

If we want him to succeed we have to do our part too, and it's precisely
because we haven't for ages, that we have such situation today. Even if he
succeeds and changes the rules of the political game, if we the people also
don't change the way we think, then this can start all over again in 4 years
without us even realizing.

So maybe he could do with another pair of glasses, but we the people also need
another pair of glasses.

Deal?

~~~
natch
Well you totally missed the point.

There's plenty of substance with Lessig. I just am talking about one bit of
substance, which is whether he has the pragmatism needed to get and then to do
the job or not.

The glasses (which I actually like; not sure where you got your "fact"... but
I doubt US voters will) are the form here, to use your word. Not the
substance. They are trivial.

So yes, the glasses are not substance. His lack of pragmatism in clinging to
them is substance.

------
javajosh
I feel sad because I'm probably Lessig's ideal target audience, but I don't
like any of this. I don't like that he backed down so quickly from his first
approach, because of the polls. Isn't that what corrupt politicians do? I
don't like that he is so vague about what he's going to do to fix corruption -
I get it that it's about taking money out of politics, but how do you get
there, especially when Congress is seized up?

And I want to hear about other issues, too, if he's seriously running for
president. What about local police corruption, violence, and abuse? What about
drone assassinations? What about corporate welfare that socializes risk and
privatizes rewards? What about poverty and basic income? What about
simplifying the legal system so that justice isn't too expensive for most
people? What about extra-legal punishment like no-fly lists? What about the
goddamn NSA? What about the security theater at the airport we pay for and
endure?

From the other candidates all we hear about is "the economy", mid-east
terrorism and related problems, immigration, and now and again (against all
odds) climate change. From Lessig you just hear about corruption. If you want
to impress me as a real Presidential candidate, speak eloquently about the
days when the US would never have even considered torturing someone for any
reason; when 1984 was a cautionary tale about surveillance, not a manual on
how to do it; when we needed to work together to defeat an enemy, we did it,
or to achieve a great goal like the moon, we did it, and how we can do it
again, but this time we're going to End Oil, worldwide. I want to hear about
how we can use technology to make government at every level more accountable
and more responsive, and I want to hear more about our aspirations. I want to
hear that we will recover the first asteroid from the asteroid belt within 20
years. I want to hear that federal funding will be tied to the creation of
independent police review panels in every major city. I want to hear that
blanket surveillance will be made explicitly illegal.

But I don't hear hardly any of that, not even from Lessig. Which makes me sad.

~~~
solipsism
_I don 't like that he is so vague about what he's going to do to fix
corruption - I get it that it's about taking money out of politics, but how do
you get there, especially when Congress is seized up?_

If he were to be elected he would have a very strong mandate to fight for the
reforms he proposes -- a strong enough mandate that Congress might be forced
to adhere to it. If the people put Lessig in the Presidency it's pretty clear
what the people want. A Democratic congressperson or senator who voted against
such reforms would surely be risking his/her job. The same might even be said
for TeaPartiers.

Regarding everything else... he claims most of it won't happen because the
system is rigged. Most good causes like the ones you list could never command
the singular and focused attention from the people it would take to defeat the
powers that oppose them, even if the people generally would be in favor. We
don't have a referendum system. That's his whole point -- to hack one in. I
think it's still his point, he's just realizing that he has to play politics
to do it.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _If he were to be elected he would have a very strong mandate to fight for
> the reforms he proposes -- a strong enough mandate that Congress might be
> forced to adhere to it... A Democratic congressperson or senator who voted
> against such reforms would surely be risking his /her job._

Note peoples' diverging approval ratings between Congress as a whole and their
own Congresspersons. Each Congressperson could find a local reason to nitpick
over, and thus vote against, a measure they and the country broadly support.

------
solipsism
I think Lessig should reinstate his promise to resign after passing the
Citizen Equality Act, run as an independent, and pick a good conservative to
be his running mate. The corruption of democracy by special interests is not
only a Democratic issue. Hell, it's one of the Tea Party's Core Beliefs.

This would get him more attention, it would get some conservatives voting for
him, and it would get some some progressives voting for him. As a progressive,
I'd accept a term with a conservative president if it meant taking a huge step
to fix the system as a whole.

------
hownottowrite
I admire Mr. Lessig's convictions and his ideas, but frankly the concept of a
self-resigning President is half-baked. It reveals a fundamental lack of
understanding about the role of the Presidency in United States politically
and socially and image it projects to the world at large.

