HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Power and office are two different things. Someone can exercise a great deal of power in advancing or killing legislation while never holding office and allowing all the office holders to call them names on TV.

What matters is what policies are enacted. Here's a nice video on the topic that summarizes a Princeton study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Capitalism inherently exploits economically unequal systems, and thus incentivizes them in both the private and public sectors (especially in the US where politicians are basically owned outright[1]). So, yes, it is "companies"... or more specifically, large wealth-owned profit-takers, that are the root cause of the supply-demand curves AND the zoning AND all of the other contributing factors. The fact that there are different sets of capitalists (rent and investment exploiters versus labor exploiters) who have varying influence on politicians is secondary to the fact that the politicians are primarily if not solely doing the bidding of capitalists. Attempts at corporate externalizing of risk happen in multiple contradictory directions, thus causing inconsistent public policy. Regardless, privatized-profit motivated externalization of public risk is the core problem. GDP-centric increases in productivity mean precisely fuckall for working class quality of life until we solve for the fact that the entirety of increased productivity gains have gone to the wealthy in the past 5 decades[2]. I do think as a society we should build more affordable housing in densely populated areas, but allowing capitalists to hold the reins for that would accelerate all of the problems of late stage capitalism.

Lastly, Japan has succeeded where others have failed because of a cultural difference which highly values new builds over old homes. They dispose of their homes and rebuild, as often as the US disposes of old cars and builds replacements... So political leverage by real estate investors is less of a concern there, a 30 year old home might be considered close to worthless. At the same time it creates other risk externalization problems like a colossal amount of inefficiency and waste. The only way to get a similar result of reasonable pricing in urban areas where real estate is profit-driven as opposed to use-driven, would be though affordable public housing as a counterbalance. We've seen time and again that capitalist housing development will naturally result in more capitalist-driven inequality. Investors will continue to buy making the bubble worse, then when the bubble pops the rich buy even more stock as disproportionately middle class and poor investors are forced to liquidate, as happened in the 2008 bust.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

[2]:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/8/16112368/pi... (or the same chart any of dozens of places)

It's a tough issue, for sure, because the playing field is just so unequal. To even be able to approach these issues in a more equal way you'd probably have to start a lawsuit and go through a process of discovery because the corporation is bound by all these bizarre legal, financial, and political motives that don't apply when people are interacting with each other. This leads to corporations responding to such requests in a way that's inherently against the interests of the public answering these questions. Without a system in place that further aligns and incentivizes companies interests with their users the only way you can really approach this in a more equal manner is something like a lawsuit. Many times the problem is incredibly complex and while some people, even C level people may be all for providing this transparency it breaks down at scale and the company is at the end of the day beholden to its own interests and perpetuating itself.

I recently saw this video on YouTube about some of the shadiness going on with Roblox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMF6xEiAaY

The official answers they are giving is basically meaningless legalese and that's becoming more and more common. As I said before since Roblox isn't entering into this conversation in good faith the only way to force that conversation would be legal actions.

Any kinds of laws further aligning the needs of clients/the general populace against the needs of big corporations/political elite have a really hard time passing because the system is self sustaining. We already understand this dynamic and we have been asking these questions for a long time but they keep getting pushed down and torn apart as "unrealistic".

This is a good video about how hierarchical systems self select for people who play the game rather than people who stick to their morals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

And here's a video that shows just how undemocratic laws passing in the US is and self serving of corporate/elite interests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

The issue here is a bigger one because it's going to self sustain and to make progress at this point you have to kind of just fight fire with fire (be part of the elite, own a big corp, or throw massive amounts of money at it) and getting involved with those systems can lead you on the path towards getting in a situation where you're betraying your own goals for entering them...

Incredibly frustrating. Represent.us is trying to do something about this. I find these videos to be helpful in briefly understanding the problem and their proposed solution

1: problem - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig 2: their solution - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhe286ky-9A

I think this video will encourage you. Well actually maybe it will discourage you, but the follow up video will encourage you :D

Corruption is Legal in America: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ txt

And this is 5 years ago. 2021 we are now screwed. Democrats stole this last election and have lost there god damn minds. Damn I dont even want to get started again!

⬐ jokethrowaway

Making it illegal will just push the issue under the carpet, as it's happening everywhere in the world.

What needs to happen is a decentralisation of power and a return to voluntary transactions (no: give us your money for $goodreasons or you go to jail, yes: donate to charities for $goodreasons), so that there's more people with power and with far less power: if they were to be corrupted the effects would be much more contained and local.

It comes down to power. Studios don't own theatres because they aren't powerful enough to lobby for that, but if were more profitable for studios and theatres to be vertically integrated (spoiler alert: it would), then you'd bet it'd happen. Maybe Disney will take the lead on that one.

Look, I don't like it either, but common people have statistically insignificant impact on whether or not legislation is passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&t=60

⬐ toast0

Studios don't own theatres because they lost an anti-trust case last century (United States v Paramount Pictures) and have been prohibited from owning theaters since, although the DOJ moved to end that last year, and it's now in a two year sunset period.

Well, maybe, only the studios listed in the original consent decree were strictly prohibited, but nobody else did it, because they would risk being added, and lose their investment in theaters.

⬐ chrismcb

Huh? Studios are probably the most powerful lobbyist on the planet, otherwise mickey mouse would be out of copyright. And we shoukdnt have the dmca fiasco.

Lol, not. Congress doesn't care much what the american people want, but rather disctract them with abortions and talks about scary socialism that might give them what they actually want and probably not what they fear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLKePI0ZbnT69klhhdVXnd9-e...

You'll hear differently, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLKePI0ZbnT69klhhdVXnd9-e... the US effectively functions as a plutocracy. Public opinion and interest just doesn't matter.

⬐ hinkley

The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

We have systems in place to push back against the slow but incessant march (back) to plutocracy, but we don't always use them in a timely fashion. After almost 250 years there's been some... entropy.

