Net neutrality no longer exists in the US

[The Supreme Canuck]

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.

The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.

Link

At least the CRTC up here in Socialist Canuckistan has more of a backbone than the FCC - this probably won't happen in Canada. So US companies will be throttled in the States before the data even crosses the border, I guess. Yay, me...

Edit: To be clear, we have different net neutrality issues in Canada. No better, really, just not the same. And not so... blatant? Crass? Let's go with "crass."

[Cyborg Girl]

This stuff annoys me, but honestly it's just the icing on the shit cake... Or perhaps more like the last small nail in the coffin. Those who would most benefit from open internet access already can't afford the hardware, the software, or the cost of broadband.

BTW did you know that broadband coverage in the US is associated pretty directly with political awareness and which way people vote? Politicians, particularly Republican politicians, have a vested interest in maintaining people's ignorance. Not conspiracy, just sheer bloody selfishness; of course they don't bring issues to the table that might get them and their party voted out. It's a self-sustaining system of oppression with rich frat boys at the top. Yay.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Different up here - the federal government actually spends money to extend broadband coverage into rural, northern, and remote areas. Probably to grab votes, but they still do it. To entirely derail my own thread, I think that it's that way because our political system is set up to channel selfish vote-getting behaviour in more positive directions than the American system.

[Cyborg Girl]

That part about dependably doing the wrong things for our citizens, for the same reason that other developed countries often do the right things, kind of strikes a chord with me. It seems very typical of American politics, or perhaps the politics of superpowers in general.

Actually it reminds me of a quote from O'Brian in 1984: "Political power is the capacity to inflict pain on another human being." I used to take that as a simple statement of fact, or at least of Orwell's opinion; but now I don't think that's what Orwell intended, so much as an indication of what people think political power constitutes when totalitarianism is the only thing they know. Kind of scary to see that this is basically a mainstream attitude in the US.

Edit: I'm not sure this is a property of the Canadian system being better designed, so much as the whole cumulative history of the US, and particularly its time as *the* superpower on this planet.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I actually think it has to do with the peculiar nature of US political history. I wish I could remember the term for it, but back when I was doing my poly sci BA one of my profs started explaining a funny little thing that one of your Founders (Madison, maybe?) did. Because of the context of the Revolution, and the emphasis on checks and balances, the Parliamentary system was discarded for the... thing... that you folks have.

But it went well beyond that. It was intentionally designed to oppose itself, stop up, and not get anything done. Seriously. That was the actual goal. Can't have a tyrannical government if the government can't actually do anything, right?

Parliamentary systems don't have that problem. We have other problems, but not those ones. The biggie is that the executive and legislative branches are fused, not separated (something literally called Responsible Government) which A) requires that the executive is responsible to the legislature and B) means the legislature doesn't block the executive from governing. Also, we get to have more than two parties, which creates a diversity of views in government and provides a check on the larger parties. Hell, big parties have come and gone entirely in just the past few years. There's churn rather than the entrenching of power structures.

(Also, as an aside, what the hell is with that two party thing anyway? There's no law saying there can only be two. I have a degree in political science/history and another in law, and I still don't know what the deal is with that.)

More recently, and not foundational to the systems themselves, there have been more changes made that differ between the US and other places. Political donations, for example. There are strict limits up here; not in the US. Gerrymandering. Doesn't happen in Canada; happens all the time in the US. Supreme Court appointments. The Supreme Court is apolitical and extremely well-regarded by normal people in Canada; need I say anything about the USSC?

And so on, and so on.

Point being, in both countries, politicians want votes. In the US, for historical reasons, the way to make that happen is very different from how it's done in Canada (or the UK, or...). In the US, you make companies happy, they dump cash into your campaign, you win the election. In Canada, because the emphasis is on party rather than on individual MP due to our governmental structure, and because companies can't dump cash on you because of policy, that doesn't work. At all. So there's no incentive, for example, to buddy up to telecom corporations by scuttling net neutrality.

Again, we have different problems (the centralization of power in the PMO and the incentive for parties rather than individuals to chummy up with corporations, for example), but I'd submit that they aren't as bad.

It's a structural problem. You got fucked back in 1776 when a bunch of Virginians decided to pick up muskets instead of pens. They overreacted to their problem and set up a busted system. "Don't Tread On Me" is a good slogan for 18th century Americans; "Don't Set Up Political Incentives To Do Evil" is a better one for 21st century Americans.

[SciFi Chick]

Different up here - the federal government actually spends money to extend broadband coverage into rural, northern, and remote areas. Probably to grab votes, but they still do it. To entirely derail my own thread, I think that it's that way because our political system is set up to channel selfish vote-getting behaviour in more positive directions than the American system.

We have that too btw. The federal government is spending money to extend broadband coverage into rural and remote areas, and they also subsidize it for poor people. What I don't know is how well that information is getting out so that the poor people know this is an option, but most people on welfare have cell phones, but I'm not sure many of them are using said phones to get educated or possibly even know that they can.

[Cyborg Girl]

@SFC: that was originally put forth by people in President Obama's cabinet IIRC. And don't quote me on it, but I believe the Republicans opposed it.

Edit: @Canuck, fair enough; you're the one with the history degree.

[SciFi Chick]

@SFC: that was originally put forth by people in President Obama's cabinet IIRC. And don't quote me on it, but I believe the Republicans opposed it.

I don't know the details. I just know that a friend of mine who works with social services was talking about getting the 'net into the rural areas he was working in. A government program. It probably was under President Obama, but the Republicans didn't succeed at stopping it - unless it's a state thing rather than a federal one.

[SciFiFisher]

I actually think it has to do with the peculiar nature of US political history. I wish I could remember the term for it, but back when I was doing my poly sci BA one of my profs started explaining a funny little thing that one of your Founders (Madison, maybe?) did. Because of the context of the Revolution, and the emphasis on checks and balances, the Parliamentary system was discarded for the... thing... that you folks have.

(Also, as an aside, what the hell is with that two party thing anyway? There's no law saying there can only be two. I have a degree in political science/history and another in law, and I still don't know what the deal is with that.)

We do have more than two parties. In fact, I think there are generally speaking about 10 different identified parties in the U.S. We even had 7 different parties and candidates represented in the 2012 Presidential election. The big difference is the way most election systems work here. They are deliberately designed to create a "total winner" approach. I.E. the electoral college awards ALL of the delegates for the candidate who wins at least 50.01% of the vote. So, President Obama received 51% of the vote. Mitt Romney received 47% of the vote. Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate received 1% of the vote. The rest was divided up between the other parties. But, the electoral votes went to Obama and Romney.

Essentially, there is much less coalition forming and less power sharing as a result of the way we do it. The down side is that most people tend to want to be able to say "I voted for the winner". So, even if I have some libertarian views I won't vote for the Libertarian candidate because I feel that my vote would be wasted. My candidate will never have a chance to win. So, IMO, a lot of people vote Dem or Rep but if you really polled for what they are truly supporting we would probably see that there is room for a lot more diversity of parties.

And yes, I believe the US system was designed to achieve a sort of stasis or gridlock. In general, when it is working as intended it was better for the people not to have a government that could easily pass sweeping changes.

[Rommie]

I actually think it has to do with the peculiar nature of US political history. I wish I could remember the term for it, but back when I was doing my poly sci BA one of my profs started explaining a funny little thing that one of your Founders (Madison, maybe?) did. Because of the context of the Revolution, and the emphasis on checks and balances, the Parliamentary system was discarded for the... thing... that you folks have.

(Also, as an aside, what the hell is with that two party thing anyway? There's no law saying there can only be two. I have a degree in political science/history and another in law, and I still don't know what the deal is with that.)

We do have more than two parties. In fact, I think there are generally speaking about 10 different identified parties in the U.S. We even had 7 different parties and candidates represented in the 2012 Presidential election. The big difference is the way most election systems work here. They are deliberately designed to create a "total winner" approach. I.E. the electoral college awards ALL of the delegates for the candidate who wins at least 50.01% of the vote. So, President Obama received 51% of the vote. Mitt Romney received 47% of the vote. Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate received 1% of the vote. The rest was divided up between the other parties. But, the electoral votes went to Obama and Romney.

Essentially, there is much less coalition forming and less power sharing as a result of the way we do it. The down side is that most people tend to want to be able to say "I voted for the winner". So, even if I have some libertarian views I won't vote for the Libertarian candidate because I feel that my vote would be wasted. My candidate will never have a chance to win. So, IMO, a lot of people vote Dem or Rep but if you really polled for what they are truly supporting we would probably see that there is room for a lot more diversity of parties.

And yes, I believe the US system was designed to achieve a sort of stasis or gridlock. In general, when it is working as intended it was better for the people not to have a government that could easily pass sweeping changes.

To be fair I think TSC meant statistically significant parties. Clearly if you're only getting less than 1% of anything you're not seriously considered for all intents and purposes.

I feel like every few years you see an independent, but usually they're not part of a party so much as running independent for some reason or another (ie lost their primary).

[The Supreme Canuck]

Precisely. I mean... in the 2012 Congressional election, the third largest party by vote share was the Libertarians at 1.1%. None were elected; just Democrats and Republicans. No independents or third parties were elected. Only candidates from the top two parties were elected.

