This only matters - voting in the presidential elections - in the red states. If you're a liberal, progressive, futurist, etc, and you're living in states like CA or NY or OR, then statistically speaking, those states are pretty much gonna go democrat regardless. So your vote counts 'less' there.
What is needed is a bunch of these people to move to swing states where the vote really matters. Places like OH, FL, etc.
But, the blue states people have built their own little comfortable enclaves in their respective states and there's little chance they'll be moving to places like AK, TN, or MS.
Now, why does this matter? Well, because it's clear the republicans are pro big business and in the case of net neutrality, pro locking up the internet for the few (the few being, big media/telecom companies). There will never be a pro-citizen net neutrality policy as long as the republicans/big-business types are running the show.
So, living in CA, for instance, doesn't matter much in this case. Having a progressive, pro-net mentality will make much more difference in swing states.
There's also the fact that voting Dev or living in California don't always equal "good for the net."
We're very aware of how much Hollywood and the RIAA/MPAA want their claws in as much of the internet as they can to "protect the entertainment industry." They were drooling over SOPA/PIPA/COICA/etc.
The democrats will happily lock up the internet in favor of their own big media/telecom interests too. That's something I think people often forget. Remember, one of the first things Obama did was hire five former RIAA lawyers to the DOJ.
Perhaps someone needs to organize a movement of large populations of progressive future thinking utopian philosophers moving to different states to more effectively rig elections in the way of a more enlightened future.
Alas, I don't think there are enough of these types to actually effectively hack elections like that.
Or here's a crazy idea, the democratic party can start actively addressing the real economic issues of the lower class directly, and ease up on social issues / identity politics.
I really think that the American left (and I say this as a pretty far left guy myself) is still caught in a hangover from the civil rights era, where we're fighting for the rights of increasingly smaller groups of people so we can still be seen as the liberal / progressive party, while ignoring economic issues that are so hard to fight for in our version of democractic government.
I'm not disagreeing with you about Net Neutrality, but to assume your opinion is enlightened or progressive for a people you've never met is very narcissistic.
Narcissism would imply that my perspective personally is affected by the outcome and that I believe my opinion is superior to everyone elses, which I don't.
I'm talking about for the people in general. Net Neutrality within the U.S. has absolutely no bearing on me personally as I'm neither a U.S. citizen, nor a resident. I'm merely opining because I am interested in the well-being of my fellow humans... in this instance, Americans and residents affected by internet service providers looking to dishonestly gouge their customers.
I care about you guys and your struggles, I care when I see people being taken advantage of, I care about the erosion of your constitutional rights, I care when I see you having to struggle to have your voices heard by a system that doesn't give a fuck about you except for how quickly they can part you from your money. I care because I see your struggles every day, I listen to your complaints, I follow your news, I read and I watch. I speak from a place of wanting to fight your causes. I live on the internet and it's hard to stand by and watch your internet gradually being taken away and used to exploit you.
So to assume I'm narcissistic without knowing anything about my background or my motives for comment is slightly er... I don't even have a word to finish that sentence.
> This only matters - voting in the presidential elections - in the red states.
Wrong, you mean swing states.
> If you're a liberal, progressive, futurist, etc, and you're living in states like CA or NY or OR, then statistically speaking, those states are pretty much gonna go democrat regardless. So your vote counts 'less' there.
Just as it counts less if you're a Republican in one of those states. Or a Democrat in Mississippi.
> But, the blue states people have built their own little comfortable enclaves in their respective states and there's little chance they'll be moving to places like AK, TN, or MS.
But when they want to escape the tax climate they'll move to Colorado or Wyoming or Austin, TX.
It really doesn't matter very much what opinion the President has of the electoral college, the President doesn't have much say in the matter. Perhaps the President could use their position to push for change, but that would be the extent of it.
I'm aware that it would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Was just taking an easy jab at his absolutely blatant hypocrisy between 2012 and 2016.
An alternative might be a collection of states banding together to solve how they send members to the electoral college. "First past the post" versus "representative" (versus fancier, better options, like run-off voting) is a state's right under the constitution.
Current first-past-the-post states are incentivized under the current regime to stay that way because it makes for more opportunity to be treated as a "ballroom belle" ("swing state") each election cycle, which brings money and attention to the state it might not ever see otherwise.
It's possible, though sadly unlikely, you could fix the current regime by fixing things from the bottom up at the state legislature level, one state at a time if need be.
You could still live in CA and have more of an impact on the elections by moving out to a more rural part of the state... House of Representatives districts matter as much as state lines.
At this point it isn't even really so much blue-state versus red-state: it's a lot closer to city versus rural/country.
Or how about the ones who actually think net neutrality is a terrible idea and think the Free Market (tm) should solve it, yet they refuse to put forward a workable solution for how this would happen.
If we publicize telco infrastructure and rent it out to various companies, that would solve much of the probl..."OH!! BUT then it's not free market! Each carrier should have to buy their own infrastructure otherwise it's not fair!! Blah blah" Right, even though much of the infrastructure was built with public funds. Ok, so back to net neutrality? "No! Government regulations are evil! The free market can solve this!"
How, exactly? Can someone tell me how the free market can deliver net neutrality with federal, state, and local governments in the pocket of the large telcos? I'm actually asking.