Hacker News Reader

> It is now abundantly clear which party values what, and for whom. If we would rather vote based on 'abortion preventing our souls from partying with Jesus in heaven' instead of 'municipal broadband for all residents as a public utility', then we're going to continue to complain about this for another 50 years and beyond.

If that were true, it'd be great. But which is the party that supports municipal broadband for all residents as a public utility? California has a Democratic governor, Democratic legislature, and in the most populous areas Democratic local government, and yet no municipal broadband.

There's a map here of which state legislatures have passed restrictions on municipal broadband, and it seems pretty idiosyncratic relative to blue/red politics: https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... E.g. WV, OH, IN, IL, KY, GA, NM, VT are friendly to it, while WA, OR, TX, CO, AL, PA, FL, MA are unfriendly.

Single-issue voters don't vote straight party tickets. You have to learn about the individual candidates and only vote for the ones that support your pet issue.

The mayor in this story probably didn't care much either way about municipal broadband. They just don't see it as an issue worth the effort.

If there were a real chance that not supporting municipal broadband would hurt their re-election chances, they'd be more likely to support it. If not, perhaps their successor would see things differently.

NC is missing from the unfriendly list. I believe it was time warner cable who bribed the state legislature a bit over a decade ago, and again recently. By the legislature i mean almost everyone in one party, and a few in the other. They are of course the only viable ISP in much of the state, though now they go by spectrum because of the constant unchecked mergers. They are worse than ever.

It's true municipal broadband is spreading in all kinds of districts, but in places where it's being debated one particular party always sides with the telecoms. Lets not forget their appointee ajit pai.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161031/07232735920/after...

> If that were true, it'd be great. But which is the party that supports municipal broadband for all residents as a public utility? California has a Democratic governor, Democratic legislature, and in the most populous areas Democratic local government, and yet no municipal broadband.

California politics is a clusterfuck of epic proportions because of systemic deficiencies so I'd caution against taking any conclusions from it, even though on paper one party has had near total control for decades. The major bills like budgets and taxes require a 2/3 supermajority and until independent redistricting was implemented, any sort of progress on those issues required capitulating to a small number of gerrymandered districts that tended to produce extremist politicians (relative to their demographics). I'm not talking about districts in Fresno or something, but several right in the middle of Orange County. Passing a budget in California used to be a year round job of porkbarelling and horse trading for a significant fraction of the legislature.

Once the FCC introduced net neutrality rules, no one felt it was worth the effort to revisit the rules that limited municipalities from establishing ISPs. Trump really galvanized the party in CA but now, the state is a battleground between the "neoliberal" and "progressive" factions which are both ostensibly Democrats but have fundamentally different views on the free market's place in society. Even though a lot of the "read my lips, no new taxes" types are out, there is still a fundamental philosophical difference within the party that requires compromise and politics moves slowly.

That said, (late?) last year CA won a major ruling against the FCC (remains to be seen what the Supreme Court will say) that allows it to diverge from FCC regulations so expect a lot more progress once the list of high priority items shrinks.

> " If we would rather vote based on 'abortion preventing our souls from partying with Jesus in heaven' instead of 'municipal broadband for all residents as a public utility', then we're going to continue to complain about this for another 50 years and beyond."

I really think this is not a useful simplification of the various policy positions of the major voting blocs in the US. I think there is a lot of nuance and if we start to reduce the arguments we risk making a caricature of some of the positions out there.

The two political parties are already caricatures. Of course it’s a gross simplification, but participation means being forced into those by the procrustean American voting system.

While I agree with (some) of what you said, you should know that it was the Telecommunications ACT during the Clinton presidency that created these huge monopoly’s and destroyed all the smaller telecoms and choices back in the mid 90’s.

> It is now abundantly clear which party values what

The problem is you only (effectively) have two of those. Many other democracies use proportional elections instead of first past the post, which generally results in a more diverse party landscape which in turn makes it easier to pick a party that aligns more closely with multiple of your personal preferences instead of one.

The party abstraction is incredibly lossy for people who don't slot all their preferences into the same bucket along a single axis. So having only two of those makes things even worse.

It also prevents the political landscape from shifting much since there are fewer players at the margins.