By contrast, in the 2011 Canadian federal election, the third largest party by vote share was the Liberal Party at 18.91%. They sent 34 MPs to the Commons. All told, MPs from five parties were elected. Including the Green Party, in fifth place, with 3.91% of the popular vote. In the US election, the Greens (to state again, a legitimate, sitting party up here) received only 0.3% of the vote. They were the 5th most popular party in both elections, yet the American party received less than 10% of the vote share that their Canadian counterparts did.

Point being, there are only two "real" parties in the US, whereas there are at least five "real" parties in Canada. That's what makes no sense to me. I suspect Fisher is right that the system is set up to create this outcome... but who the hell thought that was a good idea?

[FZR1KG]

If you have one party then you can't have a democracy. You need at least two.
To control the government you need to pay off all the parties.
Any more than two costs you more so why would one fund them?

Like I keep saying, it's about the illusion of Democracy, not Democracy itself.
The cheapest way to do so is a two party system,set up as one vs the other.
No one is then interested in a third player.

[The Supreme Canuck]

So why do more than two real parties exist in other countries?

For the sake of argument, let's say that what you're saying is true (though I'm not convinced). That means that the urge to reduce the number of parties to the minimum would exist in all democracies. So what is it about the US system that allows that to happen, and what is it about other systems (particularly the Westminster parliamentary system) that does not?

[FZR1KG]

The US is pretty unique in the way it was formed.
The country was divided by wars, Americans vs the Natives, English, Spanish, French then each other.

Secondly, it is a young nation. When a nation is still young it is far more dynamic in its formation and is naturally far more unstable as well.

Thirdly, it was set up on the premise that unrestrained Capitalism is actually a real and valid solution and that the "invisible hand" will sort things out. The irony here being, that quote is now used to represent exactly the opposite of its original intent.

Fourthly the government here has allowed money to influence the government far too much.
Much like the game Monopoly, which was made to show how such a system is always biased to people with certain possessions, it is now however used as almost a symbol of Capitalism and how proud Americans are of it.

Fifthly you have the 2nd amendment. While a lot of people might take issue with my view here, but, it's my sincere belief after spending some time here that this issue divides the country more than any other. Given the choice between religion and guns, Americans with guns would become atheists before parting with their penis...guns. When you politicize that you enhance the two party system beyond logic. There is no more logical thinking left.


Also Americans are unique in the respect that they say they don't trust politicians but most just don't trust the party that they don't vote for.
In Australia for example, the attitude is more that they are all the same, rather than one party stands for good ,and the other stands for evil, like it is here. Politics is for a large segment of the population here, a battle between good and evil. I shit you not. The scary I shit you not...

When you combine the above it would to me be a shock to have seen an alternative outcome.

When you look at the US vs Canada or Australia, both relatively new countries as well, you see the differences.
The US political system is completely different. The Canadian and Australian ones however similar to each other.
Neither Canada nor Australia has had such a division of its people.
Neither Canada nor Australia has embraced capitalism like a God. I'm not joking here. Many Americans I've met worship it like it was gospel.

I can also add the unbelievable patriotism here that is based on ignorance.
Examples like a torn US flag being flown, treated like it's shit and that is somehow something that brings a tear to the eyes of many Americans.
It almost brings tears to my eyes as well but for different reasons. That patriotism is used as a tool by the rich and their puppets the politicians.

About half of America is all about the worship of: Guns, Capitalism, The only true God Jebus Cryist. In that order.
The other half are almost a polar opposite though Capitalism seems to win more favour with both sides.

So a lot of reasons that enhance the two party system but what has happened now is that the USA has missed the boat on a third party.
Go back a while before the money factor was so significant and they might have had a chance. This is no longer the case. You can't get a foot in the door because you need backing and why would anyone who already pay's off both parties want to pay a third to get the same result?
That result being political decisions being made to the favour the them. That last part now has been established as fact even though many people including me have gotten grief over their observation of it for a long time prior.

[Rommie]

I think FZ is on his slightly cynical jaded soapbox version of things again.

To answer better, the historical reason we have two parties in the US is because the original founders were against them (they were pro liberty and individualism for sure, a la John Locke, but I don't think you could argue they were capitalists- but then they were definitely wealthy guys), so the original two parties stemmed from the pro Federalists and the anti Federalists. It was essentially an argument about whether the government can do things that are not explicitly in the Constitution, such as forming a federal bank (this was actually the big one), whereby Alexander Hamilton was staunchly for this and a lot of people like Jefferson didn't see the need. From then on there's been a fair bit of reshuffling through the Civil War, but things have remained in that two party status pretty much since, partly due to tradition and partly due to the president being voted from the Electoral College, which is an all or nothing system (ie you can't have a minority president).