Except it's not entropy, it's order (which helps with the sales pitch). Just not the kind of order everybody needs.

The majority of people wanting a certain law doesn't work in the US anyway as Congress is dependent on corporations much more than it is on the people: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig

Until corporate bribes are removed from electoral campaigns this won't change.

⬐ ianai

Corporations actually have a reason to be pro legalization. They’re just not always the same corporations against them. There’s lots of industry to be made around medicinal and recreational uses of drugs. It might even make jobs in rural America in the form of additional cash crops.

Further, imagine the societal impact of removing the money for cartels. I think Mexico and central and South America would become dramatically less violent over night. Farmers wouldn’t need to work with cartels to sell now legalized crops. The US would see fewer refugees.

⬐ dragonwriter

> Corporations actually have a reason to be pro legalization.

There are lots of corporations that exist in market niches that benefit from or even exist entirely because of the drug war; they obviously have reasons to be anti-legalization.

There are lots of potential corporations that do not exist because of the drug war whose interests would be served by legalization, but the potential investors in those potential corporations are largely instead invested in actual corporations based on the incentives in the actual status quo situation.

> There’s lots of industry to be made around medicinal and recreational uses of drugs.

Much of which competes with existing medical and recreational business, and would open fields around which incumbents have moats to new competition. Which is why existing corporations with lots of money have reasons to oppose, rather than support, it.

> It might even make jobs in rural America in the form of additional cash crops.

That's a reason for people needing jobs and living in rural America to support it, but a reason for corporations employing those people currently to oppose it (as the additional competition for labor would drive up labor prices.)

> Further, imagine the societal impact of removing the money for cartels. I think Mexico and central and South America would become dramatically less violent over night.

Yeah, and pretty much every powerful moneyed and political interest in those countries is invested, on one or sometimes both sides, in the continuation of the drug war and associated conflicts.

⬐ usrusr

> I think Mexico and central and South America would become dramatically less violent over night.

Short term I would expect more violence: cartels won't just quietly pack up shop, they will try to pivot. Too many people who have a career to salvage. Long term, it would be worth it nonetheless.

⬐ Qasaur

Conversely I think there are a lot of vested interests in favour of keeping the status quo - I imagine there is a lot of money that is being poured into defense contracts for the War on Drugs, not to mention the private prison industrial complex.

Since money is free speech (via anonymous PACs), I don't know if it's fair to hold all Americans equally responsible for what has happened to our economic system. Money provides access to your government and wide influence on the laws that get passed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Sure, they may not get their way 100% of the time, but studies have shown that corporate lobbying highly correlates with what U.S. politicians support or don't support. Meanwhile, what the People support has ZERO correlation with how politicians will vote for something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Also, the U.S. system of "vote transparency" (votes are anonymous in almost all other cases, and for good reason) in Congress means that the lobbyists know which politician voted for what, and the politicians also know that the companies donating tens of thousand of dollars to them will know how they voted, too - so they will vote "accordingly" if they want that income stream to continue in the future.

This is a rotten/corrupt relationship/dependency that should not exist in a democracy that's supposed to listen to the "voice of the people".

Your comment reminded me of this study.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

TLDR version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ rayiner

That study is invoked for arguments that it cannot support. That study makes two main findings:

1) “Elites” and everyone else agree on policy the large majority of the time.

2) When there is disagreement, the policy tends to reflect the elites’ preferences.

However, they define “elite” as the top 10%. Basically, a typical HN reader. The study is often used to asset that the US is oligarchic. But there are numerous reasons why, in a representative democracy, there would be a thumb in the scale in favor of policies supported by the top 10%: professionals, business owners, property owners, etc.

⬐ moorhosj

==But there are numerous reasons why, in a representative democracy, there would be a thumb in the scale in favor of policies supported by the top 10%==

Can you share some? Why doesn’t it exist to such extremes in other representative democrcies (France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, etc.)?

⬐ rayiner

The study makes no conclusions about what happens in other representative democracies, and I don’t think there is a basis to just assume that the phenomenon doesn’t exist elsewhere. Let’s use taxes as an example. France has extremely low corporate tax rates (11%) and pays for its welfare state with a very high VAT (25%) that puts most of the burden of the tax burden on the middle class. Indeed, America has the most progressive tax system out of all those countries. Put differently, the US is overall a much lower tax country than those others, but the elite bear a larger share of the overall tax burden than in those other countries. Is that indicative of the elite in the US having more or less influence compared to those other countries?

As to your first question, we can use VAT as an example. Why would European countries rely so heavily on a sort of tax that falls mainly upon the lower income brackets? There is a lot of economic literature showing that VATs are more efficient than income taxes. So even if the majority might prefer an income tax borne primarily by the rich, the country adopts a VAT instead.

More generally, actual voters skew wealthier than the whole population. The top 10% of people might be the top 15% of voters. Who are these people? Well, me. I’m a married professional with a house and two kids in school. If I’m unhappy, I’m going to make a hell of a lot more noise than, for example, a single college student who might not even vote in the next off-cycle election, and certainly won’t vote in the primary or any of the local elections. The top 15% is a proxy for the most engaged voters with the most skin in the game (children in school, own homes, own businesses, etc.).

⬐ moorhosj

You still haven’t provided the reasons that this would be so in representative democracies. You focus only on tax policy and France. The rich can impact plenty of other policies (minimum wage, healthcare, overtime, unionization, parental leave, etc.) which impact how much income people make which directly impacts the taxes the pay.

Put differently, the rich have made sure that they collect so much of the country’s income That there isn’t much else left to tax. This is pretty clear in tables of income distribution.

⬐ rayiner

Tax policy is a major policy choice, and France is similar to all the countries you listed in putting more of the tax burden on the middle class than in the US. Most of the countries on your list have lower corporate taxes than the US combined with a high VAT. That’s an example of elite preferences winning over mainstream preferences.

