[tabtab]

Being we've had foreign governments messing with our democracy using social media and hacking, this should be fully investigated. I'm not claiming they are interfering, only saying we should rule out the possibility using our best forensics.

[mattnewton]

I don’t know why we have to point fingers abroad, when there is so much incentive at home to fudge these results from the telecom companies about to be deregulated.

[sounds]

It seems the goal is to rule it out -- in other words, use the political will centering on interference from abroad to kick start the investigation Ajit Pai is so loath to initiate.

It's a political gambit.

[shostack]

I think the concern here is that the line between home incentive and foreign incentive has become indecipherably blurred by recent events with this administration.

We're finding out that people across the entire breadth of the Trump administration have ties to shady Russian dealings. Given the criticism over certain media outlets, and how those are increasingly intertwined with the delivery of said media, it seems a fair question to raise.

[tabtab]

BOTH are problems.

[ams6110]

But beyond that, why would you put an unauthenticated public comment form on the internet and not expect it to be filled with 90% rubbish. I mean, have we not learned anything?

Public forms on the internet != democracy.

[smt88]

> Public forms on the internet != democracy.

I disagree. I think that's exactly what democracy is. That's why the Founding Fathers decided the US should be a republic.

[curiousgal]

>messing with our democracy

The U.S. has had a flawed democracy regardless of foreign meddling. Americans do not even elect their president directly.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...

[belorn]

Do not most nations elect the head of state indirectly?

Here in Sweden the largest block with most seats get to chose the Prime minister and the seats a decided through the general election. Each seats in turn do not represent a set number of voters, but rather represent different areas in order to not let higher population areas completely dominate low population areas. As a result, citizens of the island of gotland which its two seats has almost half the normal amount of voters per seat, based on the idea that people from there should be represented by at least two different political parties and out of 349 seats it don't really make any difference in the big picture.

Democratic systems are complex. It doesn't make it flawed.

[EddieRingle]

If by "flawed" you mean it isn't a true democracy, I would say that I don't think it was ever intended to be one. It was designed to function as a republic and prevent mob rule.

[GCU-Empiricist]

>Americans do not even elect their president directly.

This is a design feature, not a bug. The founding fathers would close your trouble ticket citing the federalist papers.

[anigbrowl]

Much as I like the Federalist papers, the idea that the last word on governance was written >200 years ago is foolish. After all, the founding fathers didn't believe in concepts like universal suffrage or standing armies, and yet here we are with both. I wish people would stop citing them like some sort of religious authorities instead of just relatively wise men whose ideas worked well in an earlier era but have since been fetishized to the point of irrationality.

Personally I want to get rid of representative government as soon as possible and move towards a participatory model instead.

[warent]

That's a bit of a red herring, don't you think? Of course the problems in American democracy can't be reduced to a single source, but that's not what was being said. Simply that foreign interference is certainly a proven problem

[blowski]

I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but I can’t let the response go unsaid: democracy does not require direct elections. The founding fathers were not naive idiots who didn’t know how to design an election.

[curiousgal]

No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.? Everything they did had a reason but some of those reasons do not make sense anymore. The electoral college was put in place to give more saying to the south but that's not needed anymore. Gun ownership was put in place to protect from militias but again, that's not the case anymore, why keep all of these laws?

[mudetroit]

The Electoral college wasn't put in only at the request of the South. A number of smaller states wanted it (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware); because, they feared political domination by the larger states. Same fundamental reason that there is both the House and the Senate.

The big concession to the South with the 3/5 compromise which primarily had an effect upon the representation in the House, and correspondingly an effect on the Electoral College.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Same fundamental reason that there is both the House and the Senate.

Actually the reason there is both the House and the Senate is that the Senate was intended to represent the voice of the states in the federal government. It wasn't supposed to be only about how many votes the people of each state get. Senators were originally appointed by the state legislatures.

That was changed in a fit of populism in the early 20th century and has caused only problems ever since.

[ams6110]

No, gun ownership was put in place to allow citizens to form militias to protect themselves FROM the government.

[jstarfish]

In a day and age where even our local police departments have grenade launchers, MRAPs and other military surplus gear, our right to cling to our handful of pea shooters and pretend like we can overthrow anything has also become a relic of times past.

[Brockenstein]

I'm not a gun nut. I don't own a gun. I don't buy into gun rights for everyone regardless of the human cost.

However. I think you grossly underestimate just how many guns there are in the U.S. There's like 300 million guns floating around, enough to arm every able-bodied adult.

It's not the futility that's preventing armed revolution in the U.S., it's that despite all the crying people do their lives are really good enough that they have something to lose by tearing the whole system down.

I can't predict who would prevail, but if there was a major crisis that sparked a serious revolution that involved millions or tens of millions of U.S. citizens in armed revolt. It might not be as open and shut as you imagine. Military, police, state and local governments aren't going to automatically and universally side with the federal government. It could spiral out of control in ways you can't imagine. And who knows, maybe foreign powers get involved and depending on the circumstances who's to say who they side with.

We're no where near close to anything like that though, so of course it can be hard to contemplate. Imagining that it's impossible is just a lack of imagination though.

The problem that gun legislation faces is that it will take generations to feel reasonable impact of anything but the most draconian laws, and the most draconian laws would never pass. And unfortunately we're short sighted. If something can't be done in a year or an election cycle, it's hopeless. If the results aren't instant and tangible, what was the point? It's a real problem, the lack of long term planning and the willingness to pay for two pounds of cure instead of an ounce of prevention at ten times the price.

[rgbrenner]

The electoral college is not obsolete.

50% of the US population lives in 10 states.

Don't you think the other 40 states would like a say too? Or do you (mistakenly) believe the concerns of urban citizens are identical to those living in rural areas?

[Larrikin]

Why should their vote matter more because they have decided to live in an unpopular location?

[ZoeZoeBee]

Because we live in a Federated Republic of States not a direct Democracy, and the nation you decide to live in was explicitly set up to be governed in a way where a few large states (Virginia at that time) did not have a stranglehold on power over the rest.

[AnthonyMouse]

> why keep all of these laws?

Because it takes agreement from three quarters of the states to change the constitution for good reason, and three quarters of the states aren't convinced we don't need them anymore.

[jackhack]

>No offence by why are the founding fathers put on such a high pedestal in the U.S.?

Because they were exceedingly well educated, with a knowledge of the rise and fall of nations, and of the shortcomings of human nature. They designed a system of checks and balances that gives the individual the best chances at success in such a world. The reasoning behind these decisions are well documented in the Federalist Papers.

[BLKNSLVR]

> They designed a system of checks and balances that gives the individual the best chances at success in such a world

In which loopholes have been found and exploited to such a degree that these checks and balances now gives the individuals with enough moral terpitude the best chance at success at the expense of most individuals.