Hacker News Reader

Comment by startupfounder | Hacker News Reader

Our government is broken. It is no longer by the people for the people.

Politicians are skipping out of their responsibilities.

Politicians spend much of their time in office fundraising for re-election.

Politicians raise much of their election financing from corporate interests, not the people, and thus have a diminishing obligation to the people.[1]

A vast minority of people elect our politicians because 50% of eligible voters don't go to polls.

Most are rich old white men, not a representation of the people.[2]

We can do better.

[1]http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_S...

View on HN

So what's the solution? Get celebrities to run for office. (Seriously.)

Over 60% showed up to the gubernatorial elections won by Schwarzenegger [a] and Ventura [b]; you know, the former body builder and the former wrestler, who co-starred in Predator... Wasn't George Clooney born in Kentucky? He might be a "rich old white man" at this point, but do you think Mitch McConnell (or any incumbent, for that matter) would stand a chance against him?

If Brad Pitt, James Franco, Shaquille O'Neal, or Ashton Kutcher ran for office... they'd win. And they'd be better representatives, because they're not career politicians, and they don't know how the system works. Then watch as normal people are suddenly tuning into CSPAN to catch a speech by Sen. Pitt or Rep. Shaq. I'm surprised the major parties didn't court celebrities after 1984, when a former actor captured the highest number of electoral votes in history...

"It's Charisma, Stupid" is focused on presidential elections, but pg remarks near the end that he's "not saying that issues don't matter to voters. Of course they do." Yes, issues do matter to voters. But voters are generally a minority, at least in non-presidential elections. The majority cares more about movies and sports because celebrities are interesting. Existing politicians are boring.

I read the other day that Allen Iverson is basically broke, recently divorced, had a house foreclosed, and doesn't know what to do with his life after basketball...

a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall...

b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_electio...

Another advantage is that celebrities, by definition, aren't in politics to acquire fame and fortune. This has the potential advantage that they might be less able to be bought off.

Or they could be single issue candidates, a particular form of corruption IMNSHO, like Clint Eastwood as the Mayor of Carmel. His restaurant then finally got its liquor license or expansion permit or whatever his issue was, I forget the details.

http://clinteastwood.net/mayor

Thanks. I got my timeline wrong, he got his thing done and then ran for office.

Though perhaps the perfect counter-example, here, is career politician Jerry Brown's successes in turning around California's fiscal situation:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579483-jerry-b...

His tenure, as many know, immediately followed Schwarzenegger's, who was less successful.

In fairness, though: Brown seems to be exceptionally good this time around, and I'd bet that most people believe Arnold's problems didn't stem from too much partisanship or a lack of good faith effort.

If that's true, then why do many already rich celebrities continue to participate in grossly commercialized lowest common denominator work? Being rich doesn't mean you don't want to be richer.

Maybe the like doing it?

Or maybe the solution is just to pick celebrities that hold themselves to high standards. So... not Nicolas Cage.

A rapper does a few hours work, it buys him a new car. Very rational cost-benefit, even if short-sighted. It'd seem exceptionally inefficient for that rapper to launch a political career for the purpose of increasing his fortune, particularly with the increased scrutiny and fewer post-term consulting gigs he'd have compared to your average politician.

I can see celebrities doing it for the fame though-- specifically to show that they're "more than" an actor, singer, athlete, or whatever.

> Our government is broken. It is no longer by the people for the people.

Are there good grounds for thinking it was ever much more "by the people for the people" than it is now?

Are there good grounds for thinking it was ever much more "by the people for the people" than it is now?

Teddy Roosevelt's national parks.

Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting.

That was populist pandering based on some sensationalist fictions. Getting personal political gain by capitalizing on outrage ginned up through the activities of several yellow journalists. Some of the worst (not the only!) behavior in the name of progressivism in our (American) history.

For the record, I used to really like this guy, until I read more about the era from some real (not high-school) history books and analysis pieces.

