7 ms·

This November I'm Voting for Tech

19 points by aclements18 14y ago

lazyjones 14y ago
Surely at least people working in tech should know that there are more than 2 parties to vote for?
- SethMurphy 14y ago
  I still (maybe ignorantly) vote for the candidate, not the party, which is why I couldn't see myself voting for that 3rd party that you are insinuating. Once they have a viable candidate, I may. I hope that day comes soon.
- nnnnni 14y ago
  A vote for a third party candidate ultimately goes to the "worst of the two" because otherwise, the vote would have been for the "not as bad of the two". Of course, that ignores the fact that the electoral college vote (NOT the popular vote) decides the results.
  - planckscnst 14y ago
    I consider voting for a third party to be more influential. When any third party gets any significant tracion, the two major parties start revising their platform to bring in those third party voters. Instead of pushing forward the status quo and giving the main parties more confidence in their stance, you're causing them to think more about what they might change.
  - rdl 14y ago
    If you live in a "safe" state (CA, WA, ...), where one of the two big candidates is effectively certain to win, you can vote for your first choice third-party candidate in a way which might help in the long run -- once e.g. the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote in an election, it gets federal matching funds, and will be a lot harder to exclude from the process. In the long run, I think I'd take the worst of the D/R candidates over a string of 8 consecutive elections if the consequence is ending the two party stranglehold. The way the system works, without proportional representation, you probably will ultimately end up with two parties, but I'd rather replace both current parties with new competent-but-ideologically-distinct parties (like, say, a Green/Socialist/Union/Interventionist/etc. party vs. a Libertarian/Free-Market/Business/Isolationist party).
    - pi18n 14y ago
      There are a lot of us that want a third party, but IMO it's just not going to happen without changing the voting system.
      - waterlesscloud 14y ago
        If you don't vote for them, it's guaranteed they won't get traction. If you're reading this and live in California, you should strongly consider the 3rd parties on the ballot. Obama's got the state locked up by 15-20 points, so there's no risk in third party voting. Obama will win, Romney will lose. This will happen however you vote. So take a look at the 3rd parties, and if one of them more closely matches your views, support them. Don't waste your vote on parties you don't believe in.
      - rdl 14y ago
        Right, but especially in the legislature, a cohesive group can pretty much take over one of the two big parties (1994 Gingrich, 2010 Tea Party). Parties also can implode and die (Whigs, Federalists, ...)
- mhurron 14y ago
  Surely intelligent people working in tech should know that voting for a third party in the US is the same as not voting at all.
  - jhales 14y ago
    Surely you are not so innumerate to think that your vote has a discernible impact whether voting for a major party or a third party.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Actually, someone should move hundreds (or thousands?) of tech entrepreneurs or smart tech-startup employees to NV, especially if those entrepreneurs could be politically active. NV is a battleground state with a fairly small population, so even 500 votes with a common agenda would get national candidate attention in the 2016 race. That's probably the most effective way to influence Presidential politics. It does require a year or two to plan ahead, but NV is not a horrible place for some kinds of business, either. I for one look forward to our new shoe-retailing overlords.
hugh4life 14y ago
"For example, Romney feels that one of the best ways to inspire entrepreneurs is through tax reform. I’ve been to at least a hundred tech related events in NY over the last couple of years. Not one of them had tax management as the central topic of discussion. Clearly taxes are not the main obstacle that stands in the way of any aspiring entrepreneur executing an idea. Besides, most startups incur net losses for their first several years. What is the corporate tax rate on negative $500,000?" Where the hell do you think most seed money comes from? "Romney’s entire “best thing we can do is get out of your way” type of approach is not helpful to your average tech entrepreneur. " The average tech entrepreneur needs to get over themselves.
- rdl 14y ago
  Tax rates matter a lot more to "small business creation" than to tech startups, particularly if tech startups are externally financed C corps. Remember, there are two main meanings of entrepreneurship -- one is usually starting a local business (or even just a franchise, or a side business, or whatever), and the other is starting a tech or scalable startup. Most small businesses are sole proprietorships or in some cases LLC/LLP taxed as partnership, or maybe an S corp, so individual tax rates apply. It's usually a person giving up the potential for a high W2 income (or 1099 income in some cases), taking high risk, in exchange for ongoing annual revenue after a few years. Lower taxes (or pro-savings tax policies) allow enough capital accumulation for a plumber to set up his own plumbing business, and let a $200k/yr employee who gives up his salary to run a business and hire a few people build up capital from operating profit to expand. As a sole prop, he can't retain earnings, so he has to pay taxes on his profits every year. If he has "lumpy" income (big contract one year), this could be really difficult. There are totally different kinds of businesses, but really, 95+% of people are going to start the self-funded (or maybe personal debt funded) operating business, not a scalable tech startup. 95% of the jobs are going to come from either tech/scalable startups or self-funded startups which become such runaway successes that they convert to scalable businesses (e.g. Walmart growing from a single store...). So, there's a good argument for tax structure to favor either type. I also think fixing a few problems (health care, bankruptcy laws restored to pre-2005, reducing regulation/bureaucracy in hiring people, etc.) would encourage particularly the "small business" type even more than lower taxes. I don't think employers should have as much regulatory compliance requirement as they do now -- they shouldn't be collecting taxes, handling healthcare, or really anything other than focusing on their business and direct regulations in their industry (food safety for restaurants, reactor safety for nuclear plants...).
