SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-times-are-forced-to-change dept.
When trying to understand the two bad choices we have now, it can help to look into the past at where they came from. In this article, Matt Stoller at The Atlantic provides a deep dive into a transformation the Democratic party underwent in the late 1960s onward. In it we see how the Democrats morphed the anti-big-business politics that had powered it for over a century into the big-government politics that define the political conversation today.
Modern liberals tend to confuse a broad social-welfare state and redistribution of resources in the form of tax-and-spend policies with the New Deal. In fact, the central tenet of New Deal competition policy was not big or small government; it was distrust of concentrations of power and conflicts of interest in the economy. The New Deal divided power, pitting faction against other faction, a classic Jefferson-Madison approach to controlling power (think Federalist Paper No. 10). Competition policy meant preserving democracy within the commercial sphere, by keeping markets open. Again, for New Deal populists like Brandeis and Patman [ed: links mine], it was democracy or concentrated wealth—but not both.
[...] The story of why the Watergate Babies spurned populism is its own intellectual journey. It started with a generation of politicians who cut their teeth on college-campus politics. In their youth, they saw, up close, not the perils of robber barons, but the failure of the New Deal state, most profoundly through the war in Vietnam. "We were the '60s generation that didn't drop out," Bob Edgar, a U.S. representative from the class of 1975, told me. The war in Vietnam shaped their generation in two profound ways. First, it disillusioned them toward the New Deal. It was, after all, many New Dealers, including union insiders, who nominated Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and who supported a war that killed millions, including 50,000 Americans their age. And second, higher education—the province of the affluent—exempted one from military service, which was an explicit distinction among classes.
[...] By quietly cutting back the influence of unions, [Democratic strategist Fred] Dutton sought to eject the white working class from the Democratic Party, which he saw as "a major redoubt of traditional Americanism and of the antinegro, antiyouth vote." The future, he argued, lay in a coalition of African Americans, feminists, and affluent, young, college-educated whites.
[...] By 2008, the ideas that took hold in the 1970s had been Democratic orthodoxy for two generations. "Left-wing" meant opposing war, supporting social tolerance, advocating environmentalism, and accepting corporatism and big finance while also seeking redistribution via taxes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @01:51PM
When trying to understand the two bad choices we have now, it can help to look into the past at where they came from.
They came from a political system that inevitably devolves into a two party system.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:07PM
That much is apparent. It doesn't take much thought or insight to see that naked fact.
Got any ideas on how it might be fixed? It's pretty obvious that the so-called two party system doesn't work so well. Soon, you have collusion between those two parties to exclude other parties. The two power sharing parties feast, while the beggars outside are allowed to eat a few crumbs that fall from the table. We desperately need a fix.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:28PM
It's actually mathematically provable - this was done a few years ago - that our electoral system will result in a two-party oligopoly. It is a literal inevitability.
The first and most important solution, now that we know this is a reality and not just unfortunate chance, is to break the system that creates and sustains it. By this I mean the electoral college must go, along with single-candidate voting. Every vote should be counted, and we should either have several votes or ranked voting of 3-5 candidates. Personally I also think Great Britain has it right in banning any reporting on the election or polls until all votes have been cast; this is particularly problematic with a "media" that amounts to a propaganda machine for a particular candidate.
We can discuss about the best changes to be made, but there is no discussion at all about if these changes are necessary. They are.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Marand on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:23PM
By this I mean the electoral college must go, along with single-candidate voting. Every vote should be counted, and we should either have several votes or ranked voting of 3-5 candidates.
Single-candidate voting specifically need to go. When you can only vote for one candidate people get caught in the trap of feeling like they need to vote for one of the big-two candidates, not because they like them, but because they feel obligated to vote defensively to stop the candidate they dislike. Being able to rank the candidates you want would let you vote for who you want while also allowing you to still vote defensively as well. I doubt it would result in an immediate, drastic change the voting landscape, but it would lead to a shift over time as people see that the non R/D candidates have some support and aren't just a joke.
We can discuss about the best changes to be made, but there is no discussion at all about if these changes are necessary. They are.
