Sergey Brin To All Elected Politicians: Withdraw From Your Parties And Go Independent

from the end-bipartisanship-now dept

As I've noted before, when I was first eligible to vote, the voter registration card required you to check off party affiliation. Along with the various parties, it had an option for "Independent." I actually found even that term to have certain connotations, and so I just left that section blank, and wondered what would happen. Eventually the state sent me confirmation of my voting status, and in the space for party affiliation it had typed out, in all capital letters: "BLANK." I thought that was great. Since then I've generally considered that to be my party affiliation: BLANK.

I tend to think that partisan politics is a big problem, and am always interested in truly independent politicians -- a few of whom always pop up every election season. This year, for example, we've got Angus King in Maine, who ran (and won) as an independent for the US Senate (as he had formerly done in winning governor of the state). I got to meet King earlier this year, and without being beholden to partisan lines on things, he seemed a lot more reasonable than many politicians on key issues. Plenty of other politicians I've met seem reasonable on certain issues, but also are often pressured to toe the party line on certain issues, even if they're apologetic about it.

In the end, the horse race "us vs. them" becomes more important than good governance, and that's a problem.

Google founder Sergey Brin seems similarly concerned about the state of partisan politics these days, noting that his "dread" about the latest election round had more to do with partisan politics, rather than any particular candidate. As such, he's urging politicians to drop out of their parties:

...no matter what the outcome, our government will still be a giant bonfire of partisanship. It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people. And yet collectively 90% of their effort seems to be focused on how to stick it to the other party.

So my plea to the victors -- whoever they might be: please withdraw from your respective parties and govern as independents in name and in spirit. It is probably the biggest contribution you can make to the country.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had politicians governing based on principles rather than on what will harm the other guys?

Filed Under: independent, partisan politics, politics, sergey brin

Organizations Try To Shame People Into Voting By Revealing How Often They & Their Neighbors Voted

from the that's-just-going-to-piss-people-off dept

It's election day. While your actual ballot is (supposed to be) secret, a lot of people don't know that whether or not you voted at all is public information. A few weeks back, On the Media covered some ways that campaigns try to get out the vote and looked at some research suggesting that letters to people with a "voter report card" showing when they've voted in the past was a somewhat effective way of shaming people into voting. An even more extreme example was given as well: a letter that specifically shows how often your neighbors have voted. In the piece, OTM producer Chris Neary noted that while such things were effective in the lab, people shouldn't be expecting such letters for real, because, while they may be effective in getting out the vote, they also freak people out on privacy grounds, and no campaign wants to risk freaking people out:

And, by the way Brooke, you’ll never get that last letter. Campaigns hate to send out anything that prompts virulent hate mail in return, and one of those researchers got some of that mail.

Except... Neary has now posted an apology blog post after some OTM listeners reached out to share exactly the kinds of mailers discussed. While campaigns might shy away from such tactics, apparently third party organizations read the exact same research and took it to heart -- as they're a lot less worried about hate mail:

First, listener Rachel Lieberman got a voter report card mailing from MoveOn.org. (She notes that the report card isn't accurate, she just voted at a different address. Here's hoping it doesn't lower her citizen GPA.)
And from listener Taylor Maxwell, exactly the sort of letter I went out of my way to claim she probably wouldn't get. It's from Americans for Limited Government. Names and addresses redacted, or else we'd be co-shaming.

So, yes, this tactic appears to be in use across the political spectrum, and yes, it's likely mostly serving to creep people out... though it may also get them to go out and vote...

Filed Under: election, politics, shame, voting records

The Public Apparently Isn't Interested In Sound Economics

from the this-is-unfortunate dept

So I hear there's some sort of election happening this week (have you heard anything about it?). Earlier this year, we wrote about an awesome effort by the folks at NPR's Planet Money to bring together a group of five different economists, from all over the political spectrum, and see if they could find points that all of them agreed upon. They came up with a list of six things that all of them agreed would be smart ideas for a President to implement -- and what was striking about all six was that not a single one of them was anywhere near politically tenable. Every one of them would be argued down immediately.