Incidentally, tax policy (rich should pay higher taxes) is the only category you mention where a clear majority (75%) of Americans supports the view.

As to your other example, the view among voters is in fact mixed. When Obama passed ACA for example, polls found public opposition to single payer to outweigh support. (It flipped only since then.) And that’s polls—actual voters notably skew older, richer, and more conservative than the general public sampled by polling. Even today, with 53% of people supporting single payer, it’s not clear whether that would be a majority of actual voters: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-mod.... In particular, voters skew heavily older, and older folks are already covered by Medicare.

Also consider labor unions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste.... Most Americans would prefer labor unions to have less influence than they do now or to maintain the status quo, by a large margin (see the second chart). Only 40% want expanded labor union influence. (See second chart.) And again, actual voters are more conservative than the general population.

As to minimum wage: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwij....

Most polled support a minimum wage of $15, by a 52-46 margin. But it doesn’t break down along “elites” and “non-elites” but rather at the middle class. Support is very strong among those with household incomes below $30,000, but for those whose household incomes are 30,000-75,000, there is net opposition 52-46. And of course, that’s among people polled. Households with less than $30,000 in income vote at far lower rates than everyone else. So it’s likely that the majority of actual voters oppose a $15 minimum wage.

Finally, addressing paid leave. People support paid leave by a large margin: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/23/americans-widely-s.... But the public is basically split on whether the federal government should force employers to provide paid leave. 48% oppose, 51% favor. (Again, the majority of voters probably oppose.) And if you scroll down to what models of government intervention people support, many more supported a carrot method that gives employers choice (offering tax credits to those who offer leave), than support the model European countries use (payroll taxes to pay for leave).

So in the US there is only narrow public support, or outright public opposition, to many policies adopted in European countries. On top of that is the double whammy the Northwestern study completely ignored. First, as mentioned above, voters skew older, richer, and more conservative than the public. So a 51-48 majority among those polled in support of government-mandated paid parental leave is probably not a majority at all among actual voters. Second, any legislation has to be approved by the House and Senate, where some voters have much more representation than other voters. But if we want to enact government-mandated paid parental leave, we have to get through the Senate, where Wyoming has two Senators just as California or New York. So even if the policy was supported by a majority of voters, that doesn’t mean a majority of Congress supports the policy, even if each Congressman votes exactly according to voter preferences in her district or state. The study completely ignores that factor, even though it’s a dominant force in American politics. If we just went by polls, we’d never have a Republican President or Congress. But even though Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican President, Republicans just maintained control of the Senate.

⬐ moorhosj

==In particular, voters skew heavily older, and older folks are already covered by Medicare.==

Which is single-payer healthcare and has 77% favor-ability [1].

==Most Americans would prefer labor unions to have less influence than they do now or to maintain the status quo==

This is complete editorializing. You could just as easily say that more Americans prefer labor unions to have the same or more influence than they do now. The Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest pro-business lobby, has vowed to fight an single-payer initiatives [2]. This is what people typically mean by "elites", the owners of capital. They are typically the one's influencing policy, not high wage earners.

==But it doesn’t break down along “elites” and “non-elites” but rather at the middle class.==

You are completely missing the point here. Corporations are fighting increased minimum wages across the country [3].

==So it’s likely that the majority of actual voters oppose a $15 minimum wage.==

Here, you rely on the question asking specifically about $15/hr minimum wage. In reality, the minimum wage is $7.25 and there is a lot of daylight between that and $15/hr. If you ask about a different number, like $10/hr, you get a different result.

"the poll found that 71 percent of people surveyed support raising the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour." [4]

==But even though Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican President, Republicans just maintained control of the Senate.==

Only 35 of the 100 seats were up for election in 2018, so it doesn't stand to reason that the results would match public perception directly.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/medicare-medicaid-popularity...

[2] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-ad...

[3] https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2018/09/04/co...

[4] https://theintercept.com/2018/04/17/the-restaurant-industry-...

⬐ rayiner

> Which is single-payer healthcare and has 77% favor-ability [1].

Medicare has broad public support (and has for decades) and there are no serious proposals for getting rid of it, notwithstanding the elites. That is why, when we talk about "single-payer" as a policy proposal, or as a point of comparison with other countries, we are talking about extending single-payer to everyone. And that does not have the same broad support that Medicare does.

At the time the ACA was enacted, a slight majority of those polled opposed single-payer healthcare for everyone: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer.... That has flipped in the last 10 years, with a significant majority now supporting single-payer (59-39).

Again, let's circle back to the question at hand: why does the U.S. lack single payer healthcare when many other developed countries have it? Is it because of "elites" overriding the public will? Or is it because the public itself only came to support it by a significant margin in the last few years, after the last major change in healthcare law?

> This is complete editorializing. You could just as easily say that more Americans prefer labor unions to have the same or more influence than they do now.

That would be answering the wrong question. We are comparing the U.S. to "other representative democracies" like "France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, [and] Australia" (these are your words). Why does the U.S. have weak labor unions, when many developed countries have stronger ones? Is it because of "elites" overriding the majority? Or is it because a large majority prefer the current, weak labor unions, or would weaken labor unions even further?

> The Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest pro-business lobby, has vowed to fight an single-payer initiatives [2]. This is what people typically mean by "elites", the owners of capital. They are typically the one's influencing policy, not high wage earners.

The Northwestern study we are talking about here--which is what people are citing for the premise that "elites" influence policy--didn't define "elites" as "capital owners." It defined them as the top 10% of income earners.

> Here, you rely on the question asking specifically about $15/hr minimum wage. In reality, the minimum wage is $7.25 and there is a lot of daylight between that and $15/hr. If you ask about a different number, like $10/hr, you get a different result.

Again, what are we trying to prove? Why are U.S. minimum wages lower than in say Canada (scheduled to rise to $15 in the next couple of years) or Australia ($18) or France (about $12, but in a country where wages overall are much less than the U.S.)? Is it "elites" or because public support for a minimum wage that high is borderline?

