In 2016, there will be two elections. 99.95% of us won't get to vote in the important one.

It's not every day I hear something and think, "I have to share this with everyone," and I really mean everyone. Left, right, center, inside, outside, upside-down.

Do you ever watch the endless pre-primary coverage of the 2016 election and wonder where these people came from? Like, who decides who is worth even thinking about as a candidate?

I didn't get the chance to vote for them. And the odds are good that you didn't either. That's because there's another election you don't even know about. It's called the money election. And only 0.05% of Americans vote in it.

How can that be?


Here are the numbers, from around three minutes into an amazing talk by Lawrence Lessig.

In 2010:

  • 0.26% of Americans gave more than $200 to any federal candidate.
  • 0.05% of Americans gave the maximum allowable amount to any individual federal candidate.
  • 0.01% of Americans (that's the top 1% of the top 1% of Americans) gave $10,000 or more to federal candidates.
  • .000042% of Americans gave 60% of Super PAC dollars. That's 132 individual people. You literally could fit them all on a mid-sized plane, comfortably.

And candidates know they need to keep the donors happy.

Can you imagine how much our government could get done if they had 30%-70% more hours in the day?

Dependence on the funders is skewing our system, and the politicians are totally aware of it. At the five-minute mark, Leslie Byrne, a Democrat from Virginia, describes the advice she received on her first day at work in the U.S. Congress: "Always lean to the green." She clarified, "He was not an environmentalist."

"[This] is a corruption. ... I don't mean brown-paper-bag cash secreted among members of Congress. I don't mean Rod Blagojevich sense of corruption. I don't mean any criminal act. The corruption I'm talking about is perfectly legal. It's a corruption relative to the framers' baseline for this republic." — Lawrence Lessig

The good news, if you can call it that, is that the corruption is equally rampant on the left and the right.

That means we can all work together to fix it.

The framers — remember them? Gentleman farmers, revolutionaries, powdered wigs? — wanted us to have a branch of government that was answerable to us, the people. Of course, at the time, they meant just landowning white men, but one of the success stories of our republic is how we've managed to expand the franchise.

And now it's contracting.


How do we get it back? He picks that up around 11:28.

More

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture