Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Lessig Bets 'Wikipedia' Approach Will Transform Congress
blog.wired.com — A prominent Stanford law professor on Thursday launched an ambitious project that aims to use collaborative software to harness the extraordinary levels of pent-up political energy and dissatisfaction that voters have shown over the past two years with their members of congress.
JohnUSeed- 858 diggs
- digg it
- JohnUSeed, on 03/21/2008, -2/+39For those interested, the web site for the movement is at http://change-congress.org/ .
- franksalvo, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Thanks
- einfeldt, on 03/21/2008, -1/+12Larry likes "cc" for the name of his organizations. It is his trademark. heh. Creative Commons is cc, so Change Congress will have to be CC.
- capiCrimm, on 03/21/2008, -4/+1Depends on the likelihood of confusion between the two. Having the same acronym does not make it infringement.
- doowell, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3Seems like the best way to get rid of as many politicians as possible.
- caferrell, on 03/21/2008, -3/+23This may help. I am going to donate to the cause, but what we really need are term limits. The only way to get term limits passed is by State legislatures to pass a term limit Constitutional amendment.
If Change Congress can get enough people on both sides of the aisle involved, CC might be able to help organize that effort.- blindhammer, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16Why do we need term limits? It just seems like an artificial answer to the real problem in the United States: election laws are totally slanted towards supporting a two-party system.
If the US moved towards proportional representation, we wouldn't really need term limits.- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1That is another good alternative, but after having spent time in DC, I can assure you that the city is difficult to resist. The longer a man or woman is there, the more that they are mesmerized by the whole Washington scene until they can no longer see past the beltway.
So - term limits and proporcional representation.
- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1That is another good alternative, but after having spent time in DC, I can assure you that the city is difficult to resist. The longer a man or woman is there, the more that they are mesmerized by the whole Washington scene until they can no longer see past the beltway.
- jimfeet, on 03/21/2008, -0/+10I'm not sure I agree with your strict term limits solution.
a) What incentive does an elected official have to work for the people when he/she will be out after a set time? They might be more likely to work to the benefit of their next prospective employer.
b) What if you DO get an official who really DOES work for the good of the people (yeah, I agree, I have yet to see it happen - but just supposing) only to find they are out the door after their term limit?
Term limits might work or they may simply create new conditions that politicians merely adapt to.- haydesigner, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1@jimfeet:
a) That doesn't happen now??
b) That does happen now??
- haydesigner, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1@jimfeet:
- smurfsahoy, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7Term limits will simply elect more of the same kinds of people, except that all of them will have less experience at getting things done...
Or do you mean a limit on the NUMBER of terms? If so, I don't see your logic. If people keep electing them, they're probably doing a good job. - ryllharu, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1I've often thought about term limits before, and came to the same conclusion many above did. Term limits will probably backfire on the voters for any number of reasons.
What we actually need are Votes of No Confidence, much like British Parliament has against their Prime Minister. Only, allow voters or state governments extremely dissatisfied with their Senators/Representatives the ability to recall them when they stop serving the interests of their constituents, or start serving the interests of others (such as lobbyists).
I come from Connecticut, and would very much like to apply this to Lieberman, who while running as an independent "promised" that he would still support the views and ideals of CT, only to stab us all in the back as soon as he returned to his cushy seat in Congress. Just like all of us who voted against him knew he would.
I'm sure many other States have legislators just like him.
- blindhammer, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16Why do we need term limits? It just seems like an artificial answer to the real problem in the United States: election laws are totally slanted towards supporting a two-party system.
- michael4lsu, on 03/21/2008, -6/+8Outstanding idea!!! One thing that should be added to it is the pledge that the Congressman will never vote in favor of anything that is not authorized by the Constitution. Their willingness to make this pledge as well as their track record of following this pledge should be displayed on the map as well. In other words, how well they uphold their OATHS! Ron Paul is probably the only Congressman who supports the Constitution 100% right now, but hopefully we will end up with more.
- onetimer, on 03/21/2008, -7/+11Yes, if only there was some kind of pledge... and Oath even...
Oh wait:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
As for Ron Paul, for such a "constitutionalist", he sure had no problem voting for a federal bill banning abortion, and submitting multiple bills that would basically prevent the supreme court from hearing such issues (as outlined in the constitution)- sigg14, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2once again onetimer spews lies about his favorite man RON PAUL. he never voted for this bill you speak of. the pledge part i agree with you on 100% everyone in congress is already bound by the constitution, they just choose not to abide by their oath
- cramtod, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4True, Ron Paul did not vote for the bill, he INTRODUCED the bill ("We The People Act", HR 300). The only reason he never voted on the bill is because it never made it out of the House Committee on the Judiciary. By introducing the bill, Ron "Constitutionalist" Paul was trying to make an end run around the Judiciary to further his conservative ideals.