Yes, there is public support for a $10+ minimum wage, which is why states across the country are in the process of raising their minimum wages to $10+. That is so, notwithstanding the presence of "elites" in New York, California, Maryland, etc.

> Only 35 of the 100 seats were up for election in 2018, so it doesn't stand to reason that the results would match public perception directly.

Various statistics I've seen show that a Republican majority vote in the Senate (51 votes) can represent as little as 42-43% of the total population. That's really a huge margin when you think about it. Say polls show that a policy is supported by 58% of the population, and opposed by 42% of the population. If you adjust for the fact that voters are more conservative than the overall public, that might turn into say 54-46%. And those 46% of voters, in turn, might be represented by 51 Senators, who can kill any bill implementing that policy. You don't need "elites" to explain how that works, and the Northwestern study (astoundingly) doesn't account for that phenomenon at all.

⬐ moorhosj

==Why does the U.S. have weak labor unions, when many developed countries have stronger ones? Is it because of "elites" overriding the majority? Or is it because a large majority prefer the current, weak labor unions, or would weaken labor unions even further?==

I think you make important points throughout your posts. However, I believe the entire basis of your opinions stands on top of an assumption that polls reflect the unbiased opinions of people with full information.

Put another way, is it at least possible that "a large majority prefer the current, weak labor unions" exactly because they have been influenced by the elite to think that? If the elite own the media infrastructure and are the ones funding Super PACS, isn't it possible that polls only show the success or failure of their ability to influence?

If a Super PAC (or the media at-large) is able to turn a topic into a partisan issue, then it is much more predictable how the public will view it (generally, split). I think polls might be measuring the results after the fact as opposed to accounting for the very influence we are discussing.

> On all sides. Goldman Sachs has their man in Washington, as does Planned Parenthood.

I might be misinterpreting you here but it sounds as if you're saying that all is well and good since all lobby organisations are represented in Washington. The problem to me with this idea would be that not all of the people are represented by all of the lobby organisations. Which makes the system not even a mob rule, but simply a plutocracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ atypicaluser

> all is well and good

I would say that striving to be 'all is well and good' is a never-ending chore. (As in never will end.)

> since all lobby organizations are represented in Washington.

Not all, but many. There are also many lobbying firms local to states and cities.

Can we do with less lobbying? Sure. But we'll only ever be able to go so far given that organized petitions are guaranteed by the First Amendment '... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This can take the form of a single person, a parade of protestors, a lobbying firm, or what have you. Which also means a single person with deep pockets (e.g. actor Kevin Costner) can have more sway than a lobbying outfit (e.g. a law firm representing the Lakota Sioux of the Black Hills.)

> not all of the people are represented by all of the lobby organizations.

Agreed.

I would go even further and say not all of the people are represented by those who actually vote or those who actually occupy office. Undocumented migrants, children, the mentally challenged, jailed felons, those who don't vote whatsoever—all are supposedly represented by Congress and the President, but who really gave Congress and the President the right to represent those who didn't vote for them? (Joking here—many in the US feel that Trump does NOT represent them, despite him being President. Not joking here—but are they right?)

> plutocracy

It's close. Given the lobbying arms of Planned Parenthood, the Teamsters, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Audubon Society, and many, many (, many) others, that is, the lobbying arms of well-monied groups, we see that organized groups can act as wealthy individuals. So it's a mix of plutocracy and monied non-profits.

> youtube

Good video, and it captures the big-picture problem with American political lobbying. I wish them luck with the solution they've offered—currently, marijuana laws are undergoing the same course that women's suffrage did, so it works as long as people are driven to finish what they started. (Which is not necessarily a good thing—US Prohibition also was a state matter before finally being made an Amendment, the 18th, the one that came right before giving women the right to vote. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state .)

Reminds me of an old science-fiction where all events on the media were computer-generated fakes.

There has been no "underestimating" of that potential.

"Mind-warping" has been researched and is being research extensively by the CIA for some time. Most of that research is still top-secret, but well known are the extreme psychological manipulations of subjects during the MK-Ultra experiments.

I will focus on the CIA and it's influence in the past, as this is more controversial and influential than that of other agencies/countries. The influence of MI5/6 or Mossad is great, but a lot of it is still hidden. The influence of the KGB was different, as the citizens did not really believe much in them to begin with. The Chinese are going a whole different way again.

The CIA also did experiments involving the manipulation of the control of subjects in social media, like facebook. But it did not stop there.

After the peace-protests during the Vietnam war, the CIA has infiltrated into the press and media and anti-war movements. They now use that influence to bend war and destruction into a peace-giving action. So we had "Freedom fighters" in Afghanistan etc. Which was portrait in the Rambo movie. And the US supported Saddam fighting Iran with US made chemical weapons. Later the US fights the parties that it created and armed. Some strange thing that keeps repeating in the US history.

At the same time the CIA has the Phoenix program and other society destructive programs. They worked together with the "economic hitmen" and with local crime-lords to strengthen their destructive programs.

The influence of the CIA in other countries was great, but it also worked into influencing the US elections. Jesse Ventura found himself talking with the CIA after he was elected, because they did not expect a "third party" candidate to win. And they wanted to prevent that in the future.

Whistleblowers also show that they spy on political candidates, and pressure them (via blackmail?) before they even get into office. That way they can have direct influence on decisions. One well known example is that they spied on congress when they where investigating the CIA-torture program. Also they were able to destroy much evidence before it became public. Whistle blower Kevin Shipp explains how the CIA is out of control. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQouKi7xDpM

But the CIA is not the only US-agency influencing the US elections. Every company is doing it too. Represent us: Corruption is legal in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig And just a few companies own all the press and media in the US.

So while we are looking at potential fake videos, we have a fake press and fake democracy underneath that.

It does not mean that everything is fake, but that it is controlled by agencies and companies that have their own agenda. And indeed we see videos and other media repeating agendas of certain political parties or of certain companies over and over again.