Completely agreed. Of course, the two parties that are in complete control of the US government are also the ones with nothing to gain from improving the system, so good luck getting any meaningful change there. They'd rather tell everyone that only the D|R candidates are valid and any other vote is "wasted". In fact, I haven't seen it myself but I've encountered a few people posting images of, or talking about receiving, this flyer [tumblr.com] (different picture [twimg.com]). I've heard news people parroting similar rubbish as well.
This is probably the best election in a long time for third party candidates to get attention, and we're getting damage control instead of any talk of improving the system.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday November 04 2016, @12:11AM
In fact, I haven't seen it myself but I've encountered a few people posting images of, or talking about receiving, this flyer (different picture).
What's funny is that they will often change their tune about you voting third party if you tell them you're going to vote for the major party candidate they hate the most if you don't vote third party. They have no principles and are only actually opposed to voting third party when they believe that someone not doing so could aid their favorite corrupt scumbag; they don't care one bit about "wasted" votes.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Saturday November 05 2016, @03:15AM
Single-candidate voting specifically need to go. When you can only vote for one candidate people get caught in the trap of feeling like they need to vote for one of the big-two candidates, not because they like them, but because they feel obligated to vote defensively to stop the candidate they dislike. Being able to rank the candidates you want would let you vote for who you want while also allowing you to still vote defensively as well. I doubt it would result in an immediate, drastic change the voting landscape, but it would lead to a shift over time as people see that the non R/D candidates have some support and aren't just a joke.
It is actually possible for this to happen now. All it takes is one state. According to the Constitution, each state is awarded one elector for each house representative, plus 2 for each senator. How the states implement this is up to them. Most take the "Winner takes all" of the popular vote, but Maine and Nebraska break it down by district. Why couldn't a state allocate electors based on ranked vote?
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 03 2016, @08:30PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @11:59PM
Step 1 will need to be a federal judge ruling that the Commission on Presidential Debates is an illegal anti-competitive anti-democracy monopoly and that their rules (which get more elastic as 3rd parties meet their already-ridiculous thresholds) are unconstitutional.
I don't think that anyone should hold his breath waiting for that to happen.
Some kind of recognition that the public airwaves are in fact PUBLIC and that those should be available to varying political opinions--and not at commercial rates (gratis??)--would be Step 2.
Again, don't hold your breath on Lamestream Media being returned to a pre-Reagan condition.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @09:27PM
Actually, no. the Electoral College is a genius hack. it is no more or less "democratic" than Congress.
If it needs a change, then perhaps a Constitutional amendment that coerces the States to only allow proportionate Electoral College 'votes'.
But that will not happen. Too many states derive their sense of ego from their historical place in things, "states rights", or Just Because.
3rd parties have come, and gone. There have been several that have achieved prominence in the past (Whig, No-Nothing party, etc). Both of the major parties today are in many ways mirror opposites from what they were when they began. And both have certainly changed more or less over the last 50 years, as well.
There's no need to fuck with it any further than the main parties do already, by fucking around with(in) themselves and each other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:22AM
I don't even see the point of the electors. Give each state 100 (for example) "points", and then give each candidate a percentage of those points depending how what percentage of voters voted for them. There's no need to waste money hiring actual people to be electors.
There's no need to fuck with it any further than the main parties do already
Yes there is, because I want a representative republic where representatives are democratically elected, which we do not currently have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @11:47PM
It's actually mathematically provable - this was done a few years ago - that our electoral system will result in a two-party oligopoly. It is a literal inevitability.
The first and most important solution, now that we know this is a reality and not just unfortunate chance, is to break the system that creates and sustains it. By this I mean the electoral college must go, along with single-candidate voting. Every vote should be counted, and we should either have several votes or ranked voting of 3-5 candidates. Personally I also think Great Britain has it right in banning any reporting on the election or polls until all votes have been cast; this is particularly problematic with a "media" that amounts to a propaganda machine for a particular candidate.
We can discuss about the best changes to be made, but there is no discussion at all about if these changes are necessary. They are.
