Hacker News Reader

The problem really is procurement. If there's any thing I wish this community would understand, it's that.

See -- big government contractors have things locked up. They make campaign contributions to members of congress who create regulations that make it so that they're the only ones who can compete in an open competition. At the same time, Government has effectively replaced a substantial portion of its operational employees with contractors. I've met tech teams, for instance, for all major agencies, and have yet to meet an actual programmer that works for the government, with the exception of some but very few, in the defense community. Heck, even the armed guards who control access to our federal buildings are contractors rather than civil servants.

A lot of our issues revolve around procurement. Why did whitehouse.gov cost 12 Million dollars when BarackObama cost $1.2? Procurement. Recovery.gov? 18Million. Why? Only a handful giant companies were allowed to bid.

Why isn't congress talking about procurement reform when they're all about budget cuts?

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/lockheed-martin/55...

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/general-dynamics/4...

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/northrop-grumman/6...

It's a messed up system that makes it so that government has to spend $93 Million Dollars a year on SharePoint when, for let's say 10% of those cases, they could be spending $200/mo on BaseCamp.

A lot of our issues revolve around procurement. Why did whitehouse.gov cost 12 Million dollars when BarackObama cost $1.2? Procurement.

That's a simplistic analysis. whitehouse.gov went online at a time when everything Internet-related was a lot more expensive.

Procurement is also a factor in standardization. If you're not Microsoft or Oracle, your best bet is a standards-compliant product.

The present whitehouse.gov contract was signed in 2008, on November 4th. Recovery.gov went on in 2009. A new whitehouse.gov will likely get purchased in 2012 when the 2008 contract expires. It will likely cost more than 12 million.

Mark Thomas' book "The People's Manifesto"* suggests making political promises prior to entering elected office legally binding.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Manifesto

Specifically (according to wikipedia) "Party political manifestos should be legally binding."

Obama promised that his stimulus package would reduce unemployment to 8% - who goes to jail?

Obama promised to increase gasoline prices 4x - who goes to jail?

Obama.

However one of the challenges here is that the information that is available to someone 'in' the office and someone 'seeking' the office is often very different. As an exemplar Obama promised to 'shut down Guantanamo' but once in office he was no doubt made aware of what that would entail and perhaps agreements that were already in place with other countries with respect to people being held there which made 'keeping' his promise impossible. (or at least keeping it would do more harm than not keeping it)

There is really only one solution, and most people give up on it before trying, that is an informed electorate. A good hacktivist system for informing the electorate would be to distill the gigabytes of data that is available in the public record for easy consumption.

For example create a database of every single non-classified vote in congress and the senate, for each representative maintain how they voted and links to the bills as presented. Cross connect to every admendment they have offered or voted on, every committee vote they have participated in. Every person who has ever given them or their campaign money, every organization that has ever created an advertisement for them and where they got their money. Make location based connections between visitors and their representatives.

There are lots and lots of databases which are now loosely connected and hard to search and manipulate. There is a UX problem as well since most of the data bases are weird or hard to talk to.

Imagine if you could go to this website, enter your zip code, and get a summary of everything your representative or senator or county supervisor or mayor or school district board member has been involved in since they were elected. You could pull out a document, and pick out the top three, five, ten or twenty questions you would need to know answers to in order to decide if you felt they were 'good' at their job. If you wanted to run against them you would have a good start at understanding their positions and you could go out and talk to the voters and ask if they agreed or disagreed with that.

You don't need 'term limits' you don't need 'manifestos' you just need people to vote and to care about what their vote means. Then you will get the government you deserve (and some of us will still want to relocate to the lunar base when it opens but that is a different rant)

->However one of the challenges here is that the information that is available to someone 'in' the office and someone 'seeking' the office is often very different

I haven't read the wikipedia entry yet, but thinking about that, if they don't have sufficient information while seeking the office, then they should only promise what they know can achieve. It would make things easier and more transparent, in my opinion.

But that requires you to know what it is you don't know. Cue Rumsfeld's piece about known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

You're right. But I would rather know what it is a candidate knows what he can accomplish plus the things he wants to. I could vote knowing that some things will get fixed (from my POV, of course) and some might get fixed.

A system like this of sorts is already in place in the UK at theyworkforyou.com. Each MP has a page like this http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/edward_balls/morley_and_out... - which shows their voting record, most recent appearances in public, donors, committees and so on.

Or he never really meant it. It's an alternative hypothesis at the very least.

Oh god no! Politicians get elected by pandering, but once they get elected they can be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. There are a lots of policies that make good sound bites but which would be horrible as actual policies. Better to try to raise the quality of the people we vote for.

What happens in the current situation (i.e. divided government)? The "people" have elected an executive branch that promises to do one thing and a legislative that promises to do exactly the opposite.

That's not to say I totally disagree with the concept. I just think it would be more applicable to other forms of government, such as parliamentary democracies. In those, the party in power gets a much more control over the government, and there are fewer rights reserved for the minority party. In such a situation, I can envision a scenario where campaign promises could be made legally binding.

I expected them to deny all ties with HBGary, and publicly shame them.

Would've made things a lot easier...

I think it's because the people within government who hired HBGary are living in the same bubble as the people who wrote the NATO report.

