Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Oct 2011 16:57 UTC
Legal "Top-ranking Obama administration officials, including the US copyright czar, played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs to disrupt internet access for users suspected of violating copyright law, according to internal White House e-mails. The e-mails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show the administration's cozy relationship with Hollywood and the music industry's lobbying arms, and its early support for the copyright-violation crackdown system publicly announced in July. One top official even used her personal e-mail account at least once during the negotiations with executives and lobbyists from companies ranging from AT&T to Universal Music." You don't say. Totally did not see this coming. Major surprise. Who'da thunk?
Thread beginning with comment 493098
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's not going to change anytime soon either
by vitae on Sat 15th Oct 2011 00:00 UTC
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

It doesn't matter which party you pick from, you're getting the same thing, because it's the system itself which is FUBAR. A campaign system based on donations/bribes from corporations to get their guy in office. Guy/girl who raises the most money usually wins the game. Kind of like the game Monopoly.

Until we have a system where multiple parties can be on equal footing in an election, with the same amount of funds to spend out of a special fund, and NO campaign contributions at all, we can expect the government to be the same. Naturally, the various camps would have to account for penny spent, and things like food at Joe's diner come out of their own pockets, not from the people. This Democrat/Republican system where the other parties are largely for laughs has failed, and it needs balancing out. It also need to be under much tighter restrictions.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/obama-raises-more-tha...

See here, the President (and all presidents do it) is busy collecting campaign contributions even now, so much of his attention is actually focused on running the country?

Edited 2011-10-15 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Yes! We need to have federally funded elections and instant runoff voting! Also voting should be mandatory and a holiday to maximize turnout.

We also need to get rid of the electoral college as it only made sense before there was radio, ever since the majority of Americans had TVs it should have been completely abolished in favor of true majority elections.

Lastly, no more voting machines!

The way tax payer funded elections work is every candidate gets the same amount of cash, and is entitled to the same amount of exposure as every other candidate in all media formats, the candidate must receive at least say 10% of the votes to not have to pay back the money spent, if that candidate should use up all of his provided funds he can not receive any more, nor can he use his own personal income to pay for the campaign. Punishments for violating these terms should be very harsh and should rise anally with inflation, going as far as criminal charges should the violation be egregious enough.

IRV is basically you can vote for multiple candidates on the ballot, weighted 1ist, 2nd, 3rd, etc, those votes added up will determine the winner, thus allowing you to pick a 3rd party candidate without "throwing your vote away" by not picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Love approval voting / instant runoff. +1

Hate federally funded campaigns because it is trivial for the major parties to rig such an election. Like this:

How many non-D and non-R candidates received 10% off the vote in the past 100 years, even with heavy financial backing? A handful at best (remember, Lieberman and Murkowski won RE-election after being booted from the ticket by radical wings of the D and R parties, respectively).

So the major parties need only provide huge buckets of public campaign funding to raise the stakes until no other candidates are financially able to roll the dice. Would you run knowing that failing to garner a magic number (10%) would leave you financially devastated for the rest of your life? Or if you allow bankruptcy to remove the debt, then every indigent has a huge incentive to run, enjoy the high life at the public trough for a year, then declare bankruptcy and move on.

Admirable goal, but you need to think through the consequences.

But do try again. There's certainly a LOT of room for improvement! :-D

Reply Parent Score: 2