Oh look, another AC that can't explain why the analysis of David Lowery is right or wrong. Just go and attack Mike for showing exactly where the problems lie in an assessment.
Political parties form up because of the system. Sure, the optimal system is one person voting based on their hearts, but let's look at what happens around the country if you're a third party candidate. Better yet, look at how gerrymandered states are to increase the power of one particular party. The problem is not in just one individual person. The problem lies in how bad our entire system is and how it robs people of actual choice.
I detail here how to change the system and allow political parties as well as increase representation. The hope is to allow more parties to increase the choices and eliminate one party monopolies in areas around the country.
As I have stated elsewhere, we need a better system than what we have now. This means we need more parties that represent the interests if diverse groups. No, not just the Tea Party. Not just the Justice Party. We need a way to punish political parties that are too far out of the mainstream consensus. Until we have such a concept, we will continue to have a hypocrisy of democracy.
Can you please specify the case? I am not finding this one.
I believe he's referring to Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case.
Nobody is going to make you stop, so why aren't you doing it?
And that's the problem. The RIAA is taking away platforms of free expression by taking away the Megauploads and Pirate Bays of the world. You say that there are a lot of people on the sites that are just downloading copyrighted material. Well, there are also authorized downloads on TPB or in other areas. One movie that comes to mind is Pioneer One. What the RIAA argues is that they should have control of people having access to Pirate Bay since their movies are on the site. And now, with the magnet links, the Pirate Bay can be copied many times over without infringing files being on the site. This has never been about the files. It's always been about access.
It wouldn't work based on the current electoral system that is heavily skewed towards being a Democrat or Republican. Sure, you can vote third party, but under the First past the Post system, we end up with minority rule. In essence, if you can get more votes for a candidate, you win, even though the majority may want someone else. The rules impede democratic process in order to keep only two parties in power.
It's a huge reason why I have to say that Lessig or even Abramoff are truly misguided in trying to just fight the money. Let's say that they accomplish their goal of turning back Citizens United. The Karl Roves of the US would find another way to undermine that decision. What they haven't done is allow more people to become engaged in the political process. They haven't done anything to fight how criminals get a right to vote. They haven't done anything to expose the problems of private prisons. They really haven't done anything to fight the underlying problems of the "money is speech" vote. And that's find a far better democratic system that removes (or at least limits) corruption. That's where I disagree with the underlying premise of Lessig.
What I would propose is an alternative vote, which takes away the minority rule issue that we in the US currently face. You can vote in order of preference, and it forces politicians to do one thing... Listen to their constituents.
Finally, in order to get over the representative disproportionment in Congress, I would propose a Mixed member proportion system. Reason being, you have more people, but then you have more representation based on political parties. This forces political parties to respond to what their constituents are saying and not outside forces.
So in effect, by changing the system, you force the republic to be that much stronger. But having only two parties in government is the worst decision we can continue to have..
The sad part is... We can't really fix this in the next four years. Our country is so controlled by special interests that we have to change the entire system. It's one of the reason that I don't believe the "money in politics" issue will never truly solve the problems of government. We still have the same people in the bureacracy of democracy. That's the problem.
What would need to occur is to get our system off of the two party electorate and allow more parties to have a say in what's going on. If you're a Green party candidate, you would be very concerned with drug legislation and gain an audience. If you're a Justice candidate, you'd be very concerned with civil liberties. Our government has been usurped by polarized fights as well as weak elections meant to maintain the status quo.
What I would propose to people is finding a way to punish political parties. If you begin to do that, then find ways to have judges that are not nominated by only the two party system, you won't see so much corruption. Unfortunately, the two party system and our electoral system is to blame for everything else. Once those two things are changed, I'm sure a lot more people could focus on their daily lives instead of this ridiculous fight with our government over what the Constitution tells them they can't do.
Ron's foreign policy and civil liberty issues are good.
But he's just as bad for presidential nominations to an already extremely conservative court as well as continuing with income inequality. Mind you, I'd have rather voted for Johnson personally and I probably will, wasting my vote in our two party electoral system. The point here is that we need a new way to have 3rd party candidates have some sort of presence and punish political parties. Whether that's with a Mixed Member proportion party, a removal of the electoral system, or just plain moving to instant runoff votes, the key issue is that there is no way that two parties can accurately represent the entire population in all areas of government.
So how about we take a step back, and rather than passing a broad bill based on fear mongering, folks like Rockefeller and Feinstein (hell, or even McCain) produce some actual evidence of a threat?
The problem here is who wants to get paid for fear mongering. I'm kind of glad that there's two different versions of this bill. Since the two are going to be fighting about this, at least it won't become a huge concern. What's really going to scare me is when both parties put through a big bill where neither party is responsible for anything but they get all the monitoring powers is when I begin to worry.
Plausible deniability. Their paradox inducing crumple zones can't accept taking down Megaupload to "prevent piracy" nor can they process the hypocrisy of 660 other domains being taken without due process.
On the post: If You're Going To Compare The Old Music Biz Model With The New Music Biz Model, At Least Make Some Sense
Re:
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Re: Re:
OH GOSH! Another perjury to Liebowitz's paper. Elbow from the sky!
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Re:
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Katy Perry Shows How The Problem With The Major Labels Is Economics, Not Piracy
Re: 360 deals
On the post: Katy Perry Shows How The Problem With The Major Labels Is Economics, Not Piracy
Re: Re: :)
On the post: Killer Cool's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
I detail here how to change the system and allow political parties as well as increase representation. The hope is to allow more parties to increase the choices and eliminate one party monopolies in areas around the country.
On the post: Killer Cool's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
On the post: How The Megaupload Shutdown Has Put 'Cloud Computing' Business Plans At Risk
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe he's referring to Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case.
Nobody is going to make you stop, so why aren't you doing it?
And that's the problem. The RIAA is taking away platforms of free expression by taking away the Megauploads and Pirate Bays of the world. You say that there are a lot of people on the sites that are just downloading copyrighted material. Well, there are also authorized downloads on TPB or in other areas. One movie that comes to mind is Pioneer One. What the RIAA argues is that they should have control of people having access to Pirate Bay since their movies are on the site. And now, with the magnet links, the Pirate Bay can be copied many times over without infringing files being on the site. This has never been about the files. It's always been about access.
On the post: MPAA Hires Four Ex-Federal Government Employees, Including One From ICE & Another From The White House
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
It's a huge reason why I have to say that Lessig or even Abramoff are truly misguided in trying to just fight the money. Let's say that they accomplish their goal of turning back Citizens United. The Karl Roves of the US would find another way to undermine that decision. What they haven't done is allow more people to become engaged in the political process. They haven't done anything to fight how criminals get a right to vote. They haven't done anything to expose the problems of private prisons. They really haven't done anything to fight the underlying problems of the "money is speech" vote. And that's find a far better democratic system that removes (or at least limits) corruption. That's where I disagree with the underlying premise of Lessig.
What I would propose is an alternative vote, which takes away the minority rule issue that we in the US currently face. You can vote in order of preference, and it forces politicians to do one thing... Listen to their constituents.
Finally, in order to get over the representative disproportionment in Congress, I would propose a Mixed member proportion system. Reason being, you have more people, but then you have more representation based on political parties. This forces political parties to respond to what their constituents are saying and not outside forces.
So in effect, by changing the system, you force the republic to be that much stronger. But having only two parties in government is the worst decision we can continue to have..
On the post: EFF Condemns Google For Circumventing Safari Privacy Protections
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Shining Light On ACTA's Lack Of Transparency
Failing of our democracy
What would need to occur is to get our system off of the two party electorate and allow more parties to have a say in what's going on. If you're a Green party candidate, you would be very concerned with drug legislation and gain an audience. If you're a Justice candidate, you'd be very concerned with civil liberties. Our government has been usurped by polarized fights as well as weak elections meant to maintain the status quo.
What I would propose to people is finding a way to punish political parties. If you begin to do that, then find ways to have judges that are not nominated by only the two party system, you won't see so much corruption. Unfortunately, the two party system and our electoral system is to blame for everything else. Once those two things are changed, I'm sure a lot more people could focus on their daily lives instead of this ridiculous fight with our government over what the Constitution tells them they can't do.
On the post: How The Megaupload Shutdown Has Put 'Cloud Computing' Business Plans At Risk
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Hires Four Ex-Federal Government Employees, Including One From ICE & Another From The White House
Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
But he's just as bad for presidential nominations to an already extremely conservative court as well as continuing with income inequality. Mind you, I'd have rather voted for Johnson personally and I probably will, wasting my vote in our two party electoral system. The point here is that we need a new way to have 3rd party candidates have some sort of presence and punish political parties. Whether that's with a Mixed Member proportion party, a removal of the electoral system, or just plain moving to instant runoff votes, the key issue is that there is no way that two parties can accurately represent the entire population in all areas of government.
On the post: MPAA Hires Four Ex-Federal Government Employees, Including One From ICE & Another From The White House
Re: Déjà vu?
But practically everyone convicting him was a hypocrite since they were happy to take his money for their own campaigns.
Still... In order to change the system, we may need some new blood for the Presidency along with changing the rules elsewhere.
On the post: Senators Ramp Up Fear Mongering To Try To Rush Through Cybersecurity Bill
Follow the money Lebowski
The problem here is who wants to get paid for fear mongering. I'm kind of glad that there's two different versions of this bill. Since the two are going to be fighting about this, at least it won't become a huge concern. What's really going to scare me is when both parties put through a big bill where neither party is responsible for anything but they get all the monitoring powers is when I begin to worry.
On the post: DMCA Takedown Service Tells Copyright Companies: 'Adapt Your Business To The New Digital World'
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you explain how much it costs to produce a copy of a pdf?
On the post: Directors Guild Boss Insists That Everyone Against SOPA/PIPA Was Duped
Re: Robbed
On the post: IFPI & Other Lobbyists Tell Parliament That ACTA Protests Silence The Democratic Process
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, the 5th of November?
On the post: EU Member Bulgaria Halts ACTA, Minister Of Economy Offers Resignation
Re: Re: Re: But..but...
We need electoral reform, not more recounts.
Next >>