Part of the problem, honestly, was that nearly all of them required understanding a) a little bit of economics and b) being willing to understand nuanced situations and how different moves reverberate through the economy. Those, unfortunately, are rather difficult things -- and it was seen in our comments too. We had over 200 comments, and many of them showed exactly that problem. People made broad, sweeping generalizations based on the short one-sentence versions, without understanding the details or the nuances. Also, ridiculously, many people insisted that the plans were all a nefarious plot of one particular side of the political spectrum, totally ignoring the fact that the economists came from all sides. The idea that, for example, anyone might consider economists Dean Baker or Bob Frank "right wing" is so hilarious as to defy comment.

Since then, Planet Money continued the series with some really interesting followups. First they discussed some of the ideas that the economists couldn't agree on (free heroin!). Then it got fun. They brought in some political spin-meisters to take the policy planks that everyone admitted would never get very far coming out of a real politician's mouth and see if they could spin them positively. It's a really enjoyable/scary episode, in which complex economic ideas are reduced to crowd pleasing soundbites, mostly focused on misdirecting people from reality and, well, accentuating the positive.

Finally, last week, they decided to focus group the ideas and proved what we already knew: that the ideas, when explained to everyday Americans, were immediately and sometimes caustically shot down as being horrible, horrible ideas. They then tried to take some of the spin-meister versions, and present them as commercials... and got a little budge from a few people, but that was about it. In the end, it was clear that these ideas -- no matter how good they might be -- would immediately be shot down by the public, meaning that any candidate who proposed them wouldn't have much luck.

That's somewhat depressing, but a sign of the world we live in today. I'd argue that a big part of the problem is that nearly all of the proposals involve what appears to be short-term pain for long-term benefit -- and we live in such a short-term focused society. But as someone who tends to think that we really need much more understanding of economics and its impact among the general populace, this kind of thing only confirms how weak our economics education is today.

Filed Under: economics, election, politics

Congressman Sues TV Stations For Defamation For Airing Political Ads Against Him

from the wait,-isn't-this-politics? dept

Now that we're neck deep in election campaigning, we're all used to the attack ads and the "fact checking" behind them showing how many of them struggle with being truthful. But most campaigns get this and move on (or they release their own attack ads that are just as bad). However, incumbent Rep. Jeff Denham (from California) is so spitting mad at the attack ad against him that he's suing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and various local TV stations who ran the ad. First of all, the ad doesn't sound particularly different than plenty of typical campaign ads, many of which distort the records of opponents. Most candidates respond with a simple explanation of why the ad is a lie. But Denham decided to go that extra mile and actually file a lawsuit.

There are a few interesting/bizarre things to note here. First, the DCCC that he's suing is led by... other Congressional Reps. So he's basically suing a bunch of his existing colleagues in the House. I know that partisan politics can get rough, but lawsuits between existing members of Congress over an attack ad... that seems somewhat excessive.

Even if we get past that, and even if we accept that the attack ad goes so far above and beyond the norm that it's considered defamation (which is quite tough with a public figure where it would need to be shown that the mistruths were done willfully and maliciously), the fact that Denham is suing the TV stations who aired the ad is just crazy. He claims that he "warned" them, but the details of the lawsuit show that he warned them on October 24th... and filed the lawsuit on October 25th. Not much in the way of warning. While there aren't direct "safe harbors" a la Section 230 for online content, there are still serious questions about whether or not it makes sense to make a TV station liable for the content of an advertisement.

Even if he feels he has to hit back to counter the narrative in the ads, it seems quite likely that such a lawsuit could backfire, showing a politician with exceptionally thin skin, which tends not to be a useful trait in the job. Yes, attack ads suck. But it's the nature of the business. Suing other politicians and TV stations just seems like a massive overreaction and excessive poor judgment.

