Hacker News Reader

> Another question is...why do we need representatives at the city level? Can we not design a system to allow citizens to govern themselves?

Like what? There are still some cities in the US that are a true democracy. What ends up happening is a bunch of old men show up once a week to make the laws (young and the women are not prohibited, but they rarely show up).

The above is already bad enough, but it gets worse. If you want the city to do something you get a bunch of your friends to show up on the night that will be discussed. That night you dominate the meeting and your issue wins. The next week the old men have to figure out how to pay for it.

A real city console at least has to balance the effects of a tax increase (they might lose their job next election) with the benefits of all their ideas.

The only thing I know of that works is to have such a sparse population that you don't need a government. Of course you also don't have civilization.

We are more connected than ever before in the history of humans. We have technology to confirm one's identity across the communication mediums (peer checking, blockchain, etc.).

Thinking of it like old style town halls are not what I mean. As a new system, where anyone can raise an issue, discuss an issue, and either vote directly or proxy someone they know to vote for them on every issue. (I proxy a teacher that I trust to vote on every education issue in the community). However, if at any time, I can vote for myself. There are no longer representatives, we are all representatives.

However, there will also have to be checks in place to protect the minorities (in a voting sense, not race/religion). As a true democracy can be very dangerous, as the minority is always under represented and ultimately leads to self destruction of the democracy. (...sounds familiar to the situation the US is in? Who will vote out Santa Claus...read, welfare.)

It won't be easy to create. It will probably go through many iterations/pivots/failures, just like anything else that becomes great. But in the end, I think we can get there. Or at least improve the current status quo, which as somebody else mentioned, it's a bad thing to think change is too hard. (Although, more than likely, change will be a generational thing. The people who hold up the current way will have to die and be replaced to someone open to other ideas. Which of course has its pros and cons. We repeat history all the time, despite being well aware of the mistakes of the past.)

Do you have any citations, perhaps a study of what actually happens in some of these cities? My personal experience with direct democracy involving a small community is that while interested groups may show up, they will listen to the other concerned community members who also listen to them, leading to a more compromised and reasonable position.

I'd be curious to find out at what sizes this breaks down.

It's a hairy issue. On one hand, municipalities are purely organs of the state governments. The states should be able to tell them what to do without interference from the federal government.

On the other hand, the whole point of the federal government is to preempt state action when it comes to interstate infrastructure like the Internet and the wires that carry it.

> City councils' are probably the most corrupt governing bodies today.

Spoken like someone who has never interacted with their representatives on their local council.

I know everyone on my council, 5 of one party and 4 of another, 5 men and 4 women, and they do 15-20 hours of work every week for $50/mo. Most of them are retired because they have to be, but my area is mostly older or retired anyway so at least it's representative. The only possible complaint you could have about them is the municipality is 80% black and only 2 of the 9 members of council are, but that's also representative of who actually runs for election.

If they're corrupt, they're doing it wrong.

You can't make a conclusion about the thousands of municipal governments based on your experience with one.

I don't know if I'd single them out as particularly corrupt, but they are very frequently at least one of understaffed, underfunded, incompetant, defunct or corrupt.

Whether the municipal governments fail to protect the interests of their constituents because the officials are in bed with some infrastructure corporation or because they're weak enough to get bullied by the corporation isn't really important to this discussion.

Of course it's important. Governments representing a few thousand or even few hundred people are by definition going to be very weak. For the most part any government below the state level is going to be at least three of "understaffed, underfunded, incompetent, [and/or] defunct." When the pool of people you have to draw from is 1,500 (a small fraction of that being those with the time or inclination to run for office) it's unlikely you're going to pull 7-9 people together who have a passion for local governance and are actually good at it.

I've lived in several areas of my state and have worked with local and county government extensively, and the statement to which I was responding ("City councils' are probably the most corrupt governing bodies today.") is simply not true.