We can actually stop this by putting the agencies and companies back into democratic control, and back into justice. And both need to be moved out of the democratic system. For example: Flint can never get fresh water if the companies and politicians involved can do whatever they like.

It does not mean that other countries all do it better. Most have different kinds of corrupt systems in place. Small communities like Iceland, seem to be able to stop corruption. Maybe we can learn from them.

So how can we counter this mind-warping?

Well: How can you spot propaganda?

If the same thing is repeated over and over again. When no evidence is shown. When a certain party or person is portrayed as "Hitler" or "devil" or as "heroes". When a problem is shown as black and white. When people are "just crazy". If you are only limited to 2 bad choices. If investigations are shallow, and many important questions are unanswered.

Usually you can spot them with logical fallacies. So we need to learn to use logical fallacies and use critical thinking in all the news. And we need to be critical of all ideas. This includes your own ideas as our confirmation bias is also our downfall.

And this brings us back to the story. If our mind is bend, we can learn to bend it back via critical thinking. And stop watching the news, if the same thing gets repeated over and over again.

⬐ zyxzevn

Interesting on this same topic is the "fabrication of consent" https://www.bitchute.com/video/X4Foosop2wo/

Lobbying is legal corruption. The represent.us group do a great video about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&

The US government doesn't represent the people. It only represents about 10% of the people; those who are the top income earners and whose view happen to align with the interests that represent the top industry groups.

⬐ rayiner

How about we base our views on something substantive, not YouTube propaganda?

⬐ djsumdog

I've read the study referenced in the video, specifically the Gilens and Page, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" published in 2014.

It's a really good study and worth reading. I've used the same study in a video I later made:

https://fightthefuture.org/videos/does-voting-make-a-differe...

⬐ rayiner

The problem with the Gilens and Page study is that it shows the elites and regular people agree about 90% of policies: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-.... They look at the situations where the elite and regular people disagree, and conclude that because the rich win those areas of disagreement, we live in an “oligarchy.” But it does almost no analysis of those issues. Without that analysis, it’s hard to tell whether that’s oligarchy, or just republican democracy doing the “republican” part. The paper also makes the huge mistake of using survey data without systematically accounting for whether respondents are likely voters. It is well known that voters are not representative of the population as a whole. They skew older, whiter, and more conservative.

⬐ alsetmusic

> How about we base our views on something substantive, not YouTube propaganda?

YT may host content from any number of sources of varying quality. It would be more useful to address why the video itself is propaganda.

I agree with your second point. Who controls what's considered fake news? Very little is done in the interest of the citizens of the USA anymore [1], so why would we trust our government or media to show us what's in our best interest?

[1] https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (Fully Sourced in Description)

> I generalize it as the US protects companies, the EU protects people.

That's what strong laws against bribing and abuse of influence along with proportional representation voting systems tend to get you: governments that are quite inclined to listen to the People (there are varying degrees of democracy, and some European countries are more democratic than others).

Meanwhile, in the US, the People's Voice tends to have zero impact on what type of laws Congress passes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

And that's because the US government no longer responds to the needs and wants of the people, but to the needs of corporations and rich people, which happened because of legalized bribery, or the ability to buy a politician's vote with "donation money".

This is why Larry Lessig was right when he kept saying that this is the root cause that needs to be fixed before anything else. People should be supporting such "single issue" politicians that want to reform this system all over, because this is what will fix everything else in the long term, whether it's economic, healthcare, or even social issues (which tend to be turned into issues to distract from the real harm they're doing somewhere else).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

⬐ shaqbert

Why did Larry Lessig not find more support amongst the tech billionaire crowd? His open source policy programs on fixing US democracy ought to be a magnet for hobnobbing billionaires at the very top of Maslow's pyramid.

⬐ scrame

because tech billionaires don't give a shit if poor people die or go bankrupt from medical bills. They've likely never even had to think about it.

⬐ jeffbax

Sounds like Bezos might disagree.

The problem with US healthcare isn't profit seeking, it's that years of regulatory technical debt starting with the employer tax deduction totally broke the market and the incentives to control costs are shattered like most things our interests-captive government pays for anymore.

I for one am cheering on the capitalists trying to come and do an end run around this political mess. There's no reason healthcare can't be like buying anything else in a competitive market other than the legal complexity dealing with it and daunting capital required to over come that.

⬐ dagw

Why did Larry Lessig not find more support amongst the tech billionaire crowd?

Cynically, because both the current system in general and the current administration in particular is perfect for billionaires. They have everything they could ever want, so why risk that? Don't fix what ain't broken.

⬐ dboreham

>And that's because the US government no longer responds to the needs and wants of the people

I'm an immigrant so I'm not clear it it ever did this: it hasn't in the 20+ years I've been here. Things I hear on the motivations of the founding fathers and the resulting deliberate dysfunctionality they introduced into the system of government suggests to me that the goal was never to respond to the needs and wants of the people.

Oh happy friend! There is only one choice. All our congresspersons represent the rich and Princeton University did the analysis to prove it: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig

It's not about what the people want, because the U.S. is no longer a democratic country. When more people start admitting that and seeing that way, then they'll be ready to change that at the detriment of everything else. It's the biggest issue that affects all the other issues, but some still believe if you support this change at the detriment of everything else then you're a "purist" or a "single issue candidate". Of course, usually the people who call you those names are also the ones who benefit from the current system.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02...

⬐ mathgeek

> the U.S. is no longer a democratic country

This is a common misunderstanding. A republic is not a democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_Unit...

⬐ masklinn

> This is a common misunderstanding. A republic is not a democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_Unit....

That's a common misunderstanding. "Republic" and "Democracy" are not exclusive concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Democracy

⬐ mathgeek

Context is important here. Please see the previous post (above mine) referencing "what the people want" which I infer to be referencing the democratic concept of "majority rule" which we do not have in the US.