Interestingly, Roosevelt wasn't elected in his first term and only became president because McKinley was assasinated.

Would he have been able to run on his own at that point? I suspect not - he would have been viewed as too progressive by the people in charge.

Of course, then there are moments when it was much less "for the people" than it is now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Politics hasn't been "for the people" since party politics took over. The elephant in the room has always been how can someone represent their constituents when their constituents views might be at odds with the party line, and the chief whip is on their case to make sure they vote as the party expects. These are career politicians; there are no promotions or prizes for voting for your people over your party.

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington's_Farewell_Address

Not to be too glib, here's another impressively depressing stat: 56% of Americans don't have a problem with the recent NSA tracking revelation and a significant plurality would be happy to see it expanded[1]. What do we do when our representative government truly is representative?

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-suppor...

This seems like a form of "Tyranny of the Majority" [1]. Apparently there are several ways of dealing with such things including (ahem) a Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The senate is suppose to represent the states, essentially the wealthy elite (at least that was the original intent).

The house is suppose to represent the people. Also, each senator receives a written transcript of every meeting, so why not leave and just read it on the plane?

Not to mention, if the people do not know what is in this briefing it should really be the senators duty to leave by the logic you used. They should only vote on what the people want and have no reason to waste their time attending something that is not for the people. In other words, why attend something that does change their constituents minds?

> Politicians spend much of their time in office fundraising for re-election.

Politicians should be disallowed from consecutive terms. They can run only when they're not already in office, preventing them from spending all their time on reelection, and (hopefully) leading them to fight for what the people want.

This would be more viable if more people were running for office.

..of course, how much time would then be spent picking and grooming a successor?

With term limits, you'd end up with an even more powerful bureaucracy.

Why not term-limit the bureaucracy?

I'd love to. If you could find a way to limit civil service to 6 years, I think you'd find things work a lot better. Obviously you'd need exceptions for things like the CIA and the military, but those could be managed.

Couldn't agree more, and "we the people" have aided and abetted these scum by accepting the status quo and voting them into office.

Also, thank you for posting that Ted talk!

For what it's worth, I was in full agreement with you right up until the "rich old white men" comment.

Edit: Changed "fully" to "full".

We can't do better within our current system; it's optimized. Congress must agree to fixing it (with instant run-off voting, to allow competition) but they certainly won't work against themselves to do it. So we're stuck. The president or a member of Congress can largely disserve you with impunity.

(fyi: approval voting is simpler, comparably effective, and probably easier to accomplish)

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. Thanks. It does look better.

Ooh, that's an interesting one. Thanks! I've used a system before (no idea what it's called) that gives each voter a number of points (say 10) that they can distribute among the candidates. They can give all 10 points to one person, or spread them out. Of course, your average voter would find this way too confusing.

From the Wikipedia article: > FairVote [argues Approval Voting] can result in the defeat of a candidate who would win an absolute majority in a plurality system, can allow a candidate to win who might not win any support in a plurality elections

This sounds like a good thing. You end up with an elected official that satisfies most of the population.

51% of voters think Alice would be the best person to lead, they'd be OK with Bob but think Carol and Dan are morons. 49% think Carol would be the best person to lead, they'd be OK with Bob but think both Alice and Dan are morons.

So now if we use normal majority voting, Alice wins and 49% of voters have an elected official they think is a moron.

With Approval Voting, Bob will win. Sure, he might have been everyone's second choice, but he's EVERYONE's second choice. So now we're all reasonably happy.

There is a skeptoid episode[0] from 2011 that overviews the different types and some of the science behind it. And, it even mentions the difference between a voting system and a ranking system.

[0] http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4281

How do you solve anything when the people who are most aware of the problem also know that the problem inherently prevents the solution to the problem?

It reminds me of an immune disease -- if your very means of getting well is broken, how do you get well?

You usually start with immunosuppressants...

US government is not broken, it got sold. It works really well for the people who pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com