

Ask HN: Could the HN model help cause an informed citizenry regarding politics? - jplarson

It&#x27;s 4th of July and as I write this it looks like Lessig&#x27;s MayDay PAC[0] is going to fly.  This is an exciting time that has me hopeful for the future of political participation by broader masses, and has me thinking even I could be more engaged than my usual generally voting along party lines for lack of familiarity with candidates (who can be bothered to research them all, right?).<p>Like I imagine for other regulars here, HN has done wonders for connecting me to so much of what&#x27;s going on in the world, at least in the topics carried.  I&#x27;m wondering if some take on the model of crowd-sourced consensus of what&#x27;s true&#x2F;interesting&#x2F;important plus community discussion could cause a genuinely informed (and even engaged) citizenry in politics, just like HN does for tech.<p>A thorough understanding of politics (including a wide range issues, back stories, pro-and-con arguments, voting records, who&#x27;s funded by who, and so on) requires so much sifting and winnowing, and it seems like the views you have are so largely determined by which sources you draw from (for example, I as a Daily Show fan see things way differently from the Fox News watching members of my family).  This makes giving a shit hard, reduces it for many (myself included) to &quot;too much work, can&#x27;t be bothered&quot;.<p>In an age where well-funded PR campaigns can obscure, distort or outright bury the truth, I get excited to think of a source in which truth, thoughtful essays, and important stories bubble up to prominence in the very democratized[1] manner in which they do here on HN.  Doubly so as we enter a mid-term election cycle: to tune into what matters as crowd-chosen by a mindful community who dukes it out in the comment section seems like a much better way to keep informed and play a part.<p>Does anyone feel the same?  Does such a thing exist?  Anyone wanna build it if not? :)<p>[0] https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mayday.us&#x2F;
[1] Read: hard to hijack.
======
Rottweiler
No.

If you (being sufficiently motivated to read here and write this query) are
still voting along party lines, why do you think it would change anything
among your Daily Show / Fox News watching family.

So you make a site, and the first article says this: "Raising the minimum wage
helps working families and is good for the economy." and the second article
says this: "Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs and is bad for the
economy." What, exactly, has been accomplished?

You can go find countless examples of such articles on the 'net already - free
for the reading. And most still vote along party lines.

I frequently read articles that argue a different position than the one I
hold. They're occasionally interesting, but rarely even make me think, much
less change my mind.

If you want to improve politics here in the US, it appears the only solution
is some form of balkanization ... not another useless website.

And even if MayDay PAC does "fly", all that really means is that they got some
crowdsourced money - this does not mean they will have any influence at all on
US elections. Color me skeptical. Perhaps they will, but worrying only about
how campaigns are financed strikes me as rearranging the deck chairs on the
titanic - it's debatable whether that is even in the top ten of our list of
dire problems.

------
PaulHoule
A big part of the problem is the limited choice of issues that come up and how
they are framed.

For instance, "pro-family" organizations oppose abortion, but don't oppose any
of the many social changes that destroy families, such as divorce.

Organized feminism, such as NOW, sticks to "pro-choice" as the only "pro-
women" policy that their members can agree upon.

So long as an irreconcilable issue like this exists, politicians don't need to
talk about anything else.

Republicans back the Keystone XL pipeline because it proves they are "good for
business" and the democrats are not.

Democrats oppose the Keystone XL pipeline because it prove they are "good for
the environment" and the republicans are not.

In reality, either having or not having the Keystone XL pipeline is the end of
the world. But while politicians are pretending it is, they can appear
"legitimate" without having to deliver anything at all in terms of promoting
business or protecting the environment.