SethMurphy 14y ago
I see net neutrality as the single most important issue in my tech bubble. Giving entrenched tech companies even more of an advantage would be disastrous. The piracy issue is also woven into the thread of the net neutrality issue. I am getting mixed signals from both major parties though: http://www.dailytech.com/Democratic+Senators+Block+Republicanled+Net+Neutrality+Repeal/article23249.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Democratic+Senators+Block+Republica... http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-legislators-are-really-outdoing-liberals-in-opposing-sopa-2012-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-legislators-are-...
- aclements18 14y ago
  Thanks Seth for pointing out both of these articles. Read the SOPA one, about to read the others. Would you mind adding that to the comments on the original post as well? Would like to show some other valuable points to consider.
carsongross 14y ago
How about, instead, you act morally, refuse to vote, and focus on making your startup successful via non-coercive means.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
I'm a techie too. But unlike the author of this piece, I have a little bit of perspective. For tech, Romney is probably marginally better than Obama. But I'm not even going to bother justifying this statement - it's irrelevant. Neither politician will have any significant effect on the tech community, and even if they did, it's a minor issue. Lets focus on a major issue: >500k people just like me (drug users) are sitting in jail right now for no good reason. For those who are unfamiliar, sitting in jail is far worse than being unemployed or having marginally fewer pinterest clones. Another major issue is the fact that millions of people from the poorest places on earth (I'm not talking about wealthy nations like Mexico here) could be lifted from poverty. The vast majority (i.e., >95%) of India lives in what would be considered dire poverty in the US. Upper class individuals in the poshest suburbs of Mumbai suffer living conditions comparable to the poorest housing projects in the US. All we need to do to lift them from poverty is allow them to enter the US and provide us cheap medical services, clean our houses and the like. So yeah, one of the politicians is marginally better than the other on an issue that neither of them have much control over. Why do we even care?
- angersock 14y ago
  We've got plenty of work to do here without worrying about fixing the rest of the world--consider parts of Appalachia, the homeless in our own cities, and so forth. And yes, this also means military adventures abroad need to stop. Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark. That's because you are viewing it through the lens of status rather than economics. I'm not proposing to raise anyone's status, I'm simply proposing to give them the opportunity to earn for themselves 24/7 running water and electricity, decent housing, schools for their children (where the teachers actually show up), etc. I'm also not proposing fixing the rest of the world. I'm proposing helping millions of people at a net benefit to ourselves. Are you seriously arguing that making a few wealthy Appalachians even wealthier is a bigger issue than making millions of poor people wealthy and the rest of us even wealthier?
cletus 14y ago
Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen so I can't vote at all. If your primary concern is the tech sector and entrepreneurs then the choices are pretty woeful. The Obama administration is without doubt the most hostile to the tech sector through and the Internet its strong pro-IP stance between: - staffing the DoJ with RIAA lawyers [1] - appointing RIAA lobbyists as federal judges [2] - having an anaemic stance on software patents ("don't blame us") [3] since the White House is by far the largest bully pulpit in the country they could act if they wanted to. It is within the power of Congress and the White House to reform the American Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, which is responsible for a lot of software patent nonsense and, at this point, is arguably an example of regulatory capture - only came out against SOPA/PIPA when public backlash had already basically killed them [4] [5] - tried to negotiate and pass the original ACTA treaty in secret, which would have largely equated piracy with terrorism [6] - used diplomatic pressure on foreign governments to tow the same hardline IP stance eg the AFACT downloading case against iiNet in Australia (which was ultimately lost) [7] - enacted the America Invents Act, which gives patents to the first-to-file [8] Romney has been essentially silent on the issue of software patents and, let's face it, he's the off-cycle dud candidate of this election. By this I mean look at the candidates that went up against the incumbent seeking reelection: 2004: John Kerry 1996: Bob Dole 1992: Clinton obviously won against Bush Sr but this was in large part to Ross Perot more than anything else (IMHO) 1984: Walter Mondale Anyway, if the tech sector concerns you--and since you're reading HN it probably does--the choices are terrible this time around. Software patents threaten the entire tech sector [1]: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-bec... [3]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/white-house-blame-the-courts-not-us-for-software-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/white-house-blame... [4]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/sopa-obama-donors-hollywood-silicon-valley_n_1213159.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/sopa-obama-donors-h... [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-sa... [6]: http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html [7]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/afact_subcontractor_to_mpaa/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/afact_subcontractor_... [8]: http://macdailynews.com/2011/09/16/obama-signs-first-to-file-u-s-patent-reform-bill-into-law/ http://macdailynews.com/2011/09/16/obama-signs-first-to-file...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
onetwothreefour 14y ago
As a "tech startup" (wtf does that even mean?) I'll take lower health insurance premiums for employees over any tax cuts proposed by either party. I don't know what other people are paying, but it costs us up to $1500/m if an employee has a family to provide decent insurance in CA. But... I don't really see that ever happening without a complete overhaul of the healthcare system.
AgathaTheWitch 14y ago
Single-issue voting is bad for democracy.