Your ideas sound plausible, but then I see things which are just wrong which make me question it all.
An electoral college is not what drives a 2 party system. Electoral college arguably disenfranchises people (arguable), but there it does not dissuade a 3rd party from. The thing which drives having at most 2 parties is the "winner take all" aspect of elections. This means that the best way to advance your cause is within, not from without.
For example, imagine all of Bernie Sanders voters thought Clinton was too conservative and wanted to vote for Jill Stein. All this would do would be to split the progressive vote, and cause Trump to win. (Likewise for Libertarians and Trump, causing Clinton to win.) The more aligned you are with a group, the more you advancing your separate cause hurts the mainstream representative, and thus weakens your side.
In places where there is less "winner take all," you see more 3rd party candidates being elected... for example, Congress vs the President. Or the UK as compared to the US. Or Germany as compared to the UK.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:26AM
All this would do would be to split the progressive vote, and cause Trump to win.
You claim that that's "all" it would do, but I believe that's wrong. Causing Trump to win could change the democratic party by causing them to be more like the Greens in order to win some more votes. But people are too shortsighted and apparently want the immediate gratification of having "their" candidate (who is a corrupt authoritarian scumbag) win; they don't think about the long-term damage that results from mindlessly voting for evil. Yes, some bad candidates will have to win, but it's a long-term strategy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @03:32AM
An electoral college is not what drives a 2 party system.
You're partly right, but the electoral college as currently implemented is heavily linked to the current voting system, and there's not an obvious way to make it work well under a reasonable voting system, such as approval or range/score voting.
Assuming the purpose the electoral college serves is still deemed desirable, the best way to implement it in a voting-system independent way is to simply weight ballots accordingly: I live in a state with a third the population of yours, so my vote counts for 120% of a vote, yours only counts for 105% of a vote. Of course, when you spell it out like that, a bunch of people will get all upset about "one person, one vote", but it is the most elegant and straightforward embodiment of the concept.
(The electoral college may or may not have been originally intended as a damper on popular stupidity, but they no longer serve any function except balancing power, per-capita vs. per-state.)
The thing which drives having at most 2 parties is the "winner take all" aspect of elections.
No. That is a thing that drives a 2-party system, but it is not the thing. Another important part of the problem (and IMO almost certainly a bigger part) is the voting method itself. Since this apparently isn't obvious to you, I hope an example will help.
Let's say, for convenience of math, that the current election is as close to 50% Trump, 50% Hillary as possible (i.e. equal chance the final count goes either way, but we know it's by a tiny margin). Let's further posit a mythic 3rd-party candidate A, who 40% of Trump voters prefer to Trump (and the remainder are T>A>H), and 40% of Hillary voters prefer to Hillary (and the remainder are H>A>T). I hope there's no argument that, if such a candidate could be found, the optimal outcome is for candidate A to win -- 40% of people would choose him as their first pick, vs. 30% for Trump or Hillary; and he's everyone else's second choice.
But in our current election, how will an A>H>T voter vote? (Keep in mind that the same arguments will hold for the corresponding A>T>H voter.) The only way you can express your preference for A is to not express your H>T preference -- and if you do that, suppose your corresponding A>T>H voter doesn't? Why, then Trump wins -- and that's your least favorable option. So you have to vote strategically, i.e for Hillary, in hopes of keeping the wrong lizard from winning.
Basically, it's the prisoners' dilemma: (x represents a "tie", really a toss-up)
| A | H
--+---+---
A | A | H
T | T | x
You start out neutral, absent cooperation; if you cooperate, but your "opponent" doesn't, you lose big. You only win if you both cooperate.
(You might start thinking of iterated prisoners' dilemma, and the tit-for-tat strategy. But AIUI that only works with two players -- here there's millions of players on each side. When half the other team cooperates, and half doesn't, what do you do?)
