
Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday - nathanh
http://blog.nahurst.com/dont-re-elect-sopa-supporters
======
tptacek
So, for instance, if you live in Minnesota, this page thinks you should vote
for Kurt Bills instead of returning Amy Klobuchar to the Senate, because
voting against someone who supported SOPA makes it sensible to vote for
someone who supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and
who believes we should consider unborn fetuses "persons" and thus ban not only
abortion but also stem cell research.

Asinine.

The objections on this thread blow my mind. "But but but what if their
opponent also supports SOPA?" How about first you make sure your "alternative"
candidate doesn't think we should nuke Mecca? Jiminy Christmas, if you don't
already know why you support your Senate and Congressional candidates and
can't be bothered to go look up their positions on real issues, please stay
the hell away from the voting booth.

~~~
notatoad
I agree with what you're saying, but I think more important than any issue is
sending the message to politicians that if they do stupid things, they don't
get to stay in office. Get rid of the moron who voted for SOPA, and vote in
the moron who hates women. Then, two years later, vote him out. He won't have
had a chance to do any damage yet, and we'll have sent the message to
Minnesota politicians that neither of their positions were tolerable.

(disclaimer: i do not live in the US, and i don't vote in elections in my home
country. i'm just talking out of my ass here)

~~~
rhizome
This is a great point that I have been struggling with for some months now:
"change" is a perfectly valid vote. In software development terms, it's
reasonable to think the government is suffering from a lack of iteration.

~~~
scarmig
Eh, I think that analogy falls flat. Both sides want "change," and both sides
broadly want change taken from their respective playbooks in the 2000s, the
1990s, and even the 1980s.

What makes politics difficult isn't that people don't want to iterate on
government, but that people have radically different product visions. One
wants to make an enterprise CRM, and the other wants to make a microblogging
site for cats. That naturally leads to massive dysfunction, as you end up
somewhere in the middle and people cynically playing _cough_ politics for
internal advancement since everyone's stuck in the same place with no hope for
real vision or resolution.

~~~
rhizome
We don't know what "people" want, but I do think that to whatever degree we
can find such things out, we probably have a higher degree of confidence that
the _government_ doesn't want to iterate on the _people_ who comprise it. The
revolving door is a highly-valued feature in DC. That's what voting against
incumbents threatens.

~~~
anigbrowl
That might make sense if we didn't have such a divided government.

~~~
rhizome
Such division is a symptom of the status quo. Change the people and you
introduce more noise into the system and divisions break down.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm not sure that your conclusion necessarily follows from your premise. We
got a bunch of new people (mainly tea Party types) at the last Congressional
election and if anything they've been more obstructive than the 111th
Congress.

~~~
rhizome
It may take more than one election cycle.

------
theevocater
If you are in CA, I'm not sure that voting against Feinstein will help you.
Emken doesn't seem to have many real positions and her website is lacking in
any real substance of her stance on issues. She has a lot of platitudes but it
seems she basically just supports the straight Romney line with "repeal
healthcare" "job creators" and other nonsense.

More importantly voting on a _single_ issue that never even passed is dumb.
Congress people tend to be older folks who don't know much about tech anyway.
Supporting the bill should not be this poison pill. In fact, if anything,
supporting it and then pulling support once they learned of the opposition
should be celebrated as a successful execution of American politics.

Anyway: educate yourselves.

[http://vote-ca.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=ca&id=caem...](http://vote-
ca.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=ca&id=caemkenelizabeth&issue=busbusiness)

<http://www.emken2012.com/inner.asp?z=5E5A585B>

<http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/>

~~~
jredwards
For what it's worth, I wrote a letter to Feinstein protesting her support of
SOPA/PIPA, and the form letter her office sent back to me made it quite clear
that neither she nor anyone in her office actually understood the issue or the
consequences.

I don't know that I'll be voting for her opponent, and I don't think she has
any chance of losing, but the fact that she could be such a strong proponent
(she co-sponsored Protect-IP) of a law that she so clearly did not understand
has put me off the idea of ever voting for her again.

~~~
theevocater
It is likely that she/her office felt that they did understand the issue. Most
people are not tech people and her only inputs were probably
executives/lobbyists looking to strengthen copyright. I'm all for lobbying to
make sure more congresspeople know what the issues are but writing off
candidates because of _one_ issue is really silly.

