Kansas Nerd Uses Net To Shake Up Political Fundraising 179
ghostlibrary sends a note about Sean Tevis, an information architect in Kansas, who is running for state representative with the help of an xkcd lookalike cartoon and grassroots Net-based fundraising. Tevis had garnered more than 6,000 contributions, most of them small, from around the country, far out-fundraising his opponent. Major news outlets have picked up the story as a harbinger of 21st-century Net-based political campaigning. Reader ghostlibrary adds, "As a bonus, Tevis cites xkcd intentionally (rather than just ripping it off without crediting it) and, well, it's actually funny."
Saw this last week... (Score:4, Insightful)
and donated even though I don't live in his state and I typically don't vote Democrat (don't vote Republican, either). We need new blood in political office... people who are a little more 'in' with technology, etc.
Re:breaking news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, this is a month old. I gave him $10 back in July.
Anybody who comes to /. for the "scoop" is an idiot. What you come here for is the discussion with fellow geeks.
You must be new h- *checks UID of parent* -you really ought to know better by now.
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still have no idea why anyone would give this guy money or vote for him. Is it just because he's a nerd?
Let's look at his education policy [seantevis.com]. Apparently his entire platform on education is "we should have the best schools". How would he go about making that happen, you ask? Why it's simple! By making sure they're the best, of course!
Re:breaking news! (Score:2, Insightful)
what have you done for him lately?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
You hear that Sean? I have an education policy for you, and it'll only cost you a cup of coffee.
soliciting for money from non-consituents is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
It's morally bankrupt at best.
The people in these positions should represent those in their districts, not those from other places (like affluent Silicon Valley where I live).
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I haven't donated, I say give the guy a chance. Has he thought everything through? Probably not, but our political system is filled with the merely ignorant to the truly cretinous caricatures or corruption. If he wins I'll be interested in following his story, see how an outsider does.
Or to put it another way, do we have good reason to put much faith in this guy? No, but we have a whole lot of reasons to not put any faith in the other guys.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. He is like "I don't have a policy on immigration, so give me money for my policy on technology." - but indeed, he HAD and very probably still has a policy on immigrantion. But where can I read about it?
After all, the whole guy goes into office, not just the part of him with the cool technology policy and the comic.
Re:soliciting for money from non-consituents is wr (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. I'm also not donating, because I'm not a US citizen (nor do I even live in the US). But, if I was ALLOWED to donate, I almost certainly would. Same applies for Barack Obama.
Now, some people reading this may ask, "why would this guy donate to a politician in a country he doesn't live in?" (or even, "a 'minor' politician in a state he's never even been to?"). The answer is actually pretty simple - the more politicians, ANYWHERE that support the same things I agree with, makes the world a better place in my eyes. Maybe one day I'll want to (or need to) visit Kansas. If I do, then in some way, the laws and policies of the place may have an effect on me. Or maybe I'll meet an American tourist over here, and become good friends - they might just happen to be from Kansas, and I'm always in favour of my friends having a better place to live!
It's a small world, and almost everything, everywhere, affects almost everything else, everywhere else.
Wait, you're telling me... (Score:5, Insightful)
... someone running for a state representative spot isn't posturing as having the answer to every single problem?
This is a problem with politics. What we need in government are people who know a lot about certain fields, who are willing to listen to others who know a lot about other fields.
Instead, as the parent post so painfully illustrates, what we as voters do is vote for the people who claim to have ALL the answers. And guess what? The ones who claim to know the answers to everything are the ones who don't know crap about anything.
he should not be beholden to those outside (Score:4, Insightful)
His district. Not even a micropayment's worth.
Let me put it this way, me and my buddies here in Silicon Valley could easy drop many thousands (hundreds of thousands if we do it as a group) on political races in Alabama, selecting candidates that represent our views, trying to make behave the way we want (pro-choice, etc.)
But that wouldn't be right. Everyone is entitled to select representatives that represent them, and not those who live thousands of miles away.
This person should be working within his community. That's where he's going to have effect anyway.
Re:he should not be beholden to those outside (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me put it this way, me and my buddies here in Silicon Valley could easy drop many thousands (hundreds of thousands if we do it as a group) on political races in Alabama, selecting candidates that represent our views, trying to make behave the way we want (pro-choice, etc.) But that wouldn't be right. Everyone is entitled to select representatives that represent them, and not those who live thousands of miles away.
Last time I checked candidates were elected based on the number of votes they received, not by the size of their campaign war chest. I don't see what's wrong with external and outside fund-raising. if money is all it takes for a populace to vote in a candidate that doesn't represent their interests, then they deserve the level of representation and service they receive in such a case.
Re:Wait, you're telling me... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good point. Arguably, this is the reason for having political parties. He could say "well I don't have a detailed policy on that issue, but I like what my colleague has".
More to the point, though, the job requires being able to make decisions on pretty much everything. It would be nice to able to say "you don't have to know everything", but, well...you're only going to be able to do part of your job then, aren't you?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, look at his opponent's issues page [arlensiegfreid.com] and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart [votesmart.org], the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.
So, let's see if I understand your thinking. Our schools stink. This politician says he is for Quality Education, but he disagrees with the people who run our schools (which stink), therefor he must not really be for Quality Education.
As a general rule, if you think the schools need fixing, it is probably a good idea to vote for a politician who is not in the pocket of the School Boards. If you want to improve the schools, then, most of the time, you want to vote against the guy who is endorsed by the Association of School Boards or the Teachers' Unions. Both of these organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, neither organization has a particular interest in actually improving the schools.
Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (Score:3, Insightful)
Stick figures and witty dialogue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (Score:1, Insightful)
Campaign donations are considered a form of free speech. Are you against free speech?
Re:if fund-raising didn't affect elections (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said fund raising doesn't have an effect on elections. But please don't equate a causation between fundraising and election success. Sure, there may be a correlation, but a candidate is elected strictly on the number of votes she receives from her constituents.
It is amoral for a person in Silicon Valley to illegally vote in an election in Alabama. But I fail to see the amorality in contributing to a campaign.
Here's an analogy: the more (positive) air time a candidate gets on television, radio, the Internet, etc. the more likely she is to win. Therefore it is amoral for a national broadcaster to give air time to a candidate in a local election without giving equal airtime to their candidate. Or it's amoral for a non-Kansan to come to /. and submit this piece about a Kansas candidate, and it's even more amoral for the /. crew to publish it.
How about we try to stop telling people what they can and cannot do so long as their actions don't step on the fundamental rights of another human being. Donating money to a candidate in a local election is not squashing anyone's unalienable rights.
Re:Wait, you're telling me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently he's doesn't know enough and is going to have some experts help him! Can you believe the nerve of that guy?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Your entire post is one big capitulation to mediocrity. It boils down to "sure he's not good, but neither is anyone else, so why demand better?" I guess we get the elected officials we deserve.
Re:Saw this last week... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)