
Hackerly proposals for fixing U.S. politics (compiled by Lessig) - leot
http://bostonreview.net/BR35.5/lessig.php
======
davekinkead
TL;DR The problem wont fix its self. The system will prevent solutions that
limit it. Nothing will change until you do something. That something needs to
be withing the current rules of the game.

What I find most amazing about any analysis piece on the problems of democracy
and what to do about it is that they are almost always self-defeating. By
this, I mean the very proposal to solve the problem prevents the problem from
being solved.

The article is correct about what (one of) the problem is. Institutional
corruption is analogous to the principal-agent problem except the issue is the
asymmetry influence, not information.

But suggesting that the existing 'system' recognise the problem and then take
action against itself is pure naivety. If politicians, those empowered by us
to represent us, are being corrupted by special interest enough not to
represent our interests, then those same special interests are going to ensure
that measures to restrict their influence are thwarted. The system can't be
changed from the outside without revolution, and revolution won't happen until
things get really bad (and then generally turn out just as bad later)

The problem of special interest can only occur when the net benefits (expected
outcome - cost of lobbying) for special interest groups exceed the net costs
for individuals to fight it. Sadly, the benefit to the few is great and
despite a net social cost, spread amongst the population the cost to the many
is little.

The only way to solve the problem is to do so in a way that doesn't change the
system. One way of doing this (and the only viable option I can think of) is
to form a non-partisan political party who's only policy is to do what the
electorate tells it. The candidate signs a legally binding contract to vote
according to the will of their electorate and some kind of public/electronic
forum allows issues to be discussed and voted. As long as everything is
sailing along nicely, you wouldn't have to have any involvement if you didn't
want. But, if a bad law is proposed (SOPA comes to mind), then there is no way
it could pass if the majority was against it.

I'm sure that there will be opposition to this - it is devolving power to the
populous and making politicians simple spokespeople, not deciders of the
public will - but isn't this what #occupy needs? A way to use the existing
system to devolve power to the 99% (well actually to the 100%).

~~~
leot
The players within a game can be acting in a way they find distasteful, but
which is nonetheless required of them by the rules. Students can be compelled
to cheat if they perceive that it is widespread. Professors inflate their
grades so their students are not disadvantaged upon graduation. Journalists
"dumb down" their writing in order to better compete. Cyclists take dangerous
drugs in order to stand a chance of winning against others they believe to be
doing so as well.

In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to
agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair"
advantage.

It's my personal opinion that most people in D.C. are fundamentally smart and
good-hearted. Unfortunately, the euphemisms of spin constitute their thought
processes. This, organized by the corrupting influence of money, has led in
aggregate to delusion and dependency.

Rules-changing legislation is, hopefully, possible -- though perhaps only
after beltway-types can be freed from self-deception.

~~~
davekinkead
'In these tragedy-of-the-commons types of scenarios, all can be willing to
agree to a change of the rules, so long as no actor gains immediate "unfair"
advantage.'

That, sadly, is why I am so pessimistic about political change via the current
advocacy model. Tragedy of the common's type situations can often be avoided
if enough players can agree to a some convention or code of behaviour. The
problem with special interest in politics is that even if every politician
could agree that the current way the game is played is destructive, special
interest would actively work against reform.

Change under the current system is reliant on the altruism of those in power
to limit that power.

~~~
shasta
I don't think change is impossible in our current system of government. The
idea just needs to spread that reform is more important than how that reform
is perceived to affect any pet political issue, because it will improve the
outcome of every other issue. I don't sense much momentum behind that meme,
though.

------
protomyth
I'm fine with banning corporate money in politics as long as all groups are
banned from giving money (e.g. unions). U.S. Citizens should be able to
contribute individually in a non-tax deductible manner as they want to a
candidate directly or a registered political party, but no other group or
person. The obvious exception would be the political parties themselves (new
tax status or maybe it exists now).

I would also like all public money pulled. We have a budget crisis and need to
stop all non-essential spending. If you cannot convince people to give you
money then you are not going to convince anyone to vote for you either.

~~~
TomOfTTB
I don't think this is practical. So say your friendly neighborhood oil company
sends a memo out to its employees saying "We need to drill in the [Insert
National Park] to stay in business. So if you want to keep your job you need
to send money to politicians that will allow us to drill in [Insert National
Park]"

If that statement is true and the company would really go out of business than
it isn't coercion. But the end result is the same as you have now.

The same is true for Unions just substitute "You have to elect this person or
they'll gut your social security and take away your pension" in place of
drilling.

~~~
protomyth
There are actually laws about the corporation doing that exact thing already.
Unions are a little trickery because they do use member money to do such
things, but the principal is the same. Lock a few executives up when they pull
this stunt and reward the whistleblower.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Look at the flip side: consider all the companies standing against SOPA/PIPA
right now. Do you want to prevent them from even drawing attention to the
issue? Do you want to prevent employees from taking any steps at all to raise
awareness among like-minded people, many of which might work at the same
company?

~~~
protomyth
yes, yes I do - the media companies caused the law in the first place -
individuals raised the defense

------
extension
Seems to me that as long as votes are for sale, somebody will buy them, and
the system will be corrupt. The only real solution, and it's not an easy one,
is that voters have stop being so easily influenced. They need to become
critical thinkers that actively research their opinions. All the ingredients
are in place for this to happen, but it's going to take at least a generation
to catch on.

------
ori_b
Public money for public office.

Although the logistics are hairy to work out, I think that the most important
reform that could be made would be banning private contributions to campaigns
entirely, and making every candidate equally funded through tax funds.