"It's not about what the people want, because the U.S. is no longer a democratic country." ... I feel that this statement is logically faulty unless the "democratic" portion implies a pure democracy.

"if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

The data seems to show that simply isn't true. It isn't malice, but only representing the interests of those who finance your campaign and ensure you have a job for the next election, which is entirely not the point of our federal government.

⬐ JumpCrisscross

> The data seems to show that simply isn't true

Link to these data?

In my experience, the number of times a phone call of mine explaining an obscure policy flipped someone's view, whether a regulator, legislator or, in one case, mayor, is quite numerous. I'm not a prolific donor. I just called. I am almost always the only person who is not either (a) in the industry being considered or (b) retired who bothered to reach out. Same thing for town halls, canvassing, et cetera.

We do have a problem where popular views aren't effectively translating into policy. But I haven't seen that graph adjusted for civic involvement.

For anyone doubting the absolute veracity of this comment, here's a 5 minutes video on how laws are made in America: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Today somebody on Reddit linked to this video which talks about the process of money influencing politics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

It doesn't discuss the role of the judicial system. It's all about the legislative aspects of US government. It's pretty compelling and well made. Hopefully a bipartisan movement can have some impact.

The video was made by https://represent.us/

⬐ TeMPOraL

A pretty interesting video pointing out some damning stats.

I'm curious however, how does the data look for other democracies, e.g. in Europe. The question is, whether this is a problem of US and its "money in politics" issue, or whether other democracies suffer from that problem too. I have a suspicion that this is inherent to politics in general, regardless of form - that money and power will always find themselves in bed together.

No, it's not. It's proven that Congress abides by corporations' wishes 70% of the time, and it abides by the "People's" wishes close to 0% of the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ 557833

That video fails to mention that those numbers only apply to the very small (6% iirc) minority of issues where there's a statistically significant difference of opinion between "the people" and the rich.

Also, the paper doesn't ascribe any reason for the effect. All that stuff about campaign finance is just editorializing from that video. It's just as possible that, for example, wealth and education are well correlated and Congress is siding with the well-educated 6% of the time.

⬐ kbenson

The reality is that right now they are often accountable to their donors and party bosses, but that is only because the public has ceded their power in those cases by not caring enough and/or consistently enough.

They are ultimately accountable to the public, to an overwhelming degree. When the public does not care, that allows the other influences, which are ultimately much smaller to have an outsized influence.

By not being consistent in caring about the outcomes of votes, the public has allowed other groups to not only have an influence, but to have it often. That trains representatives to consider those other groups on all votes, as those other groups are much better about keeping track of what the representatives do and holding them accountable later.

So in the end, a small and weak but consistent group ends up having a disproportionate amount of influence compared to a large and powerful but largely inconsistent and absent group.

What this means is that it both is, and is not a myth. It's true that donors and party bosses have a lot of power, but it's also true that the constituents control all the power, and it's only their lack of involvement that allows those donors and party bosses to have the power they do. Were constituents to become much more interested in everything their representative did starting tomorrow, the power of those donors and party bosses would vanish fairly quickly (depending on how likely the representative considered the increased interest to continue).

Video based on Princeton study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&feature=youtu.be

Well it would still be a whole lot better than what happens now. Microsoft, for instance, sued the DoJ recently because almost half of its data requests came with a gag order.

So you wouldn't even know when they got your data, and then perhaps used it against you - in secret (like putting you on a no-fly list, etc). And then they won't even tell you why you're on the no-fly list or why you're getting an audit.

The whole system is broken from top to bottom, and I think that has a lot to do with the fact that politicians who are supposed to represent the people, don't care about what the people want anymore or to actually represent them. They care about what various rich people or powers want them to do. It's not just me saying that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

You don't really have a say in the US, at least. Laws pass 30% of the time, whether the voters love it or hate it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

The process doesn't work as well as you think it does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

If only we lived in an actual democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

For startups working on improving democracy, I'd suggest you start helping these three groups in any way you can:

http://www.fairvote.org/

https://represent.us/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Creating a more fair representation in government that doesn't only involve the duopoly parties as well as getting money out politics should be the two main priorities before anything else. Unless these two things are fixed first, everything else will continue to be broken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

All of that, plus tax software companies, such as Intuit lobbying against simplifying the tax code.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/27/turbotax-maker-funnels-mil...

And once again we reach the conclusion that corporate lobbying and donations are the "root of all evil" in American politics, and everything is broken because of it. Larry Lessig has been right all along when he said this needs to be fixed before anything else [1]. Because once this is fixed, everything else should be a lot easier and a lot more in tune with what the People want [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

It's just so easy and so cheap for corporations to buy votes right now. Why wouldn't they do it, when the upside is billions of dollars and there's no penalty for it? They can literally buy a vote with a few thousand dollars "donation". Set a limit of $200 (maybe $500 for presidential candidates) political donation per year per person and imprison (6-36 months) anyone who dares to do it any other way, fast and furious, no matter who he is, wealthy billionaire or former president. It's the only way to escape this corruption in the system.

Also, I think the U.S. would need a special agency whose sole mission is to look for this type of corruption. In this case, "mission creep" and the purpose of maintaining their jobs would work in the People's favor. The more the agency would do (catch corrupt donors or politicians), the more it could justify its existence. Similar agencies have seen a lot of success in Europe, trying to catch corrupt politicians.

⬐ dpark

They're lobbying for the government to stay out of the auto filing business, not to keep the tax code over complex. I think the government should auto file but simplifying the tax code would be a huge improvement without that.

⬐ jly

Reformers have been begging to "fix the broken system" regarding lobbying for hundreds of years in this country. Lobbying as a legalized form of bribery is a deeply-ingrained part of the political and economic system the US is rooted in, or in other words it's another dimension of capitalism. Academics and journalists have been writing about this for two centuries and not once has substantial change occurred.

