Hacker News Reader

Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of.

Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Candidates obligated to participate in debates? Are you suggesting candidates have to become slaves to the process in order run for office?

On top of that, you expect government officials, the same ones put into office by this process to be the ones deciding whether someone is "biased" or not and who "didn't deliver" a campaign promise. Your proposals, if enacted, would probably generate a horribly corrupt government, where every politically motivated person would take every chance to destroy opponents through legal processes until an establishment party has so permeated the government they're basically a dictatorship.

As much as I'd like to believe this post was made in jest, I feel like you're taking cues from Hugo Chavez.

While I agree with your points, I also think there are problems that should be resolved.

- Historically, the majority of presidents have been rich and white. How do you fix that?

- Candidates make heavy use of propaganda, there is no accountability to what is said. Is censoring information (i.e What China's PRC does) any different from glutting all forms of media with YOUR information so other information is harder to find? This (among other things) was how Berlusconi came to power, and stayed there in Italy.

- Industry getting involved in matters of state... is this any different from Church and state? Should the same 'fix' be applied?

Pretty sure that's what he was trying to fix when he said candidates should be awarded a lump sum of money and nothing more can be used. It levels the playing field.

As a citizen, you're allowed full freedoms but if you're running for office, it's reasonable to ask you to adhere to certain restrictions so the process doesn't get corrupted. We ask people who hold certain positions in government and the public sector to give up some freedoms while holding their job (CIA, military and Pentagon personnel, certain contractors, etc.), I think it's fair to ask people to give up some restrictions while trying to run for public office. A job that has a lot of power that can easily be exploded.

What those restrictions are, I don't know, but I do know that we should be able to brainstorm without being accused of taking cues from Hugo Chavez.

Who gets to decide whether or not candidates adhered to these restrictions?

Can you imagine if an "election oversight board" penalized a candidate for "unfair communications"? Jesus, that would be tied up in courts for years.

They've done it in the UK. I'm not saying it's exactly how we should do it here but it's something that should be considered.

"The consequences, the judges made immediately clear, were serious. “Allegations of an illegal practice in elections,” they wrote in their full judgement, “have what are in effect penal consequences.” As such, the May election Woolas won by 103 votes was declared void, and he was barred from the House of Commons and any elective office for three years."

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ryan-gallagher/woola...

Do you really think the UK is a good example of free speech or effective governance? Free speech is extremely broken in that country. It's so bad there that they have to work to repeal crap like this:

http://reformsection5.org.uk/

UK might not have the right solution but they're trying to work at the problem while we're letting the problem get worse.

Slander and content of speech is tough to regulate because it's not black and white. I think we should still kick around ideas that try to control blatant lying but I understand how unrealistic that could be.

Personally, I think limiting campaign spending might work. Again, still extremely tough subject to solve but the current trend isn't good for our democracy.

Try reading the Citizen's United court opinion. I had your stance on the issue before I read their reasoning (it is absolutely worth the read), and I'm come to realize:

1. corporate campaign spending will likely not corrupt the political process

2. as we can see since the ruling, very very little independent expenditures are coming from corporations. it's still mostly rich people paying for the commercials, which is what it was like before

3. the FEC and the idea of these regulations are completely flawed

4. there is no way that these laws will scale passed TV and broadcasting, even though they purport to regulate speech online as well.

5. people should be exposed to as much speech as possible, and it should be assumed they can come to conclusions that fit within their interests. Especially in a world where it becomes increasingly difficult for campaigns to sway voters even with billions of dollars of speech.

> Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. [...] Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds.

> Yet, the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

No, it wasn't made in jest. Obviously arriving at a systems that could work well would require intelligent discussion of all kinds of proposals point by point. I am more than prepared to accept that some aspects of what I rattled-off in five minutes of typing could be bad ideas. It's not like I spend every waking hour of my life thinking about this. It's almost exactly the opposite.

My point is that what we see today is an abomination. Perhaps the system put into place when this country was founded made sense at that time and for a number of years after that. I really think it makes no sense at all today.

The Obama and Romney spent TWO BILLION DOLLARS in their campaigns and who knows how much PAC's spent. This is obscene. Particularly at a time when so many people in our country are suffering.

Today you can't run for office unless you can raise a billion dollars. Period. That's what it takes. That means that there are a lot of truly intelligent people with great ideas that are financially banned from the process. Want to talk about the 1%. About wealth inequality? Let's talk about the 0.01%, the handful of people that can raise a billion dollars and, effectively, try to buy the presidency.

Sick.

Candidates ought to be restricted to presenting their platform and ideas. They should not be allowed to trash the other candidates with impunity and, yes, lie right and left. What we end-up with today is something I see in my house every day with my little ones: "Daddy, he broke the flower!"; "No, I didn't, she pushed me"; "Nooooo, he said a bad word". Oh, please, stop it!

I'll self-appoint as an intelligent voter. I think you might be one too. The problem is that not everyone is. And the system we have in place allows candidates with money to use drive-by media techniques to cause outrage and indignation on the average voter with the aim being to gain a vote and take it away from the competition. This is criminal.

There are other issues here. If you are not "cool", speak well and present well you have zero chances of getting elected. Before someone goes off thinking that I am attacking Obama, stop it! This is a general statement that is party and candidate agnostic. Steven Hawking --or someone like him-- could never become president. Never. That is wrong. Is being president about looking good and speaking well? Not at all. It shouldn't be, anyway. It should be, among other things, about their ideas, track record, experience and ability to make tough decisions.

I want to get down to an election system that removes all the five-year-old crap from the process and focuses on ideas and accountability. If you can't guarantee that you will come through with a promise, then don't promise it. State it as you idea and explain the challenges you might face making it happen.

Hugo Chavez? Please, stop it. We should be able to discuss an issue like the failings of the electoral college system without resorting to insults, right?

I understand that you are making your suggestions with good intentions, but they are fundamentally impossible in the U.S. because of how seriously we take being a republic. The government simply does not have the legal authority to create or enforce these types of restrictions under the Constitution as it exists today. I happen to think that is a good thing. You might disagree about that, but the fact is that your ideas would require at minimum a few new Constitutional amendments.

> I'll self-appoint as an intelligent voter. I think you might be one too. The problem is that not everyone is.

That sounds like a dictatorship.

> Steven Hawking --or someone like him-- could never become president.

FDR and polio.

Anyways, the fundamental problem with your proposal is that every candidate is still going to be inclined to act as close as possible to how they currently act while still staying with in the rule established. They will want to do this because that is how they get votes. The problem is the electorate not the candidates or the system, the people get the candidate they collectively want, and in many ways deserve.

FDR went to extreme lengths to hide his polio, including having the support of every newspaper in the nation. He would have no chance today, in the era of "release the medical records!"

> - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. > > - Public endorsement of any candidate is illegal. They have to float and survive on their platform and track record. > > - Candidates are not allowed to trash the other candidates. They are only allowed to discuss their views. > >- Candidates are awarded an amount of money to run their campaigns. No external contributions from any source whatsoever. None. > >- Television networks are prohibited from endorsing or communicating bias

So, you want to ban free speech in an election?

Let's say Bill Clinton wants to appear at a pro-choice rally in Ohio, in the run-up to an election. Can he do so? Can he talk about "extremists" who are trying to ban abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and for medical reasons? He won't mention Obama or Romney, and might not even refer to their exact positions (attacking a straw man is more fun anyway), he's just a guy exercising his right to speak about political issues.

Can Republican supporters fund an ad about the dangers of socialised healthcare?

What is "communicating bias"?

>- The publication of poll data is illegal

I'm not even sure what problem you are trying to solve. Can parties conduct opinion polls for internal use? Can they talk to people in the mall about what issues they care about?

>- A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences. > >- Campaign promises are recorded and signed in a document that is publicly available. A politician that does not deliver on promises made is exposed to financial and criminal liability. Don't make promises you can't keep.

So, you want candidates to deliberately be even more vague than they already are?

First you want to place a legislature in charge of how they are elected? We have enough problems with gerrymandering as it is.

Most of the rest of your points are arbitrary things that nobody could be in a position to judge, like "trashing" the other candidates. Publishing poll data being illegal? A politician is a criminal if they don't align with promises? What about compromises or emergencies?

What happened to free speech? Who would be in a position to judge any of these restrictions and how would they not eventually result in tyranny?

I feel like you're trolling... this doesn't sound democratic at all.

I know you mean well, but all of these laws would end up getting used to suppress other political parties.

Take for instance, this one:

- A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences.

Laws like this, for instance, are used to great effect in Singapore to suppress alternative parties. The party in control uses the threat of bankrupting the other candidate to make it impossible for them to basically run a campaign. And god forbid they talk about the Yew family!

We need to address the problem at its heart which is the separation of wealth. If there weren't huge players with lots of money to throw at the election (people and corporations), or if at least everyone had the same opportunity to do so, then a lot of those problems would be somewhat relieved.

unequal distribution of wealth == unequal distribution of money == unequal distribution of power != democracy

This would be great if voting were restricted to smart people with halos.