The United States isn't a startup. You can't have a Minimum Viable Presidency
focused on a single issue.

~~~
jack9
> It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of the
> Presidency in United States politically and socially and image it projects
> to the world at large.

Your comment is ironic to the core. The role of POTUS is not to serve the
current system of contributors after the fact. That's the nature of the
problem. The idea that POTUS is sancrosanct or even in a different class
(projects to the world at large, lol) shows how far we have diverged from the
concept of a public servant. POTUS is just a man and deserving little more
than cursory protections and respect. The political system has been corrupted
to make it a MONUMENTAL effort to get someone in the office. This does not
make the station special. We have had real need for reform and this backward
thinking that POTUS is elevated is part of the cultural shift that needs to
occur to break the corruption cycle. It won't, of course. Partly because
people are too stupid to break their own socialization (nobody will
acknowledge it's so broken that anyone elected is unqualified, so you get lip
service to "fight corruption") and partly because statistically, no large
democracy has ever even accidentally broken the cycle before a catastrophic
decline.

~~~
hownottowrite
It's hardly ironic. It's realistic, and your defense is simplistic at best.

What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if
war breaks out? What if a natural disaster strikes putting millions of
Americans at risk? We have no idea because his Presidency is not about
governing towards a better future but rather tearing down a system he doesn't
like.

Noble as his idea may sound on the surface it is a childish proposal which
does not take into account the complexity of the system it intends to address.

~~~
jack9
> your defense is simplistic at best.

Defense of what?

> What does President Lessig do during the first 100 days of his Presidency if
> war breaks out?

He does what EVERY President does. 100 days or not (how are the # of days
relevant? howabout 3! sounds a lot like political hand waving). What happens
is surely that he makes a statement and the executive branch provides
function. He's not a general, but he can make individual decisions just like
any successor. His death or resignation doesn't cripple the country, as much
as some might fantasize.

The complexity you are talking about is the same religious belief that
portends that a POTUS is somehow holding the nation together. More irony,
calling my characterization simplistic.

~~~
hownottowrite
Do you actually believe that this is the way the world works?

Super curious if you do or if... [https://xkcd.com/6/](https://xkcd.com/6/)

~~~
jack9
Of course I do. The idea that a single individual directs (generally through a
number of cabinet positions, notably Secretary of State) is how the US
presidency worked under a number of administrations, most notably Bush Jr and
Reagan. Jimmy Carter was a micromanager, by contrast. The physical process of
running the US presidency does not come in an orientation, just a transition
process (handoff of key information and items). POTUS function is a matter of
philosophy and personal style in dealing with the bureaucracy. It's how the
station really works, if you're interested in the reality.

~~~
hownottowrite
Sure, just like any other high-level executive function which is basically my
entire point.

If you ever find yourself in a position of executive authority, you'll realize
pretty quick that direct action is usually a disaster in the making when
dealing with internal matters. However, by using indirect methods through key
designates, you can actually get quite a bit done even in the worst
bureaucracies.

By contrast, direct action is often required when dealing with external
issues. Executive heads tend to deal only with other executive heads. This is
true in business, and doubly true in politics.

------
jroseattle
This notion that "outsiders" are what it takes to reform government is a
popular campaign theme, but has never succeeded. The basis for justification
is essentially one of "the system has made others corrupt, but not me" \--
it's a play on principles rising above the temptation for personal gain in
order to achieve reform. Aside from being untrue, we've actually seen how this
plays out.

Many of the far-right members in the House of Representatives that identify
with the Tea Party are also highly principled. Listen to their campaigns and
you'll hear how they'll "fix Washington" and such. One may or may not agree
with those principles, but many of those members are steadfast in their
beliefs, and govern based on those beliefs.

And what has been accomplished? To quote Admiral Stockdale - Gridlock!

Reform will never happen with a single leader. It will take the right people
in all levels of government to make it happen.

------
blazespin
The way to create "equality" is via the libertarian movement. Get rid of the
rules and social safety nets. Hell, let all the immigrants in! If we have a
truly libertarian society, than it won't be a problem. Giving government the
power to chose who is rich and who is poor is not going to create 'equality'
(whatever that means), it's just going to give the government the ability to
handicap the able and enable the disabled.

That being said, I don't believe 'equality' is what we need. What we need it
is a society that rewards those who teach, learn and work for the good of the
community with security and dignity.

------
PythonicAlpha
Larry Lessig definitively has my vote.

It is just inconvenient, that I am not an US-American. But if he would run for
election in my country, I would give him my vote.

The reason: He really takes democracy seriously -- some thing, that I would
not attest to most people in our government -- and definitively not to the
leading politicians of most political parties in my country.