~~~
jredwards
When a legislator sponsors legislation she doesn't understand, there's a
failure somewhere. Regardless of where that failure comes from, I feel
comfortable saying that legislator has made a fairly grievous error.

I didn't mean to imply that I'm entirely a single-issue voter, merely that I'm
upset enough by that error to avoid that politician. Perhaps I'd consider
differently if I thought the outcome of this election were in doubt or that my
single vote was significant enough to matter. As it is, I tend to regard
voting as an exercise in personal satisfaction more than an act which carries
weight.

~~~
theevocater
All I was trying to point out is that she probably feels that she "understands
the issue". A good lobbyist can spin a great tale of woe for how our system is
protecting artists or how patents will help with innovation or what not.
Lobbying from tech industry folks is still in a nascent, very naive stage. It
isn't entirely fair to let it slide, but I think its silly to dismiss someone
who likely hasn't had an even education on a complex and somewhat novel topic.

 _minor edit for clarity_

~~~
jredwards
That may be the case, but it's still a mistake on her part if she feels that
way. It's her job to understand the issues she votes on, let alone the bills
she sponsors. "I didn't seek out any source of information beyond the
lobbyists dumping money into my re-election campaign" is hardly a good excuse.

~~~
krichman
I could not agree with this more. Whether they support such obviously awful
legislation due to malice or ignorance is irrelevant, they are still not doing
their jobs correctly.

------
ssharp
I think it's irresponsible to say "don't vote for this incumbent because
he/she supported SOPA" without offering any explanation on the alternative
candidates' positions on SOPA. It seems probable that some portion of the
opponents might also support SOPA-like legislature.

~~~
mtgx
Real facts and actions are better than a theory that another one might do it,
too. You need to take that into consideration, too, but at the end of the day
one actually voted for SOPA, and another hasn't (at least yet). To me the
option is clear.

~~~
ssharp
I guess it's clear if your voting entirely on one issue, which is what the OP
is about.

For me, the alternative is a Republican candidate, who if he wins, has the
potential to change the majority of the Senate, and has taken positions I do
not agree with, including reproductive rights, marriage equality, energy and
global warming.

I don't agree with SOPA at all but I feel like it's something that would
actually be debated. These other issues are so polarizing that it becomes
majority rule and to me, that makes them more important.

Regardless, it's good to be educated about your candidates.

------
hypersoar
In California, he hasn't taken into account redistricting. If you live in the
the new 30th district, your choices are Brad Sherman and Howard Berman - both
on this list. There are a lot of people involved in the entertainment industry
around there (it's in the San Fernando Valley), so it might be impossible to
elect someone not beholden to it.

(I know this because I used to live in Brad Sherman's district. I never
expected that area to have a competitive congressional race, and now it's the
site of one of the most expensive, bewildering, and viciously competitive
races in the country.)

~~~
wonderyak
I currently live in this district and the amout of political ads coming
through my mail are INSANE.

There is almost no right choice here.

------
pooriaazimi
But what if they're _excellent_ (in your opinion) in every other aspect? If
you agree with them on 20 issues, and disagree on 2, it's better (and IMO,
you're being much more responsible) to vote for a pro-SOPA than to vote for
someone who's against SOPA _but_ is a complete bozo.

I think you should not decide for/against someone _just_ because you
agree/disagree strongly with one of their ideas.

(Note: I'm not in the U.S. and like others disagree with SOPA)

------
sneak
Fuck that, don't re-elect PATRIOT Act supporters. SOPA pales in comparison to
losing one's basic human rights.

(Hint: Obama renewed Bush's PATRIOT Act when it was due to sunset.)

The seemingly commonplace idea that popular american liberals are somehow less
evil than the GOP is dangerous poison.

PS: inb4 instant-runoff voting

~~~
thebooktocome
I think it's safe to say that there is no plausible electoral outcome that
ends with the new President working to repeal the PATRIOT act.

~~~
sneak
Then those of us that consider living somewhere with basic human rights
important have exactly two (2) options:

\- Take up arms in violent revolution to restore due process,

\- or, -

\- Flee the country and take one's productive energies and output to a place
that has the rule of law.

I abhor violence in all nonconsensual forms. This summer will be five years
since I left job, family, friends, native language, and significant other
behind in what was easily the most difficult and taxing decision I have ever
made in my life.

