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 493123
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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:

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

Kivada Member since:

Well thats the whole thing about leveling the information playing field as well as allowing more then one vote per ballot, 3rd parties have won higher seats before, usually after an established party implodes.

The biggest cash dump would be TV ads, so ban the campaign ads forcing only interviews. Either that or it does something like what you said and fringe candidates just lose their money as what has happened with the Nazi party in New Zealand who could never break 1%, least thats what I've heard from the Kiwis.

Reply Parent Score: 2