State legislatures are the most corrupt by an impressively wide margin because they're in the sweet spot of plenty of power to cause real damage and not enough real press coverage outside of the political horse race.

Similar feelings.

While the FCC's top-down approach to affecting change here would have probably been the most efficient; realistically, this type of change will probably need to come from the residents of the various states (bottom-up).

I suspect part of the problem is that people don't know that there are state laws, local ordinances and a lot of money changing hands to ensure the monopolistic behavior stays intact. And the reason they don't know is because 1) current options are "good enough" 2) status-quo bias makes us think change is too hard

I live in CT. I have only one option for broadband (which stinks, but its good enough). However, after reading about this FCC judgement... I'm kind of interested to see what effect that would have had in CT and my local town if it had gone through. I suspect its not going to be an easy process to dig this information up. Thoughts on places to start, what to look for?

"Bottoms up" means that municipalities come before states, no? The smallest unit of government first.

But it seems like state gov'ts are blocking municipalities. [0]

[0] State of N. Carolina blocks municipal broadband: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/north-carolina-su...

In this particular context I meant from the people living in the state whom can raise this issue with state and/or local officials where appropriate.

Appreciate the link!

Looks like this is on CT's radar. Neat!

http://www.ct.gov/broadband/cwp/view.asp?a=4696&Q=557304

To say this:

> I agree that the FCC is a federal governmental organisation that should not have precedent over a State's rights. Something which has been abused by the courts for the last 50 or so years.

...and then say this:

> Can you remember a time when you voted that you were familiar with all the candidates for both state and city positions? I know I can't. Not even close. I usually just vote a ticket.

...makes me think you don't really care about states' rights.

Yes, you're right, I basically called out everyone, and then included myself as the problem. Just highlighting the fact that very few people care anymore. It is hard to follow. Keeping track of city, state, and nation wide politics is very difficult. Many times, the local politicians running are very unknown, with no info about them. Then they get into office on city council and there is little transparency into what is going on. Who receives money for what, who gets the contract, etc. And once a city council member is in, as long as there isn't a scandal or huge public outcry in the community, which is also hard to do because back to point A....who can follow politics at every level, the elected member can remain for a long, long time.

It's a very hard problem, one thats solution is hard/unknown and may not even involve election "representatives" (do they REALLY represent you for their entire term? A big check from a corporation is hard to turn down and somehow legal in many cases.)

Honest question from a foreigner with a slightly less federal form of government: Why is the autonomy of the States so worth protecting? It seems like every time I see a state government clash with the federal government, it's always the state trying to protect some backward law. What are the counterpoints...I know they must exist!

> It seems like every time I see a state government clash with the federal government, it's always the state trying to protect some backward law.

For basically every progressive ideal, none of it is pioneered by the federal government.

Gay marriage, legalization of drugs, continuing environmental standards, renewable energy, more sustainable living, and I'm sure many more, are all things that various states pass laws surrounding before the federal government steps in.

Of those you enumerate, however, only drug legalization is an action taken by the state that has needed defending against contrary federal legislation or court action. Unless, on gay marriage, you are referring to the state-level efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage rather than those to allow it.

True, I quoted the wrong part of the OP. It's more about why state autonomy could be seen as worth protecting.

The thing is, none of this is pioneered by the federal government because "it isn't their job/place" because we have the state governments that are supposed to pioneer these things. I don't think that is an argument on it's own. I will add though that I think the smaller state governments add benefit by allowing progressive changes like this to take hold and see how it turns out in a small "experiment".

I think it stems from the formation of our country. Back when the U.S. first formed the states were very much separate from each other and the federal government had very limited powers. Similar to the relationship of Europe and the E.U. However Over time U.S. citizens started to think of themselves as americans first and their state second.

Think about how european citizens feel about the E.U. Today it would be crazy to ask a country like Germany to just roll over to the demands of the E.U. But I'm sure 200 years from now, if the E.U. is still around, that line will be a lot more blurry. This is essentially the position america is in.

Fun fact: At one point U.S. states each had their own currencies

Funner fact: that form of US government (the articles of confederation) collapsed and was replaced by the Constitution we currently follow.

In short, it is to prevent secession and civil wars, and to limit federal power over individuals.

In more depth, the U.S. is vastly more culturally diverse than most other nations. Its history of open immigration means it is now culturally a distorted, but still mostly recognizable, 1:20 model of the rest of the world.

If you ever want to visit India, China, Italy, Greece, Poland, Mexico, Sweden, and Germany in one day, just fly to Chicago and buy a CTA pass.

It is not a one-size-fits-all country. If the state is protecting a law that seems backward to you, it may be because they live on the other side of the looking glass from you. To them, your opinion is backward.

In Wisconsin, you can buy olives, gin, and vermouth in the same store, but only before 9 PM. In North Carolina, you have to buy the olives and vermouth in one store, and the gin from another. Why are the laws different? Because the people who live in those places, on average, prefer it that way.

State autonomy also allows for a limited sort of political experimentation. For instance, North Carolina can experiment with telling transgender people what bathrooms they must use, and Colorado can experiment with legal recreational marijuana. By observing the change in state economics, other states can respond more appropriately to the national zeitgeist. Federally, marijuana is still schedule I, and transgender people are not strongly protected against discrimination, but state autonomy has shown that the feds are wrong about weed, and that people prefer their identity to be something that is declared rather than imposed.

Why are the laws different? Because the people who live in those places, on average, prefer it that way.

I agree that there is value in trying a diversity of approaches, but I'm doubtful that a "will of the people" explanation can explain the state by state differences. Assume two groups of people, one from North Carolina and one from Wisconsin, but somehow we didn't know which group was from which state. In an attempt to determine this, we poll each group with a single written question about how best to regulate the sale of olives.

At what group size are we able to reliably identify which group is which? I'm doubtful that this is possible to do with greater than 90% accuracy at any group size less than the full population of each state. To the extent that it might be possible with lower accuracy, I'd guess it's based on the "status quo" rather than an actual "preference".

For many issues, I think it's likely that the initial decision is essentially random: one merchant convinces one legislator to propose a law. That legislator trades favors with other legislators to get the law passed. With the patina of time, the arbitrary self-interested law becomes associated with prosperity, "strong moral values", and evidence that Our Great State is still in the favor of God.

ps. I'd been meaning to ask you why your moniker is "logfromblammo", but a web search delightfully answered this for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7mNr5WMjA. I'm embarrassed to say that I previously was ignorant of this piece of retail history. Thank you.

In a lot of cases though, states themselves are too diverse and unwieldy to govern as a unitary entity. Texas and Massachusetts may have their differences, but Houston and Austin have much more in common with Boston than with a small town in the Piney Woods. Why shouldn't Houston be free to experiment with legalized marijuana just because the state government won't go along? By that same logic, it is state power over local governments and individuals that needs to be limited and municipal rights that need to be protected.

In my opinion, it is actually in my best interests for any government claiming jurisdiction over my person to have flawed mechanisms for enforcing its will upon me and extracting property from me. I consider that to be an adequate balancing factor for any inefficiencies it may also have in providing services or managing the commons.

Other people may prioritize such things differently.

I'm not arguing against the idea that government needs coercive powers. I'm arguing against the idea that states are the optimal organizational level to have unitary and sovereign governments.

Balance of power. You don't want one entity to get too much power. One can also argue that a state can be a better/closer representative of its people than a distant federal government formed out of many other states which may have different needs from this one state.

One can argue that a municipal government is a better representation of the people in the city (who want broadband) than some distant bureaucrat in the state capital. But this allows state to overrule municipal.

Absolutely. I was just answering parent's question: Why is the autonomy of the States so worth protecting [from federal government]?

