Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

Did you write to your MP?

Did you meet with them?

These things only get fixed when people speak up.

I met with my MP over the weaponization of autonomous systems. I've put a ton of work into understanding where all this is headed. I spoke up[0] at the hearing on electoral reform about the cybersecurity risks of computerized elections, but I'm only one man. I've been able to get some things through, like pressuring the Liberal Government to put up more resources[1] but political will lags public outcry. If you want something changed you can't just complain online in your little bubble.

[0] I was one of only two people that spoke up about it and it was added to the final report. The world is changeable. What it takes is showing up and pushing hard.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-billion-cyber-securi...

View on HN

"Write your representative" is the standard response in the US too, and I'm honestly done with it. I've written many, many letters to senators. I've placed phone calls. I've donated to candidates I support. I've taken a day off work to attend what was supposed to be a town hall but that ended up just being propaganda and thinly veiled hints at donating to related election campaigns, with so little time for public comment that I never got a word in.

And yet I've only ever received token replies and seen zero change. No one I ever really wanted to vote in to a major seat has won. And Congress really can't see what's wrong with the Equifax breach on their own?

Fuck all of them. I've given up on our political system maintaining much more than panem et circenses.

You're not alone friend.

Which is why I say we need a modern voting system. One vote for one person to one candidate creates this pro/anti party system. There are other options to consider, but of course the incumbents would fight it tooth and nail.

I deeply understand your frustration. It takes a lot of work even here in Canada to get political will to take proactive action.

It's only harder in the US. You guys have ten times the people per representative which means political victory is governed by opinion polling and, unfortunately, monied advertising. Citizens United made it ten times worse.

From my vantage point in Toronto, it looks like action towards fixing the political system is the top priority right now. So many things are wrong that it's hard to figure out where to even start.

There will be a breaking point though. As demographics continue to change if the GOP continues to win despite losing the popular vote I can see some sort of general protest or riot forming.

I can't name a single issue that I could give 2 shits about that was different before the GOP won the last election. The Democrat's healthcare plan sent my premiums through the roof, there's still virtually no transparency or accountability in the way billing is done unless I lawyer up, medicinal cannabis is still illegal, and my Facebook feed is still inundated with friends going to GoFundMe for healthcare bills because they still haven't bought insurance as required by law. Still in the middle east too. If that's what the Democrats are so proud of, then fuck popular vote.

There are other problems too. The broken political system changes the character of the people that run. Most first world countries have sane healthcare systems. Most also have saner political systems.

Well, if you only name the things that got worse or haven’t improved of course everything sucks.

I named the biggest achievement I heard cited from Democrats seeking reelection.

I feel the pain and feel similarly. Sorry that we're sharing this space of despair in our political institutions.

The town hall comment jumps out to me. I have this sense that more local communication, or dare I say "organizing" -- not in a politically-specific sense but in a more general "community getting to know each other" sense -- is the way forward.

Has anyone ever participated in a town hall or other forum for communicating with fellow citizens that has gone well? I'm curious to know.

I've also been very active in my local metro district and HOA meetings. Unfortunately, even at that level the company that began developing the neighborhood will hold majority power of the board for, at their current rate of development, the next 40 years. They have attorney's that advise them not to speak with us, and we pay for those attorneys. Currently a large chunk of my property tax is paying interest on the developer's debt. Those meetings go about as well as you think. I've been to town council meetings and informal meet-the-mayor and meet-the-city-councilperson coffee events, and was referred to email their attorney. The only time I've seen my town council get anything done, it was either (a) due to a massive showing by a think-of-the-children type group, or (b) a company with massive pockets.

You're not wrong. A Princeton study found the average voters have almost no impact on policy anymore. However corporations have taken over that position of influence.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

I personally believe it is because politicians have to listen to voter blocks. Since American families and homeowners have fallen to record lows they have no consistent voter base from individuals anymore. Homeowners and Familiy's used to be the two biggest voting blocks. They no longer are; businesses are the only voters that will be guaranteed to stick around until the next election.

>Since American families and homeowners have fallen to record lows they have no consistent voter base from individuals anymore.

No. This is just factually incorrect.

American are moving at historically low levels.

https://slate.com/business/2018/06/americans-are-moving-less...

Homeownership is certainly not at historic lows.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/homeownership-rate-reaches... (data for 2017, 2018 is higher: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/index.html )

Anymore? Was there ever a time when the "common" person had a strong influence on government policy, relative to wealthy people or large coalitions?

Note that I'm referring to policy, not rhetoric.

I am not from the US but it's the same thing everywhere.

The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries.

Somebody one day told me this little bit of wisdom:

In a dictatorship, the government wants you to shut the hell up but in a democracy they let you keep talking because they don't listen and do not give a single fuck about you.

The world's political systems are broken.

I for one do not bother to vote anymore and the cynicism transpires in my daily life where on many issues I find myself thinking that if nobody cares, why should I?

That's progress apparently.

California has a pretty extensive referendum system (although not as far-reaching as Switzerland). Overall I think it’s a positive. Although one of the dumbest and most destructive policy in California (proposition 13) was introduced by referendum. And I believe Switzerland has been known to show its nasty xenophobic side from time to time. So it’s a double-edged sword.

It's downright dangerous. Putting major decisions directly in the hands of the people requires well informed citizens and balanced, independent media coverage. While it's not a problem exclusive to the US, judging by recent political developments and voting outcomes I'd say a large number of people are particularly prone to manipulation and populist narratives.

I struggle a lot with the idea of the tyranny of the 51%, though. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson's politics, but I really like a point he frequently makes in his columns: everyone loves the idea of a jury of one's own peers until they realize that their peers are all idiots. Same goes for democracy. It sounds great, until 51% of people start making dumb decisions about how you should run your life.