That is the reason, I fear that democracy is bound to fail -- and to be
replaced by corporate ruling (in fact, we are already at this point, where
corporations have much more power than politicians or voters).

------
ddw
Lessig seems to be too in love with the idea to the point that he doesn't
realize that the execution is what matters.

He would've been better off organizing people to get one or more of the legit
Dem candidates to promise to work on this reform if elected.

This also assumes that the president has enough influence to get meaningful
reform passed which isn't a reality with the current Congress.

------
morgante
> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others.

Not really. Now he's just yet another candidate who has an issue they talk
about more than the others. For Trump, it's immigration. For Sanders, it's
wealth inequality.

Except he's a fringe candidate talking about an abstract issue which most
people don't actually care about that much.

------
Bud
Lessig should do something useful and realistic, instead of this grandstanding
and pretending that he can go from zero-to-President in 2.4 seconds as if
politics were some sort of Tesla. It's embarrassing.

To wit: he should run for the House, or Senate, or he should support
candidates who are in favor of overturning Citizens United (i.e., Democrats).

~~~
zeckalpha
Uh, the PAC he started does the candidate support, but he can't be associated
with it while running as president.

~~~
Bud
Great. I agree with that, of course. And perhaps if he wasn't wasting millions
of dollars of donor money on running for President, his PAC could do more
good.

What if Lessig actually won? It wouldn't matter _at all_. You think the
Republican Congress is going to pass sweeping campaign finance reform? Jesus
Christ could return and be President and he wouldn't be able to make that
happen, either. Lessig surely understands our system well enough to know this.
So why is he doing this very expensive pretending that him being President
will cause any change? If a Democrat in the White House could magically fix
this, Obama would fix it right now.

~~~
zeckalpha
What would he need congress for? Some people run _just_ to change the
conversation, not to win.

~~~
hga
In fact, that's been a successful third party tactic in times past: get
successful enough and one or the other major parties will absorb it and much
of its platform.

------
jensen123
Let's say that Larry Lessig succeeds. What would happen then? Would it be
primarily journalists who would influence the government then, rather than
corporations and rich people? Journalists tend to be left-leaning. The left is
probably better on some issues, such as the environment, however, they aren't
always so good for the economy and entrepreneurs. Personally, I'm really not
sure whether the US would be a better or worse place without money in
politics.

------
kakakaren
I think many agree with Lessig's policies. But I have serious doubts he wants
to get money out of politics. If his voting history's any indication, he wants
the money in politics to be from a wider range of the population.

[http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-
lawren...](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawrence-
democrats-debate-2016-213215)

------
lorddoig
> America gave birth to the idea of representative democracy

And here was me thinking that was the Greeks. Thousands of years before
America existed.

~~~
caf
I believe the Athenians practiced direct democracy rather than representative.

------
deckar01
I first gained interest in Lessig when he offered a poll to vote for his vice
president (who takes over when he steps down).

[https://lessig2016.us/vote4vp/](https://lessig2016.us/vote4vp/)

I just love the idea of Neil deGrasse Tyson being president.

------
Ankaios
Thank you, Mr. Lessig.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10138724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10138724)

------
jlebar
I largely agree with Lessig's point about our campaign finance laws being the
root of all evil, and I think he's spoken rather intelligently about this in
the past. But I'm frankly amazed at how earnestly he speaks about his
"discovery" that "elect me, an outsider, to fix Congress" polls so well.

I mean, this is not a novel talking point. Does it really take an expert
pollster to tell you that people like this message?

------
EGreg
Oh boy. Looks like he'll have to show he can be president to get his reform
passed... and otherwise his campaign hit a wall, what a surprise. My response:
[http://magarshak.com/blog/](http://magarshak.com/blog/)

~~~
chillwaves
response to your response: it's a good idea but would there be margin of
error? Would have to be. And how could you do a recount on close issues?

What makes more sense is to allow online voting (with appropriate safeguards)
and then restructure the process so the votes actually mean something, i.e.
break the two party system as a start.

~~~
EGreg
Well, that's the Buridan's ass problem. You simply don't change course unless
the majority is large enough. For example unless clearly over 80% of the
country votes a certain way, you keep the status quo. If you are unsure, you
keep the status quo.

In the Buridan's problem the solution is a timeout: if you haven't made a
decision and can clearly see that the timeout has passed, you pick a certain
predetermined decision (in this case the status quo).

Polling also prevents sybil attacks, ballot stuffing etc. and is impervious to
voter turnouts.

------
LeicaLatte
Sounds super confusing

