Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday

http://blog.nahurst.com/dont-re-elect-sopa-supporters

by nathanh • 14 years ago

435 172 14 years ago

blog.nahurst.com

GotAnyMegadeth• 14 years ago

perhaps this should be "Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday, but make sure you vote for an alternative."

sneak11• 14 years ago

Fuck that, don't re-elect PATRIOT Act supporters. SOPA pales in comparison to losing one's basic human rights.

(Hint: Obama renewed Bush's PATRIOT Act when it was due to sunset.)

The seemingly commonplace idea that popular american liberals are somehow less evil than the GOP is dangerous poison.

PS: inb4 instant-runoff voting

thebooktocome• 14 years ago

I think it's safe to say that there is no plausible electoral outcome that ends with the new President working to repeal the PATRIOT act.

sneak11• 14 years ago

Then those of us that consider living somewhere with basic human rights important have exactly two (2) options:

- Take up arms in violent revolution to restore due process,

- or, -

- Flee the country and take one's productive energies and output to a place that has the rule of law.

I abhor violence in all nonconsensual forms. This summer will be five years since I left job, family, friends, native language, and significant other behind in what was easily the most difficult and taxing decision I have ever made in my life.

There are no other reasonable options now but to flee. To remain and to contribute in light of these facts is to support and enable this course of events. Don't be evil.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

At least vote 3rd party for people who would like to do that. If enough people do that, they might at least want to consider some of those policies for the next elections. Real change has to start somewhere.

jonnathanson• 14 years ago

The only plausible outcome for this election would be if Obama won, and he decided in his second term -- with nothing to lose, politically -- that he would repeal the PATRIOT act. (Not because Obama is any better on this issue than Romney, but because by nature, a second-term president has less to fear in making politically risky calls).

I would call this scenario highly unlikely, if only because he'd face strong pressure from his party not to repeal it, jeopardizing everyone else's political futures in doing so.

This is one of those obnoxious political footballs that is entrenched precisely because everyone's too chickenshit to do anything about it. Republicans won't do it, because they have a rah-rah jingoistic voting base to appeal to. Democrats won't do it, because they don't want to look "soft on terrorism." And nobody wants to be the guy who repeals it right before another attack happens. So both parties are strongly disincentivized to repeal it.

In the long run, I think we'd need a grassroots movement to pressure politicians to make it a core issue.

Shivetya• 14 years ago

I am all for changing who is in the White House every four years until they take the hint. I would be of the same mind for Congress but they keep changing the rules to make it near impossible to get them out. The only recent threat to them had even the press siding with politicians!

Just like with schools, most people will claim that Congress is bad but have no reason NOT to support their guy because he is "the good one".

Term Limits, I am more than willing to take the bad many associate with term limits over the situation as is

Goronmon• 14 years ago

The seemingly commonplace idea that popular american liberals are somehow less evil than the GOP is dangerous poison.

What does this statement have to do with the topic being discussed?

Other than just being the usual political flamebait that people always feel compelled to sling around when discussing policitics, of course.

sneak11• 14 years ago

The post is suggesting that people vote based on issues vitally important to the freedoms of this interest group (HN).

I am pointing out that one should live (and vote, and think, et c) based on issues vitally important to the freedoms of all humans, as these are much more life-and-death than internet censorship (and that one is huge, too).

Political flamebait is usually of the pro-/anti-skub variety. I argue that it is just that - flamebait - as we can expect near-identical behavior on the issue of basic liberties from any candidate in the US with half a prayer of being elected.

It is now time to leave. This is not a drill.

mindslight• 14 years ago

I think democrat presidents are actually worse for the discourse, as the blue plebs turn into complacent government supporters, while the red plebs think that repeating the republican party line is a form of dissent.

anonymoushn• 14 years ago

My plan is to not re-elect EESA supporters. I don't think this plan will work very well, though.

rayiner9• 14 years ago

What "basic human rights" does the PATRIOT Act impinge?