> We vote for some people every 4 years and then they can basically do whatever they want

That's the reason I have not voted for a while. Once I give my only vote, I cannot take it back but I'm indirectly responsible what they will do.

By not voting, you're responsible for whoever gets elected. Silence is complicity.

Silence is complicity.

This is bad argument. What if neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote? What if due to a very ancient but rather simple system, third party candidates don't stand a chance? What if it would be far more effective to lobby than to vote if you want change?

I could just as easily argue that voting legitimizes a broken system in need of radical reform.

I don't know how it works in the USA, but in France, you can vote "blank". This is what you do when no candidate fits your view. It's better than abstention because it still counts in the stats (and might prevent a candidate from gaining absolute majority)

Actually, in France, in most elections if you vote 'blank' (leaving the envelopp empty in the ballot), it will be considered the same as abstention (not showing up at all for the vote). There is a recurring debate about whether the two things should be counted differently (and if so - how). This is the kind of 'recurring debates' that we French people love - at least when discussing that we're not talking about serious issues :P

neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote

2 part reply:

1) The neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote argument is valid but should be only be used on a rare instance. For example, in the last presidential election, the 2 final candidates may have not been perfect but it's hard to claim they were both not fit to be presidents, especially given they were both chosen among many others during the primaries, which brings me to my second point.

2) At least here in the US, there are the primaries. Usually the 2 candidates are the products of early voting. If you don't vote, they don't have to appeal to you. If you vote, they have to appeal to you. Over time, the political "market" steers towards those who vote. "People get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Toqueville

A friend gave me a decent example/analogy to illustrate my point:

Let's say you're on the Supreme Court and a case is brought before you that is very hairy and frankly, you don't think a clear guilty or not guilty judgement would be right since there is so much gray area to it so you decide, you're not going to give a verdict. You're one of 9 justices and 3 others decide to do exactly what you're doing: absence from providing their vote on guilty or not guilty.

Do you really think that the 4 justices who didn't cast their verdict didn't affect the results?

I know what you mean, but what if you hate both (all) choices? I really think people should have a "I don't want any of the above" option. At least that way they and everyone else will be able to see how many people are not happy about the current leading parties, or about what the parties are currently trying to do.

That should be an option, which, if it won - would require a whole new set of candidates be chosen.

There were 4 third-party tickets in 2008 which were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the presidency, and about a dozen more that appeared on the ballot in at least a few states. If you really don't like any of those either, perhaps you should get involved in helping a candidate you do support get on the ballot in your state.

There are plenty of other ways to become involved and have an influence, however small. Not liking the choices is not a good excuse for not participating.

(source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_i...)

When the choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, why does it matter if I don't vote?

I'd like to see spoiled ballots counted in elections. That way those that want to vote - but don't believe in their candidates - could be heard in some fashion.

We do this in Australia. The Electoral Commission and its state-level equivalents publish "Informal votes" as part of the results. They are counted as part of the total turnout, but obviously do not go to a particular candidate.

In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.

Yes.

One is the encumbant, vote against that one. One is the opponent, vote for that one.

Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment)

Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it.

Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone.

They use a simple rule: 1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him 2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him

It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office.

You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office.

The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work.

So use this system and always vote. It always matters.

You could also try to move to a place that offers more than a binary choice. (Winner-takes-all voting sucks in this regard.)

The myth that the system works and that votes "always" (so much so that it deserves emphasis!) count is perpetuated by the people it is said to control. It doesn't matter if one candidate stays in office or if he is replaced by his twin brother, the system as a whole remains homogeneous and constant.

Give me a vote of no confidence and then I will vote. Otherwise the only thing your vote means is that you have faith in the system. Exactly what they want.

  Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. 
  So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this
  game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your 
  district?) they will create a better government for
  everyone.

It depends on the type of elections and the type of government. Yes, if you have a parliamentary government with proportional representation, this could work. However, if you relax either of those two constraints, the theory falls apart. For example, what if your country uses first-past-the-post voting? Now, its not 10% of voters deciding, but 10% of the districts. In order to influence the elect, you have first live in a "swing district". Given the level of gerrymandering here in the US, the chances of you living in such a district are very small indeed.

For example, lets take Minnesota's 6th District. Even an absolute loon like Bachmann can get elected there because the district is so heavily weighted towards Republicans, the Republican primary serves as a stand-in for the general election.

I am reminded of the bit by George Carlin:

"I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain.

I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."

http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk

Everyone should vote and participate. It's our nation's low political participation that allows politicians to be so unaccountable. If more people were politically active, involved, and educating themselves, we'd have much better politicians and laws. I blame our education system for not teaching people how important voting is.

Negative, it's the fact that you maintain a two party system where both parties are beholden to lobbyists and financial backers.

Edit: Hehe, no not you personally; I should have said "your nation." :)

Me personally?

I think the problems you cite are made much worse by our weak political participation. When people participate, they're forced to be somewhat aware of what's going on. By not participating they allow themselves to disconnect, which let's politicians get away with more and more.

The root cause is education, if people were more educated they'd feel more empowered and more informed and be more likely to participate--with better results. I think the two party system allows people to be uninformed and just vote on a reflect.

Edit: I know, I was only jesting.

Or maybe it's politicians' tendency toward accountability to the highest bidders' interests instead of constituents' that leads to low participation and feelings of disenfranchisement?