Every candidate should have an equal voice, and should not have to sell their
souls or pander to large donors in order to be competitive in their campaign.

~~~
JoshTriplett
This fundamentally can't work. If you don't establish viability standards for
who gets a tax-funded campaign, you get a pile of people just in it for the
money, as well as a pile of people just in it for the lulz. If you _do_
establish viability standards for who gets a tax-funded campaign, you entrench
the established political parties, because previous funded campaigns help
ensure future viability and future funding.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with private contributions to campaigns, as
long as those contributions can never end up in the candidate's pocket (rather
than spent on campaigning), and as long as they have no influence on the
candidate's decisions (past or future). The logistics of _that_ remain hairy
to work out as well, but complete and total transparency seems like the right
approach.

Personally, if I ran a campaign, I'd accept all contributions anonymously, to
avoid any inadvertent bias or even the appearance of bias.

~~~
ori_b
> _If you don't establish viability standards for who gets a tax-funded
> campaign, you get a pile of people just in it for the money, as well as a
> pile of people just in it for the lulz. If you do establish viability
> standards for who gets a tax-funded campaign, you entrench the established
> political parties, because previous funded campaigns help ensure future
> viability and future funding._

How is this different from donation-funded campaigns? Visibility always
increases your shot at future visibility.

Public funding prevents the visibility from compounding. If you manage to get
enough endorsements to be funded at all (for example), your voice is just as
well funded as the incumbent who, under the private funding model, is in a
position to attract all the funding.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Donation-funded campaigns get funded by people who agree with them. Publically
funded campaigns force people to pay for political campaigns they disagree
with.

Many people participate in Kickstarter to fund ideas they want to support;
imagine if _all_ projects on Kickstarter received mandatory funding,
regardless of usefulness, viability, or the number of people who want the
result. The whole thing falls apart.

~~~
ori_b
> _Donation-funded campaigns get funded by people who agree with them._

Donation funded campaigns make it extremely difficult for new candidates from
being judged on their merits.

> _imagine if all projects on Kickstarter received mandatory funding_

Bad analogy. Imagine if they all got equal opportunity advertising in order
for people to decide their viability for themselves. Imagine if I had a way of
hearing about all the great, viable, useful kickstarter projects that would
get swept under the rug because they didn't have the right connections to
promotion. Imagine if the old, established kickstarter projects didn't have
the ability to browbeat me because they have more money for ads.

~~~
JoshTriplett
>> Donation-funded campaigns get funded by people who agree with them.
>Donation funded campaigns make it extremely difficult for new candidates from
being judged on their merits.

New candidates will fundamentally always have a problem drawing attention, and
in fairness they ought to have to work at drawing attention. An awesome
candidate shouldn't have any trouble building up grassroots support at a
reasonable pace.

What happens if every random person who has ever said "if I were President"
could run without putting much effort into it? We already get a barrage of
advertisements around election time with just the candidates we have right
now; how exactly do you expect to provide an equal footing for a thousand, or
ten thousand? _Running should require a lot of work._ I want to remove the
biases _against_ new, independent, and third-party candidates, but that
doesn't mean it needs to become trivial to get a pile of "free money" and run.

> Imagine if they all got equal opportunity advertising in order for people to
> decide their viability for themselves. Imagine if I had a way of hearing
> about all the great, viable, useful kickstarter projects that would get
> swept under the rug because they didn't have the right connections to
> promotion.

No sensible system exists for that to happen. Too many Kickstarter projects
exist for equal advertising to have any useful impact. If you want to get
noticed, _get yourself noticed_. Yes, that makes Kickstarter as much about
publicity as about awesome tech; the same problem happens with startups to an
even greater degree. Great ideas will always generate noise, but they still
need help from people who know more than just how to have great ideas.

Kickstarter, to me, seems as fair as anyone could hope for. No entrenched
candidates, no political parties, no free funding, just a pile of projects
trying to look the most awesome and draw the most attention.

------
jxcole
Money is not speech.

If money were speech, then the government forcing me to pay taxes would be a
violation of the first amendment.

If money were speech, the government telling me not to give money to
terrorists would be a violation of the first amendment.

The supreme court justices are idiots. Plain and simple.

~~~
TomOfTTB
Honestly, if you think something this complex is simple and the people who
disagree with you are idiots than it's probably you who is acting like an
idiot.

To give just one flaw in your logic. Protesting is speech. If I work I can't
protest. But I do get money for my work. If I were to pay someone to protest
for me I would be using my money to exercise my right of free speech. So in
that case money is speech.

The issue is in money inequality. If I'm paid $1,000 an hour than my money can
buy more speech than the person who goes out and protests. If our society
values every person's free speech equally then we need to find a way to deal
with that inequality.

THAT is the issue and that's a lot more complicated issue.

------
moldbug
tldr: You might as well try to "fix" VMS.

I find it a little difficult to think seriously about "fixing democracy" when
on the same day I see something like this:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/free-the-fda.html>

"The precedent risks placing the real power for drug approval not just with a
cabinet secretary, but with the White House itself. The only solution, then,
is to make the F.D.A. truly independent."

In other words, it's an essential aspect of American democracy that your
elected officials have no actual power at all. Presumably Prof. Lessig reads
the NYT?

Because frankly, if elected politicians have no actual authority, and this is
a feature rather than a bug - I'm struggling to figure out why we should care
so much whether or not they're on all on the take.

I'm not disputing that they're all on the take. The worst part is that if you
make a political office symbolic in reality, its professional occupants
rapidly grow entirely incapable of exercising actual power and become,
basically, actors - worthless celebrities. You're selecting for Rick Perry and
you'll get Rick Perry.