It's been a decade, and I don't see the "there" there. The PATRIOT Act was supposed to be the end of the republic, but so far it seems to have had no impact in practice.

sneak11• 14 years ago

The lack of judicial oversight for the executive branch's data gathering powers granted by the Act evaporates any circumstances in which the First Amendment could reasonably and effectively be used for unpopular speech or unpopular assembly.

The banking regulation amendments effectively prohibit large scale anonymous or unpopular publishing and communication/organization of effective resistance.

A shining example presently is the harassment of the social networks of Wikileaks associates and supporters. Another is the collection and use of Twitter and GSM metadata of protesters in New York.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/fbi-informant-infilt...

The next time something like COINTELPRO happens, it won't have a wikipedia page for it, and those attempting to draw attention to it will be jailed indefinitely without trial.

Note that this is the same FBI that targeted Martin Luther King - but now with no sunlight. If you don't see the real, live implications of this sort of tyranny, you aren't paying attention.

The government issues over 40,000 NSLs a year, now.

btilly• 14 years ago

It seems to have had no impact in practice because you haven't been told whether your communications are being monitored, who is monitoring them, or what conclusions they are drawing.

Until there is a publicized abuse of this information - like happened with Watergate - people will not be made aware of how much our political system has been impacted. Of course the people who would like to abuse it are perfectly aware of this, and very conveniently the PATRIOT act has lots of safeguards built in to help them avoid public discussion of their actions.

In this light I find it very concerning that the NSA has argued - with a straight face - that it would violate the right to privacy of Americans for Americans to be told how many are currently being monitored.

zhemao• 14 years ago

The problem with this is, how can we be sure that their opponents won't also vote for such legislation if they get into office?

ajross• 14 years ago

We don't, obviously. And in most cases positions on bills like this are a function of geography more than politics -- if a bill is desired by local lobbyists the local representatives are going to support it. This is the problem with single-issue voting in a two party system; it simply doesn't work the way you want it to except in very limited ways:

SOPA died because its proponents wanted to avoid the controversy that was growing over it and dropped it, seeing litle upside. That is the way single-issue politics works in the US system. And the system worked, and the bill isn't law. Trying to prolong the fight at the ballot box does nothing more than make you enemies among the supporters of basically every other single-issue subject in american politics.

A really important related point is that not all issues are like this. A vote at the ballot box isn't going to do anything about SOPA or follow-on bills, but it is likely to have effects on future tax and health care policy, court appointments (hint: which party's judicial appointments are most friendly to heavy-handed internet regulation?), and (in the executive branch) the choice to engage in wars of aggression.

Don't fool yourself into being a single-issue voter. This isn't a parliamentary system.

slurgfest4• 14 years ago

It's a safe bet that if a candidate publicly opposes SOPA they are a lot less likely to vote for it. So look for that, if you are a single-issue voter on SOPA.

hypersoar• 14 years ago

In California, he hasn't taken into account redistricting. If you live in the the new 30th district, your choices are Brad Sherman and Howard Berman - both on this list. There are a lot of people involved in the entertainment industry around there (it's in the San Fernando Valley), so it might be impossible to elect someone not beholden to it.

(I know this because I used to live in Brad Sherman's district. I never expected that area to have a competitive congressional race, and now it's the site of one of the most expensive, bewildering, and viciously competitive races in the country.)

wonderyak• 14 years ago

I currently live in this district and the amout of political ads coming through my mail are INSANE.

There is almost no right choice here.

ssharp2• 14 years ago

I think it's irresponsible to say "don't vote for this incumbent because he/she supported SOPA" without offering any explanation on the alternative candidates' positions on SOPA. It seems probable that some portion of the opponents might also support SOPA-like legislature.

mtgx2• 14 years ago

Real facts and actions are better than a theory that another one might do it, too. You need to take that into consideration, too, but at the end of the day one actually voted for SOPA, and another hasn't (at least yet). To me the option is clear.

ssharp2• 14 years ago

I guess it's clear if your voting entirely on one issue, which is what the OP is about.

For me, the alternative is a Republican candidate, who if he wins, has the potential to change the majority of the Senate, and has taken positions I do not agree with, including reproductive rights, marriage equality, energy and global warming.

I don't agree with SOPA at all but I feel like it's something that would actually be debated. These other issues are so polarizing that it becomes majority rule and to me, that makes them more important.

Regardless, it's good to be educated about your candidates.

slurgfest4• 14 years ago

Public statements/positions are actions and have a lot of predictive value. Do you seriously think that we should AVOID looking into the other candidate's relationship to the issue?

ericdykstra• 14 years ago

American politics has always been about voting for the guy/party who hasn't fucked you over yet, even if they're just as likely to as the first guy. That's why we see the house majority, senate majority, and presidency change hands between the "two" parties so often.

tspike• 14 years ago

That's by design, and it's a beautiful thing. Set up a solid set of core human rights and then design a system that disempowers bickering politicians and you've got a flourishing democracy. Unfortunately, it decays over time.

btipling• 14 years ago

I think this article might have made more sense during the primaries. I'm not happy with Feinstein supporting SOPA, but I'm not going to vote for her conservative opponent who probably also would have supported SOPA.

theevocater3• 14 years ago

If you are in CA, I'm not sure that voting against Feinstein will help you. Emken doesn't seem to have many real positions and her website is lacking in any real substance of her stance on issues. She has a lot of platitudes but it seems she basically just supports the straight Romney line with "repeal healthcare" "job creators" and other nonsense.

More importantly voting on a single issue that never even passed is dumb. Congress people tend to be older folks who don't know much about tech anyway. Supporting the bill should not be this poison pill. In fact, if anything, supporting it and then pulling support once they learned of the opposition should be celebrated as a successful execution of American politics.

Anyway: educate yourselves.

http://vote-ca.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=ca&id=caem...

http://www.emken2012.com/inner.asp?z=5E5A585B

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/

jredwards3• 14 years ago

For what it's worth, I wrote a letter to Feinstein protesting her support of SOPA/PIPA, and the form letter her office sent back to me made it quite clear that neither she nor anyone in her office actually understood the issue or the consequences.

I don't know that I'll be voting for her opponent, and I don't think she has any chance of losing, but the fact that she could be such a strong proponent (she co-sponsored Protect-IP) of a law that she so clearly did not understand has put me off the idea of ever voting for her again.

theevocater3• 14 years ago

It is likely that she/her office felt that they did understand the issue. Most people are not tech people and her only inputs were probably executives/lobbyists looking to strengthen copyright. I'm all for lobbying to make sure more congresspeople know what the issues are but writing off candidates because of one issue is really silly.

tptacek6• 14 years ago

So, for instance, if you live in Minnesota, this page thinks you should vote for Kurt Bills instead of returning Amy Klobuchar to the Senate, because voting against someone who supported SOPA makes it sensible to vote for someone who supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and who believes we should consider unborn fetuses "persons" and thus ban not only abortion but also stem cell research.

Asinine.

The objections on this thread blow my mind. "But but but what if their opponent also supports SOPA?" How about first you make sure your "alternative" candidate doesn't think we should nuke Mecca? Jiminy Christmas, if you don't already know why you support your Senate and Congressional candidates and can't be bothered to go look up their positions on real issues, please stay the hell away from the voting booth.

city41• 14 years ago

The truly asinine thing is our political system constantly pits media and copyright issues against social issues like abortion and same sex marriage. The fact remains most Democrats are very much in the RIAA and MPAA camp. The whole system is asinine.

tptacek6• 14 years ago

Amy Klobuchar doesn't support a teenage rape victim's right not to be forced by law into bearing a the resulting fetus to term because it's a strategy to keep you from pirating Creed CDs.

angersock5• 14 years ago

If you want to be honest about this, consider that SOPA is an issue (as in, potentially will impact) for far more Americans (and people worldwide!) than same-sex marriage or even abortion.