19 points by aclements18 14y ago

lazyjones 14y ago

Surely at least people working in tech should know that there are more than 2 parties to vote for?

SethMurphy 14y ago
I still (maybe ignorantly) vote for the candidate, not the party, which is why I couldn't see myself voting for that 3rd party that you are insinuating. Once they have a viable candidate, I may. I hope that day comes soon.
nnnnni 14y ago
A vote for a third party candidate ultimately goes to the "worst of the two" because otherwise, the vote would have been for the "not as bad of the two". Of course, that ignores the fact that the electoral college vote (NOT the popular vote) decides the results.
- planckscnst 14y ago
  I consider voting for a third party to be more influential. When any third party gets any significant tracion, the two major parties start revising their platform to bring in those third party voters. Instead of pushing forward the status quo and giving the main parties more confidence in their stance, you're causing them to think more about what they might change.
- rdl 14y ago
  If you live in a "safe" state (CA, WA, ...), where one of the two big candidates is effectively certain to win, you can vote for your first choice third-party candidate in a way which might help in the long run -- once e.g. the Libertarian Party gets 5% of the vote in an election, it gets federal matching funds, and will be a lot harder to exclude from the process. In the long run, I think I'd take the worst of the D/R candidates over a string of 8 consecutive elections if the consequence is ending the two party stranglehold. The way the system works, without proportional representation, you probably will ultimately end up with two parties, but I'd rather replace both current parties with new competent-but-ideologically-distinct parties (like, say, a Green/Socialist/Union/Interventionist/etc. party vs. a Libertarian/Free-Market/Business/Isolationist party).
  - pi18n 14y ago
    There are a lot of us that want a third party, but IMO it's just not going to happen without changing the voting system.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      If you don't vote for them, it's guaranteed they won't get traction. If you're reading this and live in California, you should strongly consider the 3rd parties on the ballot. Obama's got the state locked up by 15-20 points, so there's no risk in third party voting. Obama will win, Romney will lose. This will happen however you vote. So take a look at the 3rd parties, and if one of them more closely matches your views, support them. Don't waste your vote on parties you don't believe in.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Right, but especially in the legislature, a cohesive group can pretty much take over one of the two big parties (1994 Gingrich, 2010 Tea Party). Parties also can implode and die (Whigs, Federalists, ...)
mhurron 14y ago
Surely intelligent people working in tech should know that voting for a third party in the US is the same as not voting at all.
- jhales 14y ago
  Surely you are not so innumerate to think that your vote has a discernible impact whether voting for a major party or a third party.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Actually, someone should move hundreds (or thousands?) of tech entrepreneurs or smart tech-startup employees to NV, especially if those entrepreneurs could be politically active. NV is a battleground state with a fairly small population, so even 500 votes with a common agenda would get national candidate attention in the 2016 race. That's probably the most effective way to influence Presidential politics. It does require a year or two to plan ahead, but NV is not a horrible place for some kinds of business, either. I for one look forward to our new shoe-retailing overlords.

hugh4life 14y ago

"For example, Romney feels that one of the best ways to inspire entrepreneurs is through tax reform. I’ve been to at least a hundred tech related events in NY over the last couple of years. Not one of them had tax management as the central topic of discussion. Clearly taxes are not the main obstacle that stands in the way of any aspiring entrepreneur executing an idea. Besides, most startups incur net losses for their first several years. What is the corporate tax rate on negative $500,000?" Where the hell do you think most seed money comes from? "Romney’s entire “best thing we can do is get out of your way” type of approach is not helpful to your average tech entrepreneur. " The average tech entrepreneur needs to get over themselves.

rdl 14y ago
Tax rates matter a lot more to "small business creation" than to tech startups, particularly if tech startups are externally financed C corps. Remember, there are two main meanings of entrepreneurship -- one is usually starting a local business (or even just a franchise, or a side business, or whatever), and the other is starting a tech or scalable startup. Most small businesses are sole proprietorships or in some cases LLC/LLP taxed as partnership, or maybe an S corp, so individual tax rates apply. It's usually a person giving up the potential for a high W2 income (or 1099 income in some cases), taking high risk, in exchange for ongoing annual revenue after a few years. Lower taxes (or pro-savings tax policies) allow enough capital accumulation for a plumber to set up his own plumbing business, and let a $200k/yr employee who gives up his salary to run a business and hire a few people build up capital from operating profit to expand. As a sole prop, he can't retain earnings, so he has to pay taxes on his profits every year. If he has "lumpy" income (big contract one year), this could be really difficult. There are totally different kinds of businesses, but really, 95+% of people are going to start the self-funded (or maybe personal debt funded) operating business, not a scalable tech startup. 95% of the jobs are going to come from either tech/scalable startups or self-funded startups which become such runaway successes that they convert to scalable businesses (e.g. Walmart growing from a single store...). So, there's a good argument for tax structure to favor either type. I also think fixing a few problems (health care, bankruptcy laws restored to pre-2005, reducing regulation/bureaucracy in hiring people, etc.) would encourage particularly the "small business" type even more than lower taxes. I don't think employers should have as much regulatory compliance requirement as they do now -- they shouldn't be collecting taxes, handling healthcare, or really anything other than focusing on their business and direct regulations in their industry (food safety for restaurants, reactor safety for nuclear plants...).

SethMurphy 14y ago

I see net neutrality as the single most important issue in my tech bubble. Giving entrenched tech companies even more of an advantage would be disastrous. The piracy issue is also woven into the thread of the net neutrality issue. I am getting mixed signals from both major parties though: http://www.dailytech.com/Democratic+Senators+Block+Republicanled+Net+Neutrality+Repeal/article23249.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Democratic+Senators+Block+Republica... http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-legislators-are-really-outdoing-liberals-in-opposing-sopa-2012-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/conservative-legislators-are-...

aclements18 14y ago
Thanks Seth for pointing out both of these articles. Read the SOPA one, about to read the others. Would you mind adding that to the comments on the original post as well? Would like to show some other valuable points to consider.