There are no other reasonable options now but to flee. To remain and to
contribute in light of these facts is to support and enable this course of
events. Don't be evil.

~~~
slurgfest
You don't start a post by earnestly attempting to foment violent revolution,
and end it by saying "don't be evil."

If you had ever looked into what tends to happen in a violent revolution, you
would have found that due process is not a significant part of it, and the end
result is often a dictatorship, theocracy, etc.

There is no reason to suppose that the lawless violence you advocate will
ultimately result in any improvement, for anyone except 'the party' which wins
the revolution.

~~~
sneak
Perhaps I was unclear or ambiguous.

I only mentioned it first to underscore how unreasonable and detestable it is
- that is, not an option at all.

The ONLY reasonable option, given the facts, is to leave.

------
gyardley
Are there any districts on this list that are remotely competitive? I'm
sympathetic, but I really don't understand why people bother attacking
entrenched politicians in non-competitive districts when they should be
identifying more competitive races and directing resources there.

A case in point: TX-21, the district I live in, which is on this list. Rep.
Lamar Smith will be re-elected. There is simply no chance of any other result.
That didn't stop anti-SOPA campaigners, primarily from Reddit, from sinking
tens of thousands of dollars into a challenger in the Republican primary - a
challenger who didn't manage to get 15% of the vote. They might as well have
lit the money on fire.

------
btipling
I think this article might have made more sense during the primaries. I'm not
happy with Feinstein supporting SOPA, but I'm not going to vote for her
conservative opponent who probably also would have supported SOPA.

------
Nursie
This just highlights the main problem with representative democracy as I see
it.

I don't care who represents me. I'm not interested in their personality or
values, I couldn't give a fig if they're black/white, male/female,
gay/straight, republican/democrat/whatever. I care about issues and how they
get addressed in legislation.

So what do I do when I'm presented with someone who is pro-SOPA on one side
(but also pro a bunch of stuff I like) and someone who is anti-SOPA but pro a
bunch of other things I consider abhorrent?

Politics of party and politics or the personality-cult need to end.

~~~
anigbrowl
Use money. If a politician is pissing you off on some issue, write and say
'I've donated to your opponent'. Unlike voting, donations are recorded and
public information, so if you donate $50 to Party B, (even though you support
party A at heart), then the Party A candidate has to raise an extra $50 at the
next election. You can always donate to Party A closer to the election if you
want to even things out, but donating between cycles is a very powerful way of
sending a message. Alternatively, support a primary challenger. Money talks.
Is this institutionalized corruption? Sort of, but I'm not sure it's something
you can ever legislate away.

If you don't want to spend money, you can also change your party registration.
Also, write letters on actual paper. They have to be opened and filed, and
have considerably more impact than phone calls, faxes, or emails. Or write an
op-ed explaining why a politician's vote on some topic is wrong.

~~~
Nursie
I agree with you from the pragmatic viewpoint, what can we do now, but you're
proposing a workaround to a system that (IMHO) addresses the wrong problem and
is fundamentally broken.

Maybe it addresses an old problem from before the information age, maybe at
that point your best hope was to send someone off to represent you, someone
whom you felt was in tune with your community and would do what they did with
a deep understanding of who you were. Perhaps this was necessary because you
couldn't hope to keep up with the news or the unfolding of events in a timely
fashion.

Now this is no use to anyone, every candidate is a mess of good and bad, I
want my voice to be heard on the things I believe in, not just on voting in
some asshole who happens to be slightly better than some other asshole.
Because the first asshole takes your vote as a mandate to pursue their full
'platform', regardless of the fact that most people voted for them simply
because they had one less repellent, abhorrent policy on their manifesto.

Swiss style democracy should be spread around the world.

~~~
anigbrowl
Tha's very idealistic and I'd like to agree, but the thing is you're one voter
among millions - tends of millions, if you're electing a Senator in CA.
There's a whole string of reforms I'd like to see (beginning with Senate
representation) but realistically that requires redrafting the constitution,
which isn't happening soon (although it's not as remote a possibility as you
may imagine).

But all that said, money does talk and it's the best way to move the needle on
a single issue - directly to the candidate if you can do it in quantity, via
lobbying organization (eg the EFF) if you can't.

------
jacoblyles
A little bit late on this one. If the internet freedom coalition wants to be
effective they need to take a clue on grass roots organizing from the Tea
Party and target the primaries. There you need far fewer votes to be
effective. And you can recruit someone who you know is good on the issue.