The system is broken, etc. etc. Might as well play the long game.

tptacek6• 14 years ago

If you think SOPA is more important than whether a woman should be forced to testify in front of a court and then drive across 2 states to secure a first trimester abortion after being raped, then you're an asshole.

I'd respect someone more if they strongly believed that women should have to endure that hardship, because it takes some serious principles to confront that issue and come out thinking the state should be demanding women carry hostile pregnancies to term. But your comment suggests they should just so you can keep torrenting The Avengers.

I don't want to know these things about people on HN, so I flagged this story, unflagged it, hit my keyboard a couple times, and then flagged it again.

_delirium2• 14 years ago

If weighted by the severity of impact, though, I think it comes out the other way. Not to mention that I have no confidence that the religious-right candidates will leave the internet alone anyway, given the strongly pro-censorship history of religious conservatives in American politics.

rayiner9• 14 years ago

SOPA has a much smaller impact than abortion or gay marriage for people it does impact. And abortion impacts fully half the population. It's not just people who get abortions, it'll being able to plan a career without the risk of it brig torpedoed by an unplanned pregnancy.

Abortion is one of the biggest issues in terms of dollar value. There are two inescapable facts of life: people will have sex, and contraception even properly used has relatively high failure rates (1-3%). The availability of reproductive services is responsible for women being able to participate in the economy as opposed to being stuck in childbearing roles as they have been historically. They are far, far more important than SOPA.

notatoad2• 14 years ago

I agree with what you're saying, but I think more important than any issue is sending the message to politicians that if they do stupid things, they don't get to stay in office. Get rid of the moron who voted for SOPA, and vote in the moron who hates women. Then, two years later, vote him out. He won't have had a chance to do any damage yet, and we'll have sent the message to Minnesota politicians that neither of their positions were tolerable.

(disclaimer: i do not live in the US, and i don't vote in elections in my home country. i'm just talking out of my ass here)

rhizome9• 14 years ago

This is a great point that I have been struggling with for some months now: "change" is a perfectly valid vote. In software development terms, it's reasonable to think the government is suffering from a lack of iteration.

dllthomas• 14 years ago

> Then, two years later, vote him out.

In the senate, it's 6 years.

anigbrowl10• 14 years ago

He won't have had a chance to do any damage yet

What makes you think that?

eli4• 14 years ago

This is a truly terrible idea. I am not sure what message you think it will send or even who the message is supposed to be directed towards.

You should vote for the best candidate.

jacoblyles5• 14 years ago

Who's the moron who hates women? If you are saying that because he is pro-life, then most women hate women because more women in America identify with "pro-life" than "pro-choice" when given the option.

johnpowell• 14 years ago

Well, they will probably shift pretty fast once some RIAA money trickles in. I care a lot more about my daughters right to be in control of her reproductive health than I do about people downloading the new Jay-Z single for free.

itistoday2• 14 years ago

Heh, supposing the politician isn't re-elected, do you think the reason for it is even knowable? There could be 50 other single-issue voters who voted them out for various different reasons, or a variety of other possibilities.

guelo• 14 years ago

We need single-issue tech voters that keep their eye on the ball and don't let campaigns distract them. That's how you make change. Politicians are experts at confusing voters using meaningless outrage. If Kurt Bills gets elected he won't be able to single-handedly ban abortion or pass any other crazy social law because it won't even come up in the senate. But there's a very good chance that a new attack on the internet will come up and Klobuchar would vote for it. More people need to focus on the real nitty gritty issues that go on in congress but don't make it into campaign ads.

knowtheory• 14 years ago

No, we don't.

The problem with single-issue tech voters, is the same problem that the Asian-American solidarity movements have (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80-20_Initiative ). We're not a large enough portion of the electorate, and we're not distributed in a manner that is consequential enough to sway an election, let alone have enough discipline to have a measurable effect.

The way you make change is you get involved in government and the way policy is made. The voting box is an incredibly coarse-grained tool to effect political change, especially in American democracy where you have one of two candidates to pick from, who've already gone through several political processes to arrive at your ballot box.

If you care about politics get involved. Don't just vote. Voting is necessary but not sufficient to effect change.

anigbrowl10• 14 years ago

That's rubbish. You're effectively assuming someone else will do the heavy lifting of preventing the crazy, which means you can be suckered into voting against any candidate by the simple expedient of putting a newbie with no track record upa against them.

Single-issue voters are the bane of a healthy political system.

eli4• 14 years ago

If you really don't think a senator can change anything, then why are you voting at all?

If you think voters aren't well educated, there are things you can do to help fix that. Arbitrarily voting against incumbents is unlikely to help.

jobu• 14 years ago

I was about to post the same thing. Kurt Bills also supports a voter id amendment. Klobuchar may not be a great option, but what else do you choose? It's like deciding between a bag of poop or a flaming bag of poop.

rhizome9• 14 years ago

Flaming bags of poop can easily be converted to the other kind through the application of water. To the degree that he is on fire, that fire will be diluted by the acts of other flaming bags, er, members of Congress.

takeda642• 14 years ago

If both are bad, why do you care which one you chose? I would opt for voting the current one out of the office, since at least it sends a message that you are not approve what the person is doing.

cfinke• 14 years ago

There are three other candidates for Senate in Minnesota besides Bills and Klobuchar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_i...

anigbrowl10• 14 years ago

Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia was absolutely opposed to SOPA. He also thinks that evolution is a lie and that all legislation must be evaluated for biblical compliance [1]. He sits on the House Science and Technology committee.

That alone demonstrates why single-issue voting is a terrible idea.

commandar• 14 years ago

Yup. I got back a very cogent, well-reasoned response from Lynn Westmoreland -- also of GA -- when I wrote to him about SOPA. He opposed it for all the right reasons and the response demonstrated that he'd actually taken time to understand the issues with the bill.

Excerpted:

>On October 26, 2011, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). According to its sponsor, this legislation seeks to "promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes." However, this bill, and its Senate companion bill, S. 968 (the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act), would also give the U.S. Attorney General (USAG) authority to seek an injunction from a federal court against domain names used by foreign websites that actively promote or distribute counterfeit goods, as well as permitting content owners to sue the intermediate service providers that support websites hosting pirated content.

>Both of these bills would give the USAG unprecedented authority to seek out court orders against foreign internet sites that have been accused of copyright infringement. This includes websites that host user-submitted content, such as the popular websites Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. These and any other websites that allow comments would now be responsible for screening any and all user activity for potential infringement. This discourages innovation in the world's most fluid industry, and the United States' economic strength is dependent on its citizen's ability to create, innovate and become entrepreneurs in various industries.

>In addition to the costs of content screening, online search engines will be forced to remove the accused website from displayed search results, online advertising companies will be forced to break contracts with accused hosts, and online payment processors will be forbidden from engaging in any further transactions with the accused host. This is all carried out without any of the due process offered in present copyright infringement cases.

>The legislation is intended to protect the consumer from fraudulent medicine, counterfeited goods, and pirated data (music, photos, movies), but is too broadly written without regard for the unintended consequences. Both of these bills stand in direct conflict with established U.S. policy of internet openness and will have little impact on actual criminal online piracy, which is the target of both pieces of legislation.

I really could not have asked for a better reply to my letter, nor did I really expect one anywhere near this good. It earned Rep. Westmoreland serious brownie points in my book.

The problem is that I disagree with him on nearly everything else. He was right this time, but was wrong on e.g. mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment for federal contractors in the wake of the KBR rape scandal.

The suggestion that I should vote for him on the basis of his SOPA position alone is missing the forest for the trees.

baddox2• 14 years ago

Except that there's a good chance that Broun will have the opportunity to vote on the next iteration of SOPA or its successor, but a very slim chance that Broun will have the opportunity to vote on requiring biblical compliance or on whether evolution is real.

takeda642• 14 years ago

And for Constitutional amendment you still have to vote yes or no.

I vote for opponent to my Senator, not because I agree with her, but because I don't think the current senator represents me. If the next one does the same I will vote against her too in next election.

If I'll leave the current senator nothing will change and will still get same s*t all over again.

Flimm• 14 years ago

Most stem cell research doesn't involve aborting human foetuses. Only embryonic stem cell research does.

baddox2• 14 years ago

Actually, this article only recommends not voting for the senators which supported SOPA. It doesn't recommend voting for the other major party candidate, or a third party, or anyone at all.

jebblue3• 14 years ago

Killing is asinine not just on the dirt and concrete battlefields of human adults. You might want to expand your vision of life. The next universe might be ruled by persons who were aborted fetuses in this one.

pi18n• 14 years ago

Then they shall thank us for sending them there so soon.

BrandonM• 14 years ago

Ditto for Emken here in CA (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Emken.htm):

  Respects the sanctity of life and will fight to uphold it. (Mar 2010)
  Define marriage as between one man and one woman. (Jun 2012)
  US should be drilling for oil in ANWR to reduce gas prices. (Apr 2012)
  More US troops to Afghanistan--we must win this war. (Jun 2012)

Do we really expect someone with short-sighted, old-fashioned ideas about society to be an improvement in the tech space?

jacoblyles5• 14 years ago

A little bit late on this one. If the internet freedom coalition wants to be effective they need to take a clue on grass roots organizing from the Tea Party and target the primaries. There you need far fewer votes to be effective. And you can recruit someone who you know is good on the issue.

jacoblyles5• 14 years ago

On that note - if anyone is interested in supporting an Internet Freedom PAC that targets the primaries of both parties, please contact me.

Nursie2• 14 years ago

This just highlights the main problem with representative democracy as I see it.

I don't care who represents me. I'm not interested in their personality or values, I couldn't give a fig if they're black/white, male/female, gay/straight, republican/democrat/whatever. I care about issues and how they get addressed in legislation.

So what do I do when I'm presented with someone who is pro-SOPA on one side (but also pro a bunch of stuff I like) and someone who is anti-SOPA but pro a bunch of other things I consider abhorrent?

Politics of party and politics or the personality-cult need to end.

anigbrowl10• 14 years ago

Use money. If a politician is pissing you off on some issue, write and say 'I've donated to your opponent'. Unlike voting, donations are recorded and public information, so if you donate $50 to Party B, (even though you support party A at heart), then the Party A candidate has to raise an extra $50 at the next election. You can always donate to Party A closer to the election if you want to even things out, but donating between cycles is a very powerful way of sending a message. Alternatively, support a primary challenger. Money talks. Is this institutionalized corruption? Sort of, but I'm not sure it's something you can ever legislate away.

If you don't want to spend money, you can also change your party registration. Also, write letters on actual paper. They have to be opened and filed, and have considerably more impact than phone calls, faxes, or emails. Or write an op-ed explaining why a politician's vote on some topic is wrong.

Nursie2• 14 years ago

I agree with you from the pragmatic viewpoint, what can we do now, but you're proposing a workaround to a system that (IMHO) addresses the wrong problem and is fundamentally broken.

Maybe it addresses an old problem from before the information age, maybe at that point your best hope was to send someone off to represent you, someone whom you felt was in tune with your community and would do what they did with a deep understanding of who you were. Perhaps this was necessary because you couldn't hope to keep up with the news or the unfolding of events in a timely fashion.

Now this is no use to anyone, every candidate is a mess of good and bad, I want my voice to be heard on the things I believe in, not just on voting in some asshole who happens to be slightly better than some other asshole. Because the first asshole takes your vote as a mandate to pursue their full 'platform', regardless of the fact that most people voted for them simply because they had one less repellent, abhorrent policy on their manifesto.