- sigg14, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1you should read the bill yourself. all it would do is remove the federal governments control over issues that should be left up to the state. This bill would not "ban" abortion at all, it would allow the people of each state decide what they wanted
- cramtod, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4True, Ron Paul did not vote for the bill, he INTRODUCED the bill ("We The People Act", HR 300). The only reason he never voted on the bill is because it never made it out of the House Committee on the Judiciary. By introducing the bill, Ron "Constitutionalist" Paul was trying to make an end run around the Judiciary to further his conservative ideals.
- sigg14, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2once again onetimer spews lies about his favorite man RON PAUL. he never voted for this bill you speak of. the pledge part i agree with you on 100% everyone in congress is already bound by the constitution, they just choose not to abide by their oath
- HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -8/+5Dugg down for Ron Paul
- gbonin, on 03/21/2008, -1/+0You miss the whole point of the pledge. The idea is to be as non-political as possible so as to garner non-partisan support. Whether you agree or not, constitutional interpretation is a political issue. While it is true that public funding of campaigns and the other issues in the pledge are political, they all have to do with corruption. Taking political positions outside this realm will only muddy the waters and drive away people who might otherwise support the movement.
- n00854180t, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah, except they're already bound to uphold the Constitution. What I think we should do is enact some sort of rather grave punishment for the crime of breaking it, which we'll call "treason." How about death?
- onetimer, on 03/21/2008, -7/+11Yes, if only there was some kind of pledge... and Oath even...
- smacksaw, on 03/21/2008, -2/+3Interesting. But what is going to stop PACs from simply paying voters to support certain policies? If we do start to use tools like this to have more direct gov't, shouldn't there be provisions in it making it illegal for the lobbyists to simply take their ball to a different court?
- caferrell, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2It helps to make it more difficult. By all means the PACs and more importantly the Corporations and big unions like the NEA will find ways to get to the politicians, but the more difficult that it is, the less contact they will have and the more frequently they will be discovered.
The only way to truly clean up the Congress is with term limits.- smacksaw, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1But would it really? Think about election day, when you hear about some party (usually the Democrats) giving hot meals to the indigent and then busing them to a polling station. "The vote bus, sponsored by Philip Morris with free Kraft snacks 2009" or something like that.
What if this sort of "accountability" turns into grassroots corruption? Like companies paying people to "canvas" and give samples...we just need really stronger, clearer wording about how voters can be contacted. If I'm the NAACP and I want to promote civil rights, where is the difference between that and Philip Morris promoting smoker's rights? Because one reward is less intangible than the other?- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1It will happen of course, but it is a number of steps removed from the Congressmen. Now the Phillip Morris lobbyist writes legislation for the Congressman.
- smacksaw, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1But would it really? Think about election day, when you hear about some party (usually the Democrats) giving hot meals to the indigent and then busing them to a polling station. "The vote bus, sponsored by Philip Morris with free Kraft snacks 2009" or something like that.
- HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3You would vote in a way that disenfranchises yourself if someone paid you?
- smacksaw, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Considering all of the people who don't vote, it might be just the incentive to get them to do so. Maybe they're just waiting for compensation, or immediate gratification for their vote.
- n00854180t, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Eh, I don't think paying voters to vote a certain way is even in the same realm of severity as PACs as they exist now. It's basically flat out bribery as far as I'm concerned. The reason I don't think paying individual voters to vote a certain way would work, is that for 1) right now the PACs cherry pick which issues get voted on either by Congress or on ballots, and 2) any voter even remotely savvy would just take their money and vote however they felt like. Personally I'd do the aforementioned #2 just to spite those ***** for the years of despicable bribery.
- caferrell, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2It helps to make it more difficult. By all means the PACs and more importantly the Corporations and big unions like the NEA will find ways to get to the politicians, but the more difficult that it is, the less contact they will have and the more frequently they will be discovered.
- stew00mz, on 03/21/2008, -0/+17Unfortunately asking politions to sign and follow a wikipedia style pledge is not going to change anything. I hate to sound disenfranchised, but the internet is just not the equal playing ground people think it is. Look a Wikipedia, you can learn more about resident evil of some new movie than more accedemic topics. Even here on digg, brett farve retiring got more diggs, than political corruption of proff of government abuse.
- Richandler, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4Wikipedia is full of power hungry political correctness maniacs too I don't see how that is any different than congress.
- HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6Wikis are a good way to collaboratively edit a document by lots of biased people and generate a pretty neutral, compromise result. But they're incredibly inefficient.
"Wikipedia is like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made."
Behind every major Wikipedia article is many times as much discussion and argument. Now imagine what would happen if Wikipedia articles affected what people could say or do in their daily lives. Yeesh. They only work when everyone is agreeing to cooperate and not just try to brute force their personal opinions into the document. It's pretty difficult to achieve this just writing encyclopedia articles.- fyngyrz, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2"Wikis are a good way to collaboratively edit a document by lots of biased people and generate a pretty neutral, compromise result."
...except where the majority of editors are unqualified to deal with the subject, as in religion and other superstition, atheism, politics, science, psychology...
There's nothing quite as entertaining, and as inaccurate, as watching a religious type trying to define atheism as "a religion", except perhaps an atheist trying to define "faith" in terms of evidence.
As for politics... mostly illusion. The definition of pure democracy is an arrangement whereby any two idiots outvote an expert. Very similar to a wiki, coincidentally. But we don't have a democracy. We used to have a constitutional republic, back when the constitution actually controlled the actions of the three branches of government. Now we have a dictatorial republic, driven by well-compensated people who receive their direction and income from corporations. The constitution has assumed the role of historical curiosity.
- fyngyrz, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2"Wikis are a good way to collaboratively edit a document by lots of biased people and generate a pretty neutral, compromise result."
- dgarallenpoe, on 03/21/2008, -2/+0Approved
- Lunarbunny, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2[Citation needed]
- HonestAbe, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1Wait a second. What does this have to do with Wikipedia? It looks like a map, some checkboxes, and a badge to put on your website. I'm confused.
- benbos, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2the wiki is going to be launched in April.
- omababy, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I love Lessig
- Frnnkdlxx, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5Ok. For the first time in a long time, i'm excited about politics.
:)
"You're fired"- userperson, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1.. and the next people will be completely different.
- mmeiser, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3if we can just get some of the top political bloggers to endorse this and use it as a tool with their viewers it's golden
- Hangly, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5Roaches prefer to have the lights off.
- userperson, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1Yes, renounce everything that makes you powerful ... yeah that'll happen.
- sfacets, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Will we be able to nominate politicians for review by a panel?
- oldgal, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1I think it would be more successful if he allowed it to be self-organizing in the beginning. I would really like to see a deal like this where problems are defined and solutions are collaboratively formulated. That insures buy-in, and generally generates really creative ideas that attack problems from new directions.
- keraneuology, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1We do not need term limits, we need votes of confidence. Every year between representative elections on the ballot ask a simple question: is congress doing a good job? If the majority of people in the country say "no" then every member of congress is excluded from their next election. They can run again, but they have to step aside for at least one term.
- 4degrees, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Now thats something I can get behind.
- rogerbly, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Other coverage:
San Jose Mercury News: "Tech law expert to take on Congress"
http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_8635224?IADID
American Prospect, Tapped: "The Passion of Lessig"
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive? ...
- rogerbly, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Other coverage:
- waynetheman, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Yawn. THIS is considered change? Please.
How about spreading the word about things like the "Read the Bills Act", or the "One Subject at a Time Act"? How about letting citizens know which politician stands behind the repeal of the Real ID Act and the Patriot Act? Does anyone honestly think vague concepts like "transparency" and "getting the money out of politics", when not backed with specifics (and not turned into some monstrosity like public funding of campaigns!) is going to change anything?
Here's an online collaborative effort that's attempting REAL change:
http://www.downsizedc.org - mnchrist, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2The best thing that can save America's national problems and bring this country back to a more constitutional, free market, personal liberty-oriented basis would be rather easy-elect 15-20 (minimum) more Ron Paul's out there. Its all about getting the word out. Thank God many of the mass collaboration/peer sharers are on digg reading these kinds of articles and understand the problems the U.S. has and the right solution-freedom.
- Antarcticn, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Anything is good that puts criminal godvernment's many TREASONS right in-your-face -- especially the mindless masses of brain-dead sheeple. Political hacks haunting the HoRs and syndicate/senate must be held accountable for their TREASONS. Right now, they commit crimes at will. We The People suffer under a federal mafia. It's not a gov't OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People. Not nowadays.
Larry Lessig's idea could succeed if he makes it entertainment for the "American Idol" generation of severely dumbed-down citizens. If he can't do that, it's doomed to failure because ignoramus dumbheads grossly outnumber politically aware truly patriotic Americans.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by