Example: a slightly larger majority of my town than that wanted a slightly better deal of waste management, so they voted for a town-wide contract. Now I'm forced to pay for a recycling program that is so inconvenient I pay to use a different one anyway. Enough people (that it will probably happen) are now pushing for a measure to make it as convenient as it used to be, but raise taxes to pay for all the abuse that ruined things. I don't want better voting, I want the ability to opt out and be left alone.

This isn't actually that complex a problem. 51% don't get to make decisions, 66% do. The correct answer is almost always "no" so making it more difficult to get to a "yes" from the decision making body is (within reason) a good thing. This has the added benefit of forcing people to take a good hard look at what they propose because it has to make sense to everyone to have a chance to pass.

Yeah I absolutely love the solution of requiring a supermajority. I wish it was required in most instances and that we actually required it when it is already required by the Constitution in practice. In the US Constitution it's only used to convict, override or expel people who were elected by simple majority (or in some case,s less, though I like the idea of the electoral college not giving all power to a couple of states), and for ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments. Of course, even though alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, you can apparently prohibit anything else by having it "scheduled". And when was the last time the President waited for Congress's permission for our foreign relations, be they treaties or war?

> The only place where citizens seem to have an impact is Switzerland where with enough signatures you can request a referendum. Good luck implementing that in other countries.

That "works" in Switzerland because Switzerland is an entire country with a smaller population than New York City. Even then, it doesn't prevent pretty horrible laws from passing in Switzerland, because a majority of the electorate can be convinced to demonize a minority pretty easily.

Direct democracy like this doesn't scale up well at all, and we can look at California's proposition system to how that turns out at a larger scale.

Good question though obviously asked assuming the opportunity to judge and belittle judging by the "...you can't just complain online in your little bubble."

I actually did and ended up with a purely political answer blaming the difficulty of regulation and consumer-beware-ism. Even though in this particular case there really is no opportunity to beware - its either go with the banks that are all part of this or live on a commune singing about flowers -- and it is way too cold here in the winter for that!

I regret how I phrased it. Thank you for writing to your MP; you are part of a very small minority and I appreciate your effort.

Consider the comment only aimed at those that don't take action.

What about the folks who are tired of taking action and being ignored or written off by their representatives? What about the folks who called their representative's office only to be greeted by a full voicemail box? What about the concerned citizens with no formal degree who have little chance of being taken seriously in this time- and attention-starved age?

I don't know which country you live in, but at least in Canada, I've generally found my political representation responsive to thoughtful communique. If you live in the US, see my response to this person:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17945691

What action did you ask them to take? I find this situation to be quite upsetting, but I don't know how to fix it.

Crises precipitate change

I get that there's some things where you need to make sure your voice is heard, but I mean c'mon. There's some things like this where the government should just take initiative on because it's that obvious.

Most politicians are lawyers or community organizers. They don't understand technology. Think about some aspect of the world you don't understand, like crop fertilization or NASA probes. That is how ill-defined the world of tech is to the majority of our policy makers.

I guess I'm curious how to make them familiar with such topics. When my dad got cancer, he researched to become an expert on all things cancer as much as he could. When I started getting chronic pain in my hip, I started learning about how to strengthen it and about various physical therapies. When I feel unsafe about the food I eat, you bet your darn ass that I'll research agricultural methods and food supply chains. What makes someone like Erin Brockovich change to become Erin Brockovich, and how do we get more people like her? If cybersecurity issues that are big news (to differ from physical security issues) don't get people moving to understand the issues, what will? Maybe people just get the politicians they deserve and never the politicians they need. :(

There at any number of potential problems a politician may be called on to propose solutions for. We can’t expect them to be experts in each and every one. Right now, the “best” advice they get is probably from those who care the most, i.e. those who have a financial stake in the outcome.

Politicians need better topic advisors that represent their average constituent.

We ALL have a financial stake in the outcome. Furthermore, there are things far more valuable and costly at stake. Like Liberty. Freedom. Justice. You know, those things?

Reducing the equation of politics down to mere financial stakeholders is how you get to the position the United States is in in the first place.

I get that we all like to laugh about those quaint ideals, but it truly SHOULD be the first thing on a politicians mind.

Also, EVERY Congressman has the option of retaining researchers who have the job of becoming experts on every topic imaginable. Never mind access to one of the most extensive libraries known to man. Expertise is easier to come by than you seem to think.

A Congressman being spoonfed information by lobbyists without having his/her own staff doing some digging and USING their powers to subpoena is a Congressman in sore need of replacing.

Nevermind that we don't bother enforcing statutes that make it a felony to lie before Congress.

I entirely agree.

Again, what's the solution? For people to care to vote for change, they need to care to research and understand the subject themselves, and then consider it a priority after researching well. I doubt that happens. People are getting the politicians they deserve, not the politicians they need.

Oh come on. If those crops die off en-masse or those NASA probes keep crashing into the countryside, you don’t need a degree or specific knowledge on the subject to know that something is wrong.

What it takes is having the means to show up, etc. Most people are not in the financial position to pursue such actions.

United groups find ways easier.

We should be able to trust our elected officials to do the right thing. And if we can’t, we need to fix our democratic systems so we can.

It’s not sustainable for a population to continually apply political pressure on each and every issue. Particularly to lobby against well funded opponents.

The result of a system where we can’t trust elected officals is going to be a failing system. Voters will understand they’re being screwed but won’t understand the issues. So they’re end up voting for someone offering simple solutions, like Trump.

Isn’t the whole point of electing them that they will vote as we would have voted? At least, I think that’s how it was described in my classes...

Not exactly. We (should) elect people whose positions and intellect we respect, essentially delegating decision-making responsibility to them. Not that they will make the same decisions we would make in every case, that's just impossible to expect and not what leadership is about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com