Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday

So, for instance, if you live in Minnesota, this page thinks you should vote for Kurt Bills instead of returning Amy Klobuchar to the Senate, because voting against someone who supported SOPA makes it sensible to vote for someone who supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and who believes we should consider unborn fetuses "persons" and thus ban not only abortion but also stem cell research.<p>Asinine.<p>The objections on this thread blow my mind. "But but but what if their opponent also supports SOPA?" How about first you make sure your "alternative" candidate doesn't think we should nuke Mecca? Jiminy Christmas, if you don't already know why you support your Senate and Congressional candidates and can't be bothered to go look up their positions on real issues, please stay the hell away from the voting booth.

If you are in CA, I'm not sure that voting against Feinstein will help you. Emken doesn't seem to have many real positions and her website is lacking in any real substance of her stance on issues. She has a lot of platitudes but it seems she basically just supports the straight Romney line with "repeal healthcare" "job creators" and other nonsense.<p>More importantly voting on a <i>single</i> issue that never even passed is dumb. Congress people tend to be older folks who don't know much about tech anyway. Supporting the bill should not be this poison pill. In fact, if anything, supporting it and then pulling support once they learned of the opposition should be celebrated as a successful execution of American politics.<p>Anyway: educate yourselves.<p><a href="http://vote-ca.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=ca&#38;id=caemkenelizabeth&#38;issue=busbusiness" rel="nofollow">http://vote-ca.org/politicianissue.aspx?state=ca&#38;id=caem...</a><p><a href="http://www.emken2012.com/inner.asp?z=5E5A585B" rel="nofollow">http://www.emken2012.com/inner.asp?z=5E5A585B</a><p><a href="http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/" rel="nofollow">http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/</a>

I think it's irresponsible to say "don't vote for this incumbent because he/she supported SOPA" without offering any explanation on the alternative candidates' positions on SOPA. It seems probable that some portion of the opponents might also support SOPA-like legislature.

In California, he hasn't taken into account redistricting. If you live in the the new 30th district, your choices are Brad Sherman and Howard Berman - both on this list. There are a lot of people involved in the entertainment industry around there (it's in the San Fernando Valley), so it might be impossible to elect someone not beholden to it.<p>(I know this because I used to live in Brad Sherman's district. I never expected that area to have a competitive congressional race, and now it's the site of one of the most expensive, bewildering, and viciously competitive races in the country.)

But what if they're <i>excellent</i> (in your opinion) in every other aspect? If you agree with them on 20 issues, and disagree on 2, it's better (and IMO, you're being much more responsible) to vote for a pro-SOPA than to vote for someone who's against SOPA <i>but</i> is a complete bozo.<p>I think you should not decide for/against someone <i>just</i> because you agree/disagree strongly with one of their ideas.<p>(Note: I'm not in the U.S. and like others disagree with SOPA)

Fuck that, don't re-elect PATRIOT Act supporters. SOPA pales in comparison to losing one's basic human rights.<p>(Hint: Obama renewed Bush's PATRIOT Act when it was due to sunset.)<p>The seemingly commonplace idea that popular american liberals are somehow less evil than the GOP is dangerous poison.<p>PS: inb4 instant-runoff voting

Are there any districts on this list that are remotely competitive? I'm sympathetic, but I really don't understand why people bother attacking entrenched politicians in non-competitive districts when they should be identifying more competitive races and directing resources there.<p>A case in point: TX-21, the district I live in, which is on this list. Rep. Lamar Smith will be re-elected. There is simply no chance of any other result. That didn't stop anti-SOPA campaigners, primarily from Reddit, from sinking tens of thousands of dollars into a challenger in the Republican primary - a challenger who didn't manage to get 15% of the vote. They might as well have lit the money on fire.

I think this article might have made more sense during the primaries. I'm not happy with Feinstein supporting SOPA, but I'm not going to vote for her conservative opponent who probably also would have supported SOPA.

This just highlights the main problem with representative democracy as I see it.<p>I don't care who represents me. I'm not interested in their personality or values, I couldn't give a fig if they're black/white, male/female, gay/straight, republican/democrat/whatever. I care about issues and how they get addressed in legislation.<p>So what do I do when I'm presented with someone who is pro-SOPA on one side (but also pro a bunch of stuff I like) and someone who is anti-SOPA but pro a bunch of other things I consider abhorrent?<p>Politics of party and politics or the personality-cult need to end.

A little bit late on this one. If the internet freedom coalition wants to be effective they need to take a clue on grass roots organizing from the Tea Party and target the primaries. There you need far fewer votes to be effective. And you can recruit someone who you know is good on the issue.

For those who react to not voting for A, because B is worse in some way, there is an alternative: vote 3rd party. Any party, it doesn't matter. You're voting for a message, not a result.

The bigger picture around SOPA is the attitude that large corporations are to be blindly trusted and given ever more power over individuals. No trend pushes this agenda more than privatization. SOPA has its roots in the privatization agenda (see <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/the-privatization-of-copyright-lawmaking-111112/" rel="nofollow">http://torrentfreak.com/the-privatization-of-copyright-lawma...</a>), which I would argue is more of a "big picture" issue where there's a clear ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans. Voting against Democrats, who are at least very skeptical if not opposed to privatization in many cases, in favor of Republicans who are usually 100% pro-privatization in almost all cases, who would also have the same or worse position on SOPA, is at best very ignorant.

I think that there is a big problem with having so few candidates, even for the president there are only two candidates.<p>This is a very big problem if one supports acta and the other one supports baning abortions or something like it, choose the smaller evil? this is stupid, the system must be changed.

perhaps this should be "Don't re-elect SOPA supporters on Tuesday, but make sure you vote for an alternative."

I for many important things and against others, but one cannot vote on just a few issues the way our system works.<p>We wouldn't to sacrifice some things for other things if we could be represented by a person of our choosing. And, no, I don't mean choosing between two choices someone else picked.<p>When you're influence gets watered down and distorted, that means other people are getting more than their fair share of the power.<p>And no you know how banking works.

The problem with this is, how can we be sure that their opponents won't also vote for such legislation if they get into office?

How about this Indiegogo to educate Congress: <a href="http://www.indiegogo.com/tech-literacy" rel="nofollow">http://www.indiegogo.com/tech-literacy</a>