The people who were funding Trump/Hillary were funding them equally. Is doesn't matter who won, they banks, oil companies and large media conglomerates still control the country like they have for the past several decades.

I see in our future ... the exact same presidency. More US led wars. More predator drones. More CIA guns and money to fund revolutions that we then fight with out predator drones. Just remember the election is like Whose Line is it Anyway, the points are all made up and none of it matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ gozur88

>The people who were funding Trump/Hillary were funding them equally. Is doesn't matter who won, they banks, oil companies and large media conglomerates still control the country like they have for the past several decades.

Yep. That's what makes it so hard for third party candidates. The donors fund both sides so they don't get left out in the cold if their guy loses. They have to believe you'll have a chance to win to fund you, and if they don't it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

⬐ djsumdog

eh..that has less to do with funding and more to do with the First Past the Post system. Look at Australia's order of preference with instant run-off (you literally can't throw your vote away; plus voting is mandatory. There's a fine if you don't at least pretend to cast a valid ballot) or New Zealand's MMP. Both are a lot better at representing the public in parliament.

The US system was actively designed to not be democratic. That's why we have an electoral college; the vote was (and still is) the peasants suggestion box.

⬐ gozur88

I agree instant runoff would be better.

But the idea the US system wasn't designed to be democratic is a pretty gross exaggeration. You can't win without votes from "the peasants" no matter how much you spend to convince them. Otherwise Jeb Bush would be president-elect today.

⬐ omarchowdhury

How were they funded equally? Hillary raised $687.1M versus Trump's $250M.

⬐ erikbye

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...

⬐ aaronblohowiak

The market wouldn't have taken such a dip if that were the case.

This is why corruption/politicians being bought by corporations is such a big deal, that affects everyone and everything. Lessig is right when he says it's the "root cause" of all the big problems in the U.S. It's not just a "single issue," as Hillary Clinton, likely the next president of the U.S., and who has also benefited greatly from this type of corruption, said during the Democratic Primary (as an "attack" against Sanders) - it's all the issues.

Think coal/oil lobby influencing/delaying climate change strategies , military industrial complex influencing national security strategies for more wars (and thus spreading terrorism and making Americans less secure), and even the copyright lobby buying politicians to pass laws that make it a crime to tinker with your device, or make people pay $150,000 for copying a song, and so on.

The U.S. really needs to figure out how to get this corrupting influence out of politics, or it's only going to get worse for its citizens, as even more special interests try to screw people over, or they get even more aggressive and shameless about it.

This graph shouldn't be a thing anymore:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ simbalion

Corruption is a problem in every nation. Has any country found a way to curb it yet? I dont know of any examples, but everyone knows dozens of examples of countries whose governments were bought and sold years ago.

They reject capitalism because capitalism has been turned into "crony capitalism". They hate big corporations, because big corporations go out and buy politicians who then pass favorable laws only for those corporations, but not necessarily favorable to the people as well.

If this didn't happen so pervasively I don't think millennials would be that mad about capitalism. To fix this, bring back real democracy in the US (and I mean that as a generic "People's voice must be heard" term, not as direct democracy or mob rule, as many often misconstrue such comments).

Relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ kome

What you call "crony capitalism", I call it capitalism in the real world.

In my opinion people are not questioning the efficiency of democracy, but the legitimacy of the capital accumulation mechanism.

⬐ WalterSear

If free market capitalism doesn't devolve into an oligarchy, it was never really free market capitalism.

Those two issues are orthogonal to each other. On some plane of understanding, business executives understand that lack of money makes commerce grind to a halt. It's a form of tragedy of the commons, in monetary philosophy. Henry Ford understood this concept; it's why he paid his people well to make cars... which his workers bought.

> there is no discourse on how to handle everyone when nobody needs to work.

I was in haste in that sentence. Things like UBI are being discussed. However, the flip-side is the actual actions that grind down the worker to a 'nothing': robotic/computer work is ideal for every job, to the minds of the Silicon Valley exec.

UBI/Minimum Income: It's been given a many great names through the years. But it's understood as a way for everyone to receive the basic necessities of life, plus a bit more. But this idea requires buy-in of the population at large. Or at least, buy in from the "rich" ( https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig?t=12 )

The problem with Silicon Valley is that they have an assumption this either this already exists somehow, or it will magically appear. What instead happens, is that people lose jobs, wages are forced yet lower and lower, and the human is removed carte blanche in the favor of unpaid robotic labor. On an individual company level, this helps the bottom line of the company (race to the bottom). However, when this idea is expanded to wider and wider areas, it gentrifies the owner class away from everyone else. For in that eventuality, not even upper class jobs exist.

I do not argue that column lines or minutes/week are not given to the idea of UBI. A simple HNsearch query shows that. But I do, and have argued, that SV culture seeks to an absolute minima of nobody working except the owners and, nobody getting paid except for the owners. This, given enough iterations, leads to economic slowdown and disenfranchisement.

As closing questions: What happens when these wheels of extreme automation are turned within the current iteration of government? What happens when we get 50% unemployment? 75%? 95% (nobody working except owners)? Do you think Marshall Brain's idea of Manna is possible or likely?

Not that they have some influence. That they have all the influence. What you and I want has zero effect on congress. What the rich want, they get. So how you claim democracy works is demonstrably not how it works in the USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

No, but I think Americans want a semblance of representation. When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Every time there's an argument about wanting more democracy in the US, it seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants mob rule. But there's a canyon between what exists now and what a more representative government could look like.

⬐ oldmanjay

I'm curious about this capital-P People. Does working for a corporation revoke membership in this club?

⬐ studentrob

> When The People have close to 0% sway in Congress' opinions on bills, and corporations have like 70%, I'd say that's a pretty big freaking deal, no?

There's plenty of time to undo the actions of the past 10, 20, even 30 years.