Swiss style democracy should be spread around the world.

pooriaazimi• 14 years ago

But what if they're excellent (in your opinion) in every other aspect? If you agree with them on 20 issues, and disagree on 2, it's better (and IMO, you're being much more responsible) to vote for a pro-SOPA than to vote for someone who's against SOPA but is a complete bozo.

I think you should not decide for/against someone just because you agree/disagree strongly with one of their ideas.

(Note: I'm not in the U.S. and like others disagree with SOPA)

zzzeek• 14 years ago

The bigger picture around SOPA is the attitude that large corporations are to be blindly trusted and given ever more power over individuals. No trend pushes this agenda more than privatization. SOPA has its roots in the privatization agenda (see http://torrentfreak.com/the-privatization-of-copyright-lawma...), which I would argue is more of a "big picture" issue where there's a clear ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans. Voting against Democrats, who are at least very skeptical if not opposed to privatization in many cases, in favor of Republicans who are usually 100% pro-privatization in almost all cases, who would also have the same or worse position on SOPA, is at best very ignorant.

gyardley• 14 years ago

Are there any districts on this list that are remotely competitive? I'm sympathetic, but I really don't understand why people bother attacking entrenched politicians in non-competitive districts when they should be identifying more competitive races and directing resources there.

A case in point: TX-21, the district I live in, which is on this list. Rep. Lamar Smith will be re-elected. There is simply no chance of any other result. That didn't stop anti-SOPA campaigners, primarily from Reddit, from sinking tens of thousands of dollars into a challenger in the Republican primary - a challenger who didn't manage to get 15% of the vote. They might as well have lit the money on fire.

antidoh2• 14 years ago

For those who react to not voting for A, because B is worse in some way, there is an alternative: vote 3rd party. Any party, it doesn't matter. You're voting for a message, not a result.

eli4• 14 years ago

I don't think you should vote for "any party." Some third party candidates may believe things you abhor. I really feel pretty strongly that you should vote for the best candidate (third party or not).

masterzora2• 14 years ago

If you want to send a proper message, vote Libertarian. Not because you agree with them (I personally abhor the party) but because it is the largest third party in the US. Your vote won't have an impact on the outcome of this election but it's your best chance for actually having impact since a sufficient number of votes for a third party can affect visibility and funding.

antidoh2• 14 years ago

It really doesn't matter which 3rd party you vote for, so vote for whichever one you abhor less or like more.

The main thing is that you're entering a vote that isn't being counted in the Dem or Rep column.

If you don't vote then it doesn't count against the Dems or Reps at all.

Vote whichever 3rd party is easiest on your conscience, and you'll be voting against both parties that can't responsibly work together at the moment.

givan• 14 years ago

I think that there is a big problem with having so few candidates, even for the president there are only two candidates.

This is a very big problem if one supports acta and the other one supports baning abortions or something like it, choose the smaller evil? this is stupid, the system must be changed.

alexPetrov• 14 years ago

Except there wasn't two candidates. At the end there's two candidates, and there's good reason for it. Put in more and you have problems with splitting the vote.

If you want more options, vote during primaries. For long-term change, vote and push third-parties. Nationally, this punishes the two main parties for not representing you properly (and thus losing their vote to someone who does), and locally they actually have a chance to be elected.

verysquishy• 14 years ago

How about this Indiegogo to educate Congress: http://www.indiegogo.com/tech-literacy

stretchwithme• 14 years ago

I for many important things and against others, but one cannot vote on just a few issues the way our system works.

We wouldn't to sacrifice some things for other things if we could be represented by a person of our choosing. And, no, I don't mean choosing between two choices someone else picked.

When you're influence gets watered down and distorted, that means other people are getting more than their fair share of the power.

And no you know how banking works.

Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday

Related Stories