I guess you could argue from the latter point that Congress is not voted this way so we should have other parties, but I think another key thing to remember is it's only in recent years that there was such a lack of diversity within political parties. I think Olympia Snowe is a classic illustration of this- she was a well-respected Republican senator from Maine for many years, who was definitely a moderate. But in recent years things shifted under her so while it used to not be as huge a deal to toe the line on everything it now was inconceivable to the heartland Republicans that there could be someone else in the country who didn't agree with them, and she eventually retired because she hated the dysfunction in the Senate. Curiously the man who replaced her is an independent, who caucuses with the Democrats because he doesn't think he can do much if he doesn't caucus with the majority (and hasn't ruled out going for the Republicans if they win this year).

So yeah, basically history started a tradition that is kept in place because we vote for person-not-party. It's just things have definitely become more extreme lately to the point where a party only has one ideology- not a system you can keep in place long before something gives, I hope.

[The Supreme Canuck]

So, the answer is "because"?

(That's just me being snarky - the "person not party" explanation makes a lot of sense, thanks. It does seem, though, that given the current situation, this system causes more trouble than it's worth. A "party not person" approach makes more sense in an era of tight partisan ideology. But then you get into the problems of a multi-party system, which we have.)

[Rommie]

Pretty much. It's certainly not a thing enshrined in the Constitution or anything like that... though obviously this is a detail the two main ones would rather you forget. I've personally wished we had a multi-party system since I first became politically aware of things.

But yeah, don't forget the party primary system is now also a huge part of American politics, which of course encourages the system with all the clout it gets. It can seem a bit insane that you have such a huge range of candidates in a presidential primary for one party for example, but basically if you don't get traction there I think you'd have a seriously hard time getting people to vote for you. (I mean think of the recent Republican primaries- you have Romney and McCain who are fairly moderate guys but have to seem like rabid right-wingers to pacify the folks who will vote for the Santorums and Pauls. I really don't see this as being in the self-interest of Republicans who actually want to win the general election, yet they do it.)

Other funny thing about primaries IMO is ok, I think you could make the argument that a party should be able to choose its best candidate in its members interests (however wonky said candidate is to the rest of the people), but these days in most states you can vote in whatever primary you find interesting with minimal fuss. (Independents can vote in either in New Hampshire, for example, so the most common voter registration there is "independent.") So if you do things that way of course person-not-party is what's going to matter.

If you can think of a good way to change that I'm all ears because right now it's a fairly entrenched system I think. The only one I'm curious about is the potential implosion of the Republican party who doesn't seem to think they need to change anything despite disastrous losses in the general election... but I think it's much more likely that they just get yanked back towards sanity than become irrelevant. And yeah, considering how far they are right now from sanity I think we're still gonna listen to the crazies for awhile.

[FZR1KG]

In theory, the electoral college doesn't prevent a third party being in play any more than any other system.
You vote for a representative and those representatives decide who gets in power.
You'll note also that your representative can vote for anyone but they are broken by definition into:
Pledged Elector
Unpledged Elector
Faithless Elector.
You're not actually voting for the President. What you're voting for is a representative that you hope will vote the way you want because he/she said they would prior to the election. If they don't, they fall into the faithless elector category. If they never pledged then they can vote for whomever they decide is fit without feeling obligated to the public.

There is absolutely nothing here that prevents a third party or even just another person with charisma and gusto from getting to be President...in theory. Which is how it was originally intended. May the best man win type deal.

In practice, campaign money vs getting elected, has a high correlation factor.
If you get money, you get a higher chance of being elected, in this case you being elected as an elector of the President.
To secure that money you have to naturally show that you're a good little boy or girl and will do what you are told by those with the money.
Vote for who they want you to and vote of legislation in their favour. You need to build a track record of doing things for them before you get more funds from them.

IOW, a track record as a person they can trust.
And seriously, I can see their POV. Why would I give my money to someone that is going to vote for a person I don't want or introduce legislation that doesn't favour me? It's not their fault that the system is structured in a manner that allows it to be controlled by those with money and power. If they didn't, someone else would.

So there's your answer, you can have a third party if you want, you just need to fund it or you simply won't get anywhere.
Now, try to get that money with promises to do what's right for the public interest or even the interest of the country.
The more believable you are, the better you public interest track record, the less money you will get.

Australia for example minimizes this by having spending caps and publicly funded election campaigns based on the votes you have. Not perfect as its got bias towards the bigger parties but it's not so biased it prevents a grass roots campaign.

The USA has just gone the other way and taken off the limits on contributions. All for the public good I'm sure.