Filed Under: defamation, jeff denham, political ads, politics
Companies: democratic congressional campaign committee

Indian Politician Plans To Install Surveillance Cameras In His Ministers' Homes And Offices

from the do-as-you-would-be-done-by dept

Recently, Tim noted that, for some strange reason, politicians don't like having the same level of surveillance applied to them as they wish to inflict on the public. Here's a nice case from the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India, found via Evgeny Morozov, where politicians aren't being given any choice:

UP [Uttar Pradesh] chief minister Akhilesh Yadav has decided to install CCTV cameras at the residences and camp offices of all the ministers in his cabinet.

As usual, the politicians are up in arms:

But a minister told Mail Today on the condition of anonymity that many of his colleagues including Raja Ram Pandey, khadi and village industry minister, Paras Nath Yadav, animal husbandry minister, Awadhesh Prasad, social welfare minister and Durga Prasad Yadav, stamp and registration minister, have opposed it.

The reasoning behind the move is interesting:

'the CM [Chief Minister] found the idea exciting mostly because he could boast of this action during Lok Sabha election campaign to claim that his ministers were observing complete transparency in their activities,' a source close to the CM said.

It's clear from this that there are some ulterior political motives behind this extreme form of governmental transparency. But equally, assuming that Uttar Pradesh's Chief Minister goes through with his plans, there's no denying that it would give politicians a unique insight into the reality of surveillance, and that can't be bad thing.

Indeed, what we need is a general rule that politicians anywhere who are contemplating increased snooping on their citizens must be put under 24x7 surveillance in their homes and offices before they are allowed to enact any such laws. If that were the case, I predict their enthusiasm for spying might well evaporate.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: cctv cameras, india, politics, privacy, surveillance

Icelandic Citizens Support Crowdsourced Constitution

from the good-for-them dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about plans by Iceland to crowdsource its new Constitution, and over the weekend, residents in Iceland voted (overwhelmingly) to say that they were pleased with the result. Nearly half of Iceland's eligible voters participated, with 66% voting in favor of the new Constitution -- which was put together by a 25-person committee, but which made extensive use of social media and other means to crowdsource input. There are a lot of really interesting things related to the internet and internet freedom happening in Iceland these days, and countries that ignore what's happening there do so at their own peril.

Filed Under: constitution, crowdsourced, iceland, politics

George McGovern On Why Politicians Who Haven't Built A Business Are Bad At Regulating

from the good-points dept

With the passing of former Senator and Presidential candidate George McGovern this weekend, the Wall Street Journal reran a 1992 column he wrote about how much he learned from trying to start a business after he'd left politics. TheMoneyIllusion has an excerpt as well:

In 1988, I invested most of the earnings from this lecture circuit acquiring the leasehold on Connecticut’s Stratford Inn. Hotels, inns and restaurants have always held a special fascination for me. The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility — complete with an experienced manager and staff.

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.

He goes on to talk about how all sorts of crazy regulations, that may have appeared to make sense to the politicians passing them, were actually serving to create a huge headache for businesses -- often because whoever is writing the laws has no idea what they're talking about:

In short, “one-size-fits-all” rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels — e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales — takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.

The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.

When we talk about Washington DC (and other governments) passing regulations that impact how entrepreneurs and innovators build great new companies, this is the kind of thing that we're worried about. The vast majority of elected officials really have no idea. They pass rules and regulations that sound good and are meant to serve a good purpose, but they rarely take into account the consequences of the regulations they pass or how they'll impact how companies act. This is not to say that there shouldn't be regulations, but that regulators need (a) a much better understanding of business and (b) they need to be aware that the impact of regulations can be stifling. I've never understood why every piece of legislation that will impact companies doesn't come with specific metrics to determine if it's a success and a mandatory review period / sunset provision, in which an independent board is tasked with determining if the law accomplished what it set out to do, and if there were any costly side effects or unintended consequences.

McGovern seemed to discover all that after his political career was over, but with his passing, perhaps we can encourage current politicians to recognize just how big an issue this is today. Especially when we rely on so many new technologies, innovations and services on a daily basis.