If you sit back on your heels, throw your arms up in the air, don't vote and say nothing, then you won't be participating in democracy. But if you do use your voice and vote then at least you can say you tried. Everything won't always go your way and we don't have a perfect system. But given our diverse population it is a pretty good one. I say that while in full agreement that there are a lot of laws that need to be reversed or undone.

You'll never entirely remove money from politics. And, we should keep trying to remove it even though we know we won't end up with a perfect solution. That said, lobbyists aren't inherently evil and many share our viewpoints (for example, the EFF)

⬐ mdpopescu

Personally, I don't believe that "at least you can say you tried" is morally superior to not participating in a rigged game.

⬐ studentrob

I did not say anything about morals. I'm not superior to you. I'm just stating my opinion. Choose to do as you wish. If you choose to not participate in the formation of this government, you are free to continue living in the US or live elsewhere. You could even try to start a revolution though I wouldn't recommend it. It is entirely up to you.

⬐ panarky

Excellent video, I hadn't seen that.

Predictably, the argument devolves into one about direct democracy vs. representative democracy, and that's really not the issue at all.

The issue is that the current system consistently acts contrary to the will of the people.

To quote the Princeton study from your video:

  The preferences of the average American appear to have only a
  minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon
  public policy.

⬐ erichocean

> The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

That's a feature, not a bug.

You "can't get your act together" as a third party in a First Past the Post system. The winning strategy is always to vote for the 2 biggest parties. And the media not only strongly favors the two parties and cuts everyone else out from the discussion, but they also cut out any "grassroots" activist that is anti-establishment (unless you're already a media celebrity like Trump, which ends up getting them higher ratings).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&app=desktop

43% of Americans are Independents, and only 29% D and 23% R. And yet most of them still end up voting D or R - do you think that just happens because they end up liking the D or R, or because it's a systemic problem that always forces them to vote for the "lesser evil"?

If you don't think this is not just a problem, but a catastrophic one for US democracy, then the media has brainwashed Americans more than I thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

⬐ jsjohnst

I don't disagree with them on face, but do you have a source for those percentages?

⬐ cmrdporcupine

I agree with your tone, but sadly even in parliamentary systems with third and fourth parties like the UK and Canada, there is a strong bipolar two-party emphasis. And even worse the two parties that do capture power (in Canada the Liberals and Conservatives and in the UK Labour and the Conservatives) have themselves tended towards a rather homogeneous ideological mean, easily poaching policy from each other and rarely altering things that the previous party's gov't had enacted. A fairly standard neo-liberal consensus has settled over all western democracies that even the brutal crisis of 2008 couldn't shake, despite some rather horrible dysfunctions -- stagnant economic growth, growing wealth inequality, endemic poverty that doesn't go away, and a staggering slow moving long term environmental crisis that is going to make our children loathe us. Only in the periphery, in places like Greece, etc. have there been significant alterations to the political consensus, and that was quickly and efficiently snuffed out by the actions of the more "sensible" European mainstream...

In the end -- there's only one way of doing political-economy right now within the confines of western capitalist democracy. All the capital-P Politics is theatre around the margins.

⬐ ZanyProgrammer

What is really needed is genuine proportional representation, not FPTP (like in Britain). Another problem is that with three parties, voting for the third may siphon off votes from its nearest analogue (i.e. the NDP and Liberals in Canada under Harper).

Corruption is a world-wide problem and that includes all nations.

Corruption is Legal in America [Video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Well, at least this Princeton study seems to disagree with you that US is not already an oligarchy:

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

When you have Congress listen to an infinitely larger degree to the powerful and the "will of the people" has a meaningless effect on their decisions, I think that pretty much defines oligarchy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

And before you say "wait a minute - didn't we stop SOPA?", I remember an interview shortly after SOPA was stopped, with Darrel Issa, one of the two most aggressive politicians in Congress wanting to stop it (along with Zoe Lofgren), and he said that what got everyone else to change their minds about SOPA, too, was actually having the big companies join the fight and lobby against it - such as Google, and so on.

That's what apparently got Congress to change its mind about SOPA. There were millions of calls indeed, but a good chunk of those were pushed by Google and Wikipedia on their home page, so I think he's at least half right about that.

If you ask me, I think only two things can change the way the US is right now:

1) a more democratic and representative voting system (IRV/RCV seems good enough for mayors/governors/presidents, and multi-winner RCV/STV for Congress (as well as local councils, etc) would also fix the gerrymandering problem which is a huge issue on its own with American politics and would provide a more representative multi-party government - the end of the two-party system, in other words).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/23/...

As long as the US has the FPTP voting system, people will keep voting for the "Lesser Evil", because they "don't want Mr. Evil" to win (whoever that may be). That's just a terrible way of electing someone democratically. People should have a system that makes them vote with the candidate they like most. Anything else should be thrown out. The FPTP is also what will help Republicans keep winning a majority in Congress with only 40% of the votes, as it tends to happen wherever FPTP exists. Also a terrible way of having a "representative democracy" (even if every now and then it will be the Democrats that will win 51% with 40% support).

2) campaign finance reform (time to end or at least equalize the "money vote", which right now greatly skews the "voting power" in the favor of those with the most money. The vote is supposed to be "equal", but the "money vote" is a sort of parallel voting system that skews who can win and who the winners listen to. Not very democratic at all).

I'm not sure which is more important, but I think the first one could pass more easily, and then over a period of years, people can start electing more representative candidates despite the money the "establishment" candidates will receive. And then those more representative candidates can start supporting changing the campaign finance system as well.

These two changes in the end should be enough to put the US on a more democratic path once again, and act as a catalyst to fix many other political issues, too, whether it's social issues, immigration issues, health issues, copyright issues, and so on.

There's only one candidate that supports changing the voting system (to IRV/RCV) right now (as well as real campaign finance reform), and that's Bernie Sanders (just FYI).

Because we average citizens have no voice in public policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig

Most voters aren't relevant anymore.

Princeton confirmed it in a study earlier this year. It's neatly summed up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig