Larry Lessig Interview with Cenk Uygur To Discuss EqualCitizens.us

[@shandcunt9455]

Always have time for Larry Lessig, always going to be thoughtful and insightful

[@chinito1724]

Been watching KZbin all day, wasting time, after this, i actually feel like I learned something!!

[@mdamerica7960]

Two educated and classy Americans informing US, The American People, of TRUTH. TYT = Awesome

[@klipkultur2951]

These two guys respect each other so much. I love it! LESSIG FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[@drgonzotokyo]

25:15 - 27-10 Home run Lessig. As a Texan (born and raised overseas) I'm always trying to have a conversation with all the disenfranchised republicans.

[@joethestack3894]

Nice to see there are a few idealists left. Go Larry, go!

[@melone251]

Great Interview Cenk

[@samschoeffler4404]

First restore a guarantee of integrity to the ballot (paper ballots, audits for ex.), then abolishing/bypassing the electoral college makes sense.

[@DITBC]

Important anecdote to consider when thinking about abolishing the electoral college -- Teddy Roosevelt threatened to use the army and nationalize coal companies because they refused to budge during labor strikes leading up to a winter. A congressman approached him and asked "what about the Constitution, Mr. President?" T.R. grabbed the man by his shirt and pulled him in to yell in his face, "The constitution exists to serve the People, not the People the Constitution!"

[@Chaboo22]

Preferential Voting (like we have in Australia) best replacement solution. Both more voices heard, and more opportunity for third parties. Check it out.

[@njintau]

Wow, great interview as always!

[@R4GEing]

Lessig watches game of thrones, love it

[@luke631]

Very good interview! Good stuff!

[@TurkiyeCumhurbaskani]

great, thanks Cenk

[@a.p1675]

In Europe, looking at whats happening in USA. Trump is offcourse a nightmare. But seeing the passion on the progressive side is really inspiring. American politics does influence Europe a great deal. Like neoliberalism, lobbyists etc. If you guy's change for the good it would stop us from having to adapt to your "jungle law". If you guy's get rid of Trump our crazy alt-right would loose some momentum. Please make Wall Street and big finance take their responsability. Do it yesterday!

[@rtwxtra]

They hit the target, but not the bulls eye. If we have a convention, we ought to tackle fundamental legal reform. We need a constitutional template of consent. This would obviate many of our single-issue battles and clean up our court system.

[@rtwxtra]

If the major parties were stripped of their legal privileges, our parties could be reduced to their true ideological constituencies: moderates, libertarians, social democrats, and nationalists. Since none of them constitute a majority they would have to work together more productively to get anything done.

[@xyzsame4081]

They bended the rules to exclude Lessig from the TV debates - the FCC has rules against it (the parties and organizers of the debates cannot just change the rules) - his supporters wanted him to sue - but he did not want to ? Again - huh ??? Because that lawsuit would achieve nothing in and for the election of 2016 - but COULD change things for the next small challenger. What did he even raise the 1 million Dollars for ? Or was the pressure to be in politics (even for a short time) too much for him ? - I think they could have raised the money for the lawsuit as well, leave the lawyers do the heavy lifting - no need to wear out Larry Lessig - now the investement of the first million that was donated was practically lost. His campaign made very little impact, and he let the chance pass to make it maybe highly relevant for future TV debates. (No other democracy prevents the public from seeing ALL the candidates on a public platform like the U.S. does. It is highly undemocratic. Only because of the internet and social media Sanders had a chance to get so much support in such a short time).

[@GrimLocke161]

I want to believe, but I can see the American Legislative Exchange Council taking away the right to vote for Congressional Senators from Citizens and giving it to State Senators before the Roberts' court affirms Free and Fair Elections.

[@davidwave4]

It's really interesting seeing Lessig (who I trust more than anyone else on this issue) praising Hillary's proposal re: campaign finance.

[@xyzsame4081]

Sanders would have financed his campaign with small donations anyway - so no Lessigs initiative did not achieve much (because he did not follow through with the lawsuit). Maybe he raised some more awareness - not much, in insider circles (progressives) there was some excitement about his initiative - and that was it.

[@Mutex50]

Allocating electoral delegates proportionally is a bad idea. Some states have too few delegates and there is too much rounding errors. Also a lot of even number delegate states are just going to be dead even - especially if there is only 4 delegates. I would be more for this if you could split delegates in decimals, but you can't do that. I think it is more important to fight to get rid of first-past-the-post and replace it with nonpartisan primaries that use approval voting to get the top two candidates for the general election,

[@justinmuller9294]

That's a good point but proportional delegation would still be more representative than the current system. The only logic solution is a national popular vote.

[@Mutex50]

I really don't know about that. Let's say that Candidate A wins a 20 delegate state 52% to 48%. That is going to be split evenly. If Candidate B wins a 3 delegate state 52% to 48, he is now head by 1 delegate. Btw, a national popular vote should use approval voting.

[@justinmuller9294]

Thats already what more or less happens no? In the current system you could theoretically get to 270 with just 20-30% of the vote depending on turnout in each state. I don't think that couldn't happen with proportional delegation. Also, I agree that approval voting would be a good way to do a national popular vote.

[@OhJAMdamnddamndamn]

I know it's easier said than done, but when he talked about how both party committees drum up fear about the 'other side's dangerous attempt to amend the constitution,' I wondered if a direct arbitrator between these groups would help. Circumvent the party leadership by getting conservative groups talking directly with groups like Wolfpac about commonality in achieving campaign finance reform.

[@slowbaker]

I donated to Larry

[@xyzsame4081]

I disagree: Money in Politics is the most cancerous thing, the allocation of votes, and winner takes it all, etc. might do some harm in the U.S. - but they do not come even CLOSE to the harm of politicians doing only the bidding of the big donors. Campaign finance is a big one, but also that the Big Donors provide cushy jobs for ex politicians (which gives them still way too much influence, one can see that in Europe, where they have state funded campaigns. The special interests try to capture the party leaderships, the parties get the money. Usually when they get at least 5 % of the vote they get a basic budget, and the more votes, the more budget. That means that the regular politician needs the party to get name recognition and to get elected - in the U.S. they are nothing w/o the donors, in Europe they are nothing w/o the party. In both systems the special interests capture party leaderships to make sure their interests are prioritized over the interests of the regular citizens. The situation is slightly better in Europe - more than 2 parties, publicly financed campaigns, fairness rules and restrictions for ads on TV how many may be aired and how negative they can be - and but not much,

[@finneire1282]

Xyz Same I would have previously agreed that limitless donations was the most toxic element in American politics but now I'm not sure it is as simple. If there was no money in the election system, would it no longer be broken? Would it solve electoral colleges, DNC undemocratic nominations, gerrymandering, patchwork open and closed primaries, etc.? I don't think getting money out will fix everything but it still might be the best first step to resolving all the other problems

[@jbsmathers]

A constitutional amendment clarifying states must allocate electoral votes in proportion with their popular voting would permanently remove judges opinions and politics from the issue. Its sad Lessig dismisses that superior approach, presumably because it would be harder to achieve.

[@johnedwards1968]

I think he dismisses it, because it's likely IMPOSSIBLE to achieve.

[@djangofett4879]

With so many republican governors, repub majority in house and senate, there is no way in hell that such an amendment can be achieved at this time and a constitutional convention could backfire BIG TIME.

[@DerekFullerWhoIsGovt]

👍🏽

[@ihartevil]

i would have love it if lawrence lessig runs as an R and takes down trump and it becomes larry vs bernie thx for this ha bisky interview i love lessig so much he is awesome

[@xyzsame4081]

He is SURPRISED they played games to keep him out of the debates ?? He did not expect that ?? - The issue is a) very popular with the voters and b) would ruffle the feathers of a lot of very powerful people and undermine their profits. It is a very cozy and lucrative business model for the politicians (at least the big shots and the party leadership who shape what goes and what not). Campaign ads make a lot of money for the mainstream media !! and last but not least the Big Donors could never have practically the influence like in a dictatorship while people still go through the motions of voting. I found his TED Talk and another speech about Money in Politics very convincing - but he can't be that naive, can he ?