Pick a state whose laws, people, and culture you view as being backward, ignorant, or otherwise undesirable. Let’s oversimplify and call it a bad state. The bad state also has some influence over the federal government, exercise of its power, and therefore control of good states.

Should Mississippi rule over California? Should New York rule over Texas? Most will reject at least one of these propositions. Thus, the United States are a system of divided powers.

The US is large enough, and populous enough, and spread across so many climates, that different regions disagree dramatically on how they want to be run and what is important. Sometimes a state wants to do something unconstitutional, but in general state's rights allows people to decide things for their community, without having to answer to strangers they'll never meet, 3,000 miles away.

It is perhaps instructive to note that the US is the 4th largest country by landmass. Canada, 2nd largest, is also a federation. (The other two are Russia and China)

Internet communication is inherently interstate commerce.

I am not familiar with all the many laws surrounding interstate commerce, but the Feds are given oversight of such, in a broad sense.

I'd start there, with respect to the FCC's jurisdiction.

P.S. If you can buy and sell data processing (programming, analysis, etc., etc.) delivered inter-state and via the Internet -- not to mention physical things a la Amazon et al. -- then, from my perspective, you are looking at interstate commerce.

The big, entrenched ISP's make a lot of money participating in this commerce. They don't escape the resulting regulation.

I recently attended a meet-and-greet with a local candidate running for state senate in California. He explained that he would have the freedom to be independent in the legislature and vote based on his convictions, unlike the rest of his compadres.

The reason is that he comes from a wealthy, populous district. It is easy for him to fundraise from liberal constituents. For the rest of the state, he explained, many legislators are forced to fundraise from lobbyists in Sacramento - 90% of their fundraising instead of 10% like him. This results in lobbyists having extreme control over much of the legislature. E.g., the tobacco lobby, which has almost no actual business in California since very little tobacco is grown here, instead has enormous influence because they can easily buy legislators.

States are much less powerful than the federal government. They can be played against each other. The elections and laws are much less closely watched. Individual billionaires can easily control an entire state, where they might struggle on the federal level.

Of course, none of this is terribly different at the federal level either - Congresspeople are pretty cheap, and lobbyists have tons of cash. The American form of government is thoroughly rotten.

----

As for hope, I like: participatory budgeting. I think all municipalities should be using this in some form. This has apparently been used with some success in Porto Alegre, where the basic form is: each neighborhood sends a representative with a project proposal and a request for funds, e.g., we need a library, we need to repair sewer pipes, we need to build a sidewalk, it will cost us $X. Some fraction of the city budget is allocated to be spent on such projects (say, 10% or 20%). All of the neighborhood representatives vote on which proposals should be funded; the funds are used.

The mechanism is simple, extremely democratic, and forces some neighborhood organizing, all of which seem like they would be great things for municipalities.

> On the other, I agree that the FCC is a federal governmental organisation that should not have precedent over a State's rights.

There's a bit of confusion here. This is not as much of a state's rights issue as it is a law vs lack of law issue. The court essentially said "make it a federal law, then that trumps state law...but your whims do not".

While I dislike the outcome, I'm not torn; the decision was absolutely correct. If this is something you want congress to address, contact your congressman.

You are dead on regarding local politics and voting. I have minimal time to research them because I work, etc. I wish there were a good site that let you answer surveys on policy issues and compare local politicians side by side to see who you are best aligned with similar to some of the sites that have done this for the Presidential elections.

I have no idea where to start even researching this stuff in an efficient manner.

In the modern United States, states are a particularly poor level of organization to have a unitary government--it's small enough that regulatory capture is too easy but too large to be responsive to people's concerns. If we want to let lower levels of government to handle more responsibility, then we should go beyond states' rights and make states federal and municipal governments unitary.

So states should be allowed to ban abortion? We've already got precedence of State rights taking a back seat to individuals. I'd argue that in 2016, access to broadband should be a basic human right in a developed nation.