Hacker News Reader

Comment by Loughla | Hacker News Reader

Here's a non-snarky question.

What can we do about this? I've seen coverage about all of this, and the question I'm hearing across everyone I know is - what can we do?

Any thoughts?

View on HN

It's a real problem, but not as bad as people think. The current US presidential election has seen several massively financed candidates get nearly nothing for their money. Trump and Cruz spent relatively nothing in the early parts of the election compared to Jeb Bush who spent 10's of millions.

Hillary dwarfs Bernie's fundraising, yet is remaining highly competitive. About as competitive as one would believe if they had the same finances.

People don't like to admit it, but representatives are usually pretty popular locally even if highly detested elsewhere. The US Congress's ~10% approval rating is only possible because local representatives maintain ~>50% approval ratings.

I believe the real problem is that people don't actually know what their representatives are doing. If people understood the level to which health care insurance companies were allowed to influence the ACA, I doubt a single supporter would survive reelection. Health insurance companies writing health care reform bills is pretty much the definition of evil in the US.

It has a more significant effect on the smaller elections. When people are distracted by the presidential contests they forget that Joe Shmo stands no chance against the guy with all the rich friends. He can't buy local ads or get his name on all the billboards.

That and once the tentacles are very cheaply put in on a tiny local race, then a city council seat, then state legislature, then....

Smaller sums of money go a long way in smaller races but you can spread your bets widely enough and buy quite a bit of loyalty in the process.

I always hear this goal-post moving argument when people point out that Presidential candidates who received large sums of money have since dropped out of the race, but never is any evidence to support that claim provided. Can you provide a few reputable, non-bias sources that prove this cause-and-effect you're claiming exists?

I don't think it's so much goal post moving as a lot of us never claimed it buys elections. My assertion has always been that generally speaking if you want to be competitive politically you need to scratch the backs of elites to get the proper funding to be relevant in elections. It's not an absolute, rather that there is excessive corporate influence that undermines the political process

A couple of studies from Princeton https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf

A biased write up on some of the findings, along with references to other sources at the end

https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/

I'm pretty sure everyone who wants campaign finance reform claims that money buys elections, unless a situation doesn't fit that narrative in which case the goal posts are shifted or moved. I'll check out your links though, thanks very much for those.

Do they really maintain ~>50% approval ratings? Or is it just the case that people are basically forced to choose between candidates that have <~10% individual approval rating? Given voter turnout for congressional races I tend towards the latter.

That's an extremely good point. I imagine they usually they usually keep good approval ratings for people who vote. Recently the incumbent senator from my state, who was wildly popular, retired. His replacement was hard core conservative and the election turned into a 3 way to see who could out conservative each other. I wasn't happy, but I think most of the electorate got exactly what they wanted.

Here's a thought - which to many people is a very crazy one. Treat the world as a unified world and economy, instead of having individual nations with separation of certain laws related to finance and human rights. All the nations just become states under a single union, with open trade and a standard on taxation.

Because it is crazy. We can't trust people in power now but the idea of nations wanting to consolidate power even further to a committee of some number (even 101 or even 1001) to rule the ENTIRE world and economy? Won't solve any problems. Now instead of 1%, the rest of the populaces will refer to them at the "Infamous Thousand And One". If countries want to make sure their citizens stop using offshore methods, it should be made law and the market will play out.

Why not get everyone on your block to pool their money and act like a single family? Probably because different people have vastly different ideas, goals, and sensibilities.

One of the lessons that history in the XIX and XX century taught us is that economic competition between states is essential for determining how to best organize societies. A single worldwide ruling hierarchy negates this competition and may hold humanity in a local maximum.

Even today, there are major choices that are different between successful societies, and the definition of what is best is yet to be found. Is it better to have state paid medical care, like in Europe, or private medical care, like in the US? Is it better to have strong unemployment benefits (Sweden, Denmark) or strong worker protection laws (France)? Is pure capitalism (US) better than Social Democracy (EU), or is the better choice Capital Oriented Communism (China)?

The freedom for states to compete fiscally has produced an aberration, though, in the form of offshores. We should work towards severely limiting capital flux between our societies an unregulated tax havens. Without hurting the basic competition principle, though.

Throw the bath water out, keep the baby.

Expose them, vote, protest. Pick one.

Vote Corbyn/Sanders?

We (non 1 Percenters) can also buy political power. Imagine an institution/fond used only for financing ideas that are in the interest of general population. Financing here means buying political power that would make that happen. Institution would need to be fully democratic (maybe direct democracy) so that people that are involved (invested in fond) have a vote and chose in general how money should be spend. More people involved - higher the chance that bigger part of population would benefit.

The non 1 Percenters are already buying political power. The "1 Percenters", which in my mind means the political/corporate insiders, wanted an election between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. They're getting Cruz/Trump (not sure who they want least) and are barely going to get Hillary.

Either way this US presidential season ends, the Republican 1%'ers will be in shambles, with many networks destroyed and political capital all tapped out. The Democrats might remain okay, but there's a huge well of populism on the left just waiting to boil up and completely overwhelm any amount of advertising dollars, as it did on the right.

On a realistic, individual level? Probably not a lot more than talk about it and do a minute part in maintaining awareness. Don't let it get you down. Raise your kids to be aware but not deterred by it.

Levy a tax of 1% on political advertising, distributed to residents in the reception area.

I can't come up with any sollution that does not include explosives.

Try harder.

US independence comes to mind. Too feeble I guess!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com