Filed Under: business, entrepreneurship, george mcgovern, politics, regulations

The French Pigeons Are Revolting -- And That's Good

from the more,-please dept

One of the reasons the copyright lobby has been able to get so far with Net-hostile legislation like SOPA/PIPA and treaties like ACTA and TPP is that the companies affected adversely -- both big Internet players and smaller startups -- have failed to make their voice heard effectively. That's finally starting to change, as Google ramps up its lobbying efforts, and Net entrepreneurs start to get organised.

But in Europe, things still have a long way to go in terms of providing a digital perspective on legislation and treaties that can counterbalance the powerful lobbying machine of the old media industry there. That's what makes the following story about a revolt by French startups against a proposed tax rise, reported here by David Meyer on GigaOM, rather remarkable:

Arguing that there would be little point in being an entrepreneur in France anymore -- particularly with the UK offering a much better deal just across the Channel -- the startups organized themselves into a largely online movement called 'Les Pigeons', or 'the suckers'.

They were set for a street protest this weekend, but yesterday they met with finance minister Pierre Moscovici…and won.

Now, admittedly this was a fight over money, rather than policy or anything more noble, but the point remains that for the first time, French entrepreneurs came together to make the government change its mind, and succeeded. If nothing else, that creates a precedent for them to do the same in the future when they might wish to persuade ministers not to bring in particularly harmful legislation, or support damaging treaties. As Meyer comments:

It's quite refreshing to see European startups flexing their political muscle. Now if those in Germany can just do the same in their own fights against counterproductive freelancer taxes and crazy ancillary copyright proposals, we can call this a trend.

Here's hoping.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: entrepreneurs, france, politics, startups

Maine GOP Apparently Believes That Playing World Of Warcraft Makes You Unfit For Office

from the youth-vote? dept

The Republican Party often has trouble attracting younger voters. Perhaps they should try not attacking one of the most popular pastimes for those voters. According to an entertaining report at Ars Technica, the Maine Republican Party has gone after a Democratic candidate for State Senate, Colleen Lachowicz, by attacking the fact that she played World of Warcraft, pulling a bunch of forum quotes she made a few years ago, and taking them out of context -- such as her statement that "I love poisoning and stabbing. It is fun." Tim Lee's writeup at Ars hits on exactly the right response:

Lachowicz uses salty language in some of the comments, but someone needs to sit the Maine GOP down and explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Every day, millions of people engage in simulated video game violence without committing any real-world violence. By suggesting a World of Warcraft hobby should disqualify someone for office—and implying that voters are too dumb to tell the difference between virtual and real violence—the party is only embarrassing itself.

Later, a spokesman tried to defend the flier, arguing that it raised questions about her work ethic. How? Well, state GOP spokesperson David Sorenson used "the number of hours most World of Warcraft gamers spend playing the game (22.7 per week, on average) and the number it must have taken her to reach such a high level" as some sort of proof that her work ethic is problematic. First of all, using the average amount of time someone plays WoW is meaningless in looking at how much any individual plays. Also, isn't achieving a high level a sign of a strong work ethic?

Once again, Lee's response is perfect:

It's worth noting that the average American watches more than 30 hours of television per week. Many other Americans spend their evenings and weekends at the golf course. Yet it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that devoting 22 hours per week to those hobbies made a candidate too lazy to hold elected office.

I realize it's election season, and with that comes really, really dumb campaign ideas from nearly every political party and/or candidate, but it's difficult to see how this particular strategy is good for anyone -- especially if you want younger people to vote for you. The younger generation tends to respect and look up to gamer politicians. Attacking them for doing something that millions of people enjoy just doesn't seem particularly smart.

