[tardygrad]

While pointing fingers at Russia or impeaching Trump may be the options that feel good at the moment, I hope this is an opportunity to make sure something like this never happens again.

This is a pipe dream and I'm not sure this is even possible, but I think the best outcome of this is to pass legislation to try and ensure that:

1. Political campaigns don't engage in the type of behaviour in the first place, and

2. Make communications more public in general - official campaigns of people running for public office must operate under the light of greater public scrutiny

Democracy is only possible if accurate information is available, and the biggest takeaway for me in the last elections was just how many secrets all political players have.

[aphextron]

It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major party candidate. Until Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this, money will continue to dominate everything. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be unethical behavior because the incentives are too great.

[orangecat]

money will continue to dominate everything

The Clinton campaign raised and spent much more money than the Trump campaign: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

[siidooloo]

How does that contradict what the other person said?

[bduerst]

It doesn't, it's just more whataboutism. It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power, the extent of which is still being investigated and not fully known.

The U.S. desperately needs campaign finance reform.

[orangecat]

It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power

To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it. If anything, restricting the ability of Americans to express their opinions makes foreign propaganda even stronger.

[bduerst]

>To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it

Again, the investigation is still underway and the full extent of the assistance is still unknown, meaning you can't assert that until the findings are released.

[stordoff]

That the two major candidates raised so much money means that other candidates barely even get a look in. Arguably a different facet of the same problem / part of a much broader problem that the two major parties are so entrenched.

[threeseed]

There was far more money spent by third parties e.g. PACs, NRA, Special Interests etc and so without including those this statement isn't a true reflection of the campaign.

[geowwy]

Do you have the figures? According to this Hillary got more support from PACs etc too:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

[enraged_camel]

Yes, and?

This problem goes well beyond any single political candidate.

[orangecat]

The claim is that campaign spending is so determinative of election results that we have to throw people in prison for spending money to express their political opinions in unapproved ways. Both the primaries and general election in 2016 are strong evidence against this. (Sanders outspent Clinton: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-ha.... Jeb Bush spent a fortune: http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/).

[chillwaves]

Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage.

You need to think about these things in nuance rather than just looking at hard numbers.

People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes.

Context matters.

[orangecat]

Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage.

Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to.

People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes.

And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.

[specialist]

Sure. If you exclude PACs, dark money, earned media...

[oblib]

"Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this..."

My own opinion is that asking politicians who take "Big Money" to pass legislation to put a stop to that is unrealistic. It will never, ever, happen.

What is realistic is to personally pledge and publicly announce that you will stop voting for any politician who takes or uses Big Money and urge others to do the same.

When you get enough representatives elected who don't take that Big Money, and defeat enough who do, passing that legislation will be possible. But not before then.

This is happening right now. People are beginning to do this. We all need to do this.

[djrogers]

> a set equal amount for each major party candidate

So the government gets to decide which political parties can run candidates? That sounds a little too much like certain 'democratic' dictatorships. I don't think we want to (or can) put that much power in the hands of the government.

[chickenbane]

I would be happy with laws clearly requiring a presidential candidate to disclose their full income taxes for the past 5 years, and also required them to put their assets into a blind trust / index fund when inaugurated into office. We should not have to question the president's basic motivations or allegiances.

Stronger anti-nepotism laws, restraints on the ability to pardon, and ending the electoral college also all seem helpful and would have bipartisan support.

[adventured]

Ending the electoral college would have nearly zero bipartisan support. Democrats have a popular vote advantage, and the demographics + immigration picture of the US guarantee that will remain for a generation at least (as far as one can reasonable project into the future anyway). The Republicans are fully aware of that problem, they'd never support ending the electoral college. Republicans broadly also do not believe in what would be closer to direct democracy.

If ending the electoral college had any meaningful bipartisan support, it would already be dead as a system, as changing that is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats.

[dahdum]

Public support for abolishing the electoral college also drops with higher educational attainment. It’s reasonable to assume as the issue is debated publicly overall support would drop as more become informed.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...

[oldgulph]

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

[djrogers]

And in 2013 a Democrat led Senate failed to pass an assault weapons ban. Times and opinions change, and expecting any politician to always vote the same way twice is folly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2013

[dahdum]

Is the list of those who oppose shorter? Back then the Senate killed it, and I doubt they wouldn’t do so again. Given the population growth of coastal cities it would be a hard sell for a state like South Dakota to ratify.

Each party would adjust their platform as a result, so there is fundamental advantage to either that I see. It would certainly save a lot of time spent campaigning in the middle battleground states, and result in a lot more pork barrel projects in cities.

[oldgulph]

The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House. It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

[oldgulph]

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House. It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5). The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

[moduspol]

What relevance does this have to political campaigns?

You seem to be implying it's a foregone conclusion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to do this, but that certainly hasn't been proven.

At best, this reveals a clearer link in the DNC emails being hacked from Russia. These were then sent to Wikileaks. If they came from Russia, then it was likely to influence our election, and it likely benefited Trump. But that (in no way) implies any behavior on the part of the Trump campaign. You're making a big leap here.

[catawbasam]

There need to be clear consequences, to serve as a deterrent. Having a functioning democracy is a core interest of the United States, so the consequences should be severe.

[polotics]

Well, treason is already well defined in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...

No one has been executed for treason against the federal government. Yet.

[stale2002]

Or in other words, instead of trying to prevent leaks, we should encourage as many leaks as possible, so as to provide transparency on political campaigns.

[saas_co_de]

The best way to fight fascism is with censorship ... obviously.

[SanderSantema]

I don't think it's necessarily a pipe dream but I don't it's just a case of changing some laws I think it would require a culture change to. To me politics still seem really representative of the people, politicians can only prosper if there's an environment for them to.

[djur]

What kind of behavior do you mean by "the type of behavior"?