~~~
jacoblyles
On that note - if anyone is interested in supporting an Internet Freedom PAC
that targets the primaries of both parties, please contact me.

------
antidoh
For those who react to not voting for A, because B is worse in some way, there
is an alternative: vote 3rd party. Any party, it doesn't matter. You're voting
for a message, not a result.

~~~
masterzora
If you want to send a proper message, vote Libertarian. Not because you agree
with them (I personally abhor the party) but because it is the largest third
party in the US. Your vote won't have an impact on the outcome of this
election but it's your best chance for actually having impact since a
sufficient number of votes for a third party can affect visibility and
funding.

~~~
antidoh
It really doesn't matter which 3rd party you vote for, so vote for whichever
one you abhor less or like more.

The main thing is that you're entering a vote that isn't being counted in the
Dem or Rep column.

If you don't vote then it doesn't count against the Dems or Reps at all.

Vote whichever 3rd party is easiest on your conscience, and you'll be voting
against both parties that can't responsibly work together at the moment.

~~~
masterzora
Scattered votes will have very little impact. The most impact we can have as
voters in locked states is in concentrating on one party to boost for now.
Party status and funding is based in part on percentage of the popular vote,
so concentration is necessary for that visibility. While I wish it were more
viable to vote in a manner I abhor less, I recognise it would be a better bet
to shine light on the viability of third parties by bolstering one first.

------
zzzeek
The bigger picture around SOPA is the attitude that large corporations are to
be blindly trusted and given ever more power over individuals. No trend pushes
this agenda more than privatization. SOPA has its roots in the privatization
agenda (see [http://torrentfreak.com/the-privatization-of-copyright-
lawma...](http://torrentfreak.com/the-privatization-of-copyright-
lawmaking-111112/)), which I would argue is more of a "big picture" issue
where there's a clear ideological difference between Democrats and
Republicans. Voting against Democrats, who are at least very skeptical if not
opposed to privatization in many cases, in favor of Republicans who are
usually 100% pro-privatization in almost all cases, who would also have the
same or worse position on SOPA, is at best very ignorant.

------
givan
I think that there is a big problem with having so few candidates, even for
the president there are only two candidates.

This is a very big problem if one supports acta and the other one supports
baning abortions or something like it, choose the smaller evil? this is
stupid, the system must be changed.

~~~
alexPetrov
Except there wasn't two candidates. At the end there's two candidates, and
there's good reason for it. Put in more and you have problems with splitting
the vote.

If you want more options, vote during primaries. For long-term change, vote
and push third-parties. Nationally, this punishes the two main parties for not
representing you properly (and thus losing their vote to someone who does),
and locally they actually have a chance to be elected.

------
GotAnyMegadeth
perhaps this should be "Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday, but make
sure you vote for an alternative."

------
stretchwithme
I for many important things and against others, but one cannot vote on just a
few issues the way our system works.

We wouldn't to sacrifice some things for other things if we could be
represented by a person of our choosing. And, no, I don't mean choosing
between two choices someone else picked.

When you're influence gets watered down and distorted, that means other people
are getting more than their fair share of the power.

And no you know how banking works.

------
zhemao
The problem with this is, how can we be sure that their opponents won't also
vote for such legislation if they get into office?

~~~
ajross
We don't, obviously. And in most cases positions on bills like this are a
function of geography more than politics -- if a bill is desired by local
lobbyists the local representatives are going to support it. This is the
problem with single-issue voting in a two party system; it simply doesn't work
the way you want it to except in very limited ways:

SOPA died because its proponents wanted to avoid the controversy that was
growing over it and dropped it, seeing litle upside. _That_ is the way single-
issue politics works in the US system. And the system worked, and the bill
isn't law. Trying to prolong the fight at the ballot box does nothing more
than make you enemies among the supporters of _basically every other single-
issue subject_ in american politics.

A really important related point is that not all issues are like this. A vote
at the ballot box isn't going to do anything about SOPA or follow-on bills,
but it _is_ likely to have effects on future tax and health care policy, court
appointments (hint: which party's judicial appointments are most friendly to
heavy-handed internet regulation?), and (in the executive branch) the choice
to engage in wars of aggression.

Don't fool yourself into being a single-issue voter. This isn't a
parliamentary system.

------
verysquishy
How about this Indiegogo to educate Congress: <http://www.indiegogo.com/tech-
literacy>