Filed Under: colleen lachowicz, gaming, gop, maine, politics, world of warcraft

Partisan Piracy: Conservative Filmmakers Accuse Obama Supporters Of Uploading Their Film To Youtube

from the believing-in-the-same-fallacy-unites-the-parties dept

Piracy is usually the scapegoat trotted out by various declining industries and pointed at angrily for supposedly single-handedly destroying them. Generally, it's content creators and various gatekeepers (mostly the latter) doing most of the pointing (and lobbying). In the normal scheme of things, the gatekeepers are all on the same side, united against filesharers. That's the status quo.

For the first time in memory, one entity has accused another in the same field (politics) of using piracy as a weapon. In this strange case, conservative filmmakers are accusing Obama supporters of uploading the full version of their documentary, "2016: Obama's America," to YouTube in order to harm box office sales.

The film, the second-highest-grossing political documentary in U.S. box-office history, has made $32 million domestically since opening in mid July but took in only $938,000 during the recent weekend for a per-screen average of $771, down 27 percent from $1,060 per screen in the previous weekend, according to BoxOfficeMojo. Overall, the movie's box-office dropped 53 percent in the most recent weekend compared with the previous one, its largest decline since opening 10 weeks ago.

While such a drop isn't unusual for a movie during the course of a week -- especially when the theater count dropped from 1,876 to 1,216 -- filmmakers nevertheless say box-office results were artificially depressed for two reasons: a disinformation campaign spreading the false rumor that Fox News Channel would be showing the movie in its entirety Sunday and a pirated version of the film showing up on YouTube this weekend.

The filmmakers contacted the FBI about the possible piracy and the user who uploaded the full film has taken it offline. In addition, mass emailings announced the (fake) news that Fox News would be showing the movie for free last Sunday. Many bloggers and websites ran with the story, but most have issued retractions.

The whole situation is a bit odd. Obama's official website issued a post criticizing the film and one of its creators, Dinesh D'Souza, saying he has a “long history of attempting to add a veneer of intellectual respectability to fringe theories, conspiratorial fear-mongering and flat-out falsehoods.” One wouldn't normally expect the President (or at least, a high-ranking spokesperson) to respond to a clearly political documentary. Perhaps the fact that "2016: Obama's America" is now the second-highest grossing political documentary added a bit of pressure.

However, while it's clear that some sort of misinformation campaign took place, it's a stretch to lay the dropoff in ticket sales on the "dirty tricks" of Obama supporters. It's fairly common for movies to experience large dropoffs in ticket sales from week-to-week. It's also fairly common for movies to get pirated. The other argument against a "concerted effort" to tank box office receipts is the timing. "2016:Obama's America" has been in the theaters 10 weeks and is due for a DVD release in October. As Zac Gille at Alt Film Guide asks: "Why now? Why not two months ago?"

“The reports of the movie appearing on Fox before the election are completely untrue," Dinesh D’Souza declared, "and we strongly suspect that they are the result of dirty tricks by our opponents who spread this rumor in order to confuse the general public and keep them from going to their local theaters."

If so, what an idiotic waste of time on the part of D’Souza’s and 2016 Obama’s America‘s "opponents." After all, the 2016 movie is fast on its way out.

So, why on earth would anyone in his/her right (or left, as the case may be) mind want to keep people "from going to their local theaters" to watch a movie that so few moviegoers care about at this stage? If an organized anti-2016 Obama’s America effort truly exists, then those guys have arrived on the scene a little too late. They should have acted five weeks ago, when the 2016 movie began its initially popular expansion.

Even if it turns out that a few Obama supporters did mount an effort to tank ticket sales, it would be tough to separate any possible impact from the misinformation campaign from the normal sales decline of any theatrical release. If anything, the piracy and misinformation plan backfired as the particularly loud response from the filmmakers can't help but draw more attention to the 10 week old film. Not only that, but uploading the movie to YouTube where it could be watched for free drives more viewers (and potential voters) to the film itself, a side effect the film's (alleged) opponents couldn't possibly have intended. However this turns out, we have a new tactic to add to the piracy pantheon -- piracy as political sabotage.

Filed Under: copyright, dinesh d'souza, documentary, obama, piracy, politics