carsongross 14y ago

How about, instead, you act morally, refuse to vote, and focus on making your startup successful via non-coercive means.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I'm a techie too. But unlike the author of this piece, I have a little bit of perspective. For tech, Romney is probably marginally better than Obama. But I'm not even going to bother justifying this statement - it's irrelevant. Neither politician will have any significant effect on the tech community, and even if they did, it's a minor issue. Lets focus on a major issue: >500k people just like me (drug users) are sitting in jail right now for no good reason. For those who are unfamiliar, sitting in jail is far worse than being unemployed or having marginally fewer pinterest clones. Another major issue is the fact that millions of people from the poorest places on earth (I'm not talking about wealthy nations like Mexico here) could be lifted from poverty. The vast majority (i.e., >95%) of India lives in what would be considered dire poverty in the US. Upper class individuals in the poshest suburbs of Mumbai suffer living conditions comparable to the poorest housing projects in the US. All we need to do to lift them from poverty is allow them to enter the US and provide us cheap medical services, clean our houses and the like. So yeah, one of the politicians is marginally better than the other on an issue that neither of them have much control over. Why do we even care?

angersock 14y ago
We've got plenty of work to do here without worrying about fixing the rest of the world--consider parts of Appalachia, the homeless in our own cities, and so forth. And yes, this also means military adventures abroad need to stop. Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark. That's because you are viewing it through the lens of status rather than economics. I'm not proposing to raise anyone's status, I'm simply proposing to give them the opportunity to earn for themselves 24/7 running water and electricity, decent housing, schools for their children (where the teachers actually show up), etc. I'm also not proposing fixing the rest of the world. I'm proposing helping millions of people at a net benefit to ourselves. Are you seriously arguing that making a few wealthy Appalachians even wealthier is a bigger issue than making millions of poor people wealthy and the rest of us even wealthier?

cletus 14y ago

Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen so I can't vote at all. If your primary concern is the tech sector and entrepreneurs then the choices are pretty woeful. The Obama administration is without doubt the most hostile to the tech sector through and the Internet its strong pro-IP stance between: - staffing the DoJ with RIAA lawyers [1] - appointing RIAA lobbyists as federal judges [2] - having an anaemic stance on software patents ("don't blame us") [3] since the White House is by far the largest bully pulpit in the country they could act if they wanted to. It is within the power of Congress and the White House to reform the American Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, which is responsible for a lot of software patent nonsense and, at this point, is arguably an example of regulatory capture - only came out against SOPA/PIPA when public backlash had already basically killed them [4] [5] - tried to negotiate and pass the original ACTA treaty in secret, which would have largely equated piracy with terrorism [6] - used diplomatic pressure on foreign governments to tow the same hardline IP stance eg the AFACT downloading case against iiNet in Australia (which was ultimately lost) [7] - enacted the America Invents Act, which gives patents to the first-to-file [8] Romney has been essentially silent on the issue of software patents and, let's face it, he's the off-cycle dud candidate of this election. By this I mean look at the candidates that went up against the incumbent seeking reelection: 2004: John Kerry 1996: Bob Dole 1992: Clinton obviously won against Bush Sr but this was in large part to Ross Perot more than anything else (IMHO) 1984: Walter Mondale Anyway, if the tech sector concerns you--and since you're reading HN it probably does--the choices are terrible this time around. Software patents threaten the entire tech sector [1]: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ [2]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-federal-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-bec... [3]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/white-house-blame-the-courts-not-us-for-software-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/11/white-house-blame... [4]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/sopa-obama-donors-hollywood-silicon-valley_n_1213159.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/sopa-obama-donors-h... [5]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-says-so-long-sopa-killing-controversial-internet-piracy-legislation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/01/16/obama-sa... [6]: http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html [7]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/afact_subcontractor_to_mpaa/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/31/afact_subcontractor_... [8]: http://macdailynews.com/2011/09/16/obama-signs-first-to-file-u-s-patent-reform-bill-into-law/ http://macdailynews.com/2011/09/16/obama-signs-first-to-file...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

onetwothreefour 14y ago

As a "tech startup" (wtf does that even mean?) I'll take lower health insurance premiums for employees over any tax cuts proposed by either party. I don't know what other people are paying, but it costs us up to $1500/m if an employee has a family to provide decent insurance in CA. But... I don't really see that ever happening without a complete overhaul of the healthcare system.

AgathaTheWitch 14y ago

Single-issue voting is bad for democracy.