But if we use approval voting, the A>H>T voter can vote for both A and Hillary. If the A>T>H voters follow the same approach, A probably (see below) wins, and everyone's happy -- but if they vote for Trump only, then Hillary "ties" Trump (reality, 50% chance it goes either way) -- and you're no worse off for trying. Suddenly you both have an incentive to vote honestly, and the election actually chooses the favorite.
| A | H
--+---+---
A | A | x
T | x | x
(What about H>A>T (or T>A>H) voters? With these particular numbers, we need just 17% to vote for Hillary and A; the rest can vote for Hillary. If the Hillary (and Trump) camp keep iron control of all their voters, and persuade over 83% (of both camps combined) to vote strategically, they can keep the race a Trump/Hillary lock -- but in reality, most people would prefer to both a. vote honestly, and b. hedge against a Trump (or Hillary) win, so the 17% we need is incredibly likely.)
Note that this election is still winner-takes-all, yet the third party actually wins; this proves that winner-takes-all is not "the" reason third parties can't make it. All we had to do was eliminated the "spoiler effect" of voting for a third party, which is the principal means of 2-party lock-in, and is entirely a consequence of bad voting systems. (In fairness, the numbers I picked are not infeasible this year, because both parties did a horrible job selecting candidates this year -- it really would be easy for a baggage-free politician of almost any sort to swoop in and make off with the election, except for the voting system. In most years, without this artificially lowered bar of viability, third parties don't have a viable candidate to put forward, because a good candidate should have served some incubation period in congress or such -- this is where proportional representation would help immensely.)
For example, imagine all of Bernie Sanders voters thought Clinton was too conservative and wanted to vote for Jill Stein. All this would do would be to split the progressive vote, and cause Trump to win. (Likewise for Libertarians and Trump, causing Clinton to win.)
But that's not a consequence of winner-take-all. That's a consequence of a bad voting system. Again, go with approval voting for contrast: If you prefer J>C>T, vote for Jill and Hillary -- if you prefer G>T>H, vote for Gary and Trump. The spoiler effect only exists because our current voting system forces you to disavow all other candidates in order to express any preference for one candidate. Real people have opinions more complex than "that guy rocks, everyone else sucks", and real voting systems should allow them to express those opinions in a way that counts. (In truth, I prefer score/range voting -- I've been discussing approval voting because the same principles apply, and it's simpler to talk about.)
Now, to the extent that a 1-dimensional political spectrum is valid, and looks like J-H-T-G, neither J nor G can possibly win -- you don't win by going away from the middle. (Of course the 1d model is not right, but it's a common conception, and is not completely wrong, either.) The point is, a fair winner-takes-all system is likely to elect someone near the middle of the political space (however many dimensions it has), while a fair proportional representation system would be more likely to choose a few extremists from both (or more) directions. But even in winner-take-all elections, voting for an extreme candidate doesn't have to (and shouldn't!) throw the election to the farther of the mainstream candidates.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @05:57AM
So you have to vote strategically, i.e for Hillary, in hopes of keeping the wrong lizard from winning.
That's not strategic voting; that's mindless, short-sighted voting. Sure, you might help defeat your most hated major party bogeyman and delude yourself into believing you've prevented the end of the world, but you're only reducing (not eliminating) the amount of harm done in the short-term; in the long-term (assuming you keep voting this way), you've helped perpetuate a corrupt and authoritarian two-party system which does an astronomical amount of damage over long periods of time. Maybe some Really Bad Guys will have to win before we can beat the two parties into shape by using their fear of the spoiler effect as a weapon to guide them into adopting third party policies. We're not giving the two parties any incentives to change if people vote for them every single time, and this is indisputable. The real "disastrous possible" is our two-party system, not any individual bad candidate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:07AM
It's actually mathematically provable - this was done a few years ago - that our electoral system will result in a two-party oligopoly. It is a literal inevitability.
That is only partially related to mathematics, and is definitely not a mathematical certainty. It's more about how humans make decisions, and it's possible for people to make all the decisions necessary to create more than two parties, but it is simply extremely unlikely.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday November 04 2016, @04:08AM
We have/had that in Canada. It's hard when your nation crosses multiple time zones. We always had the problem of American media leaking over the border but with the internet it is pretty well impossible to stop the reporting.
It still does help with the media, last election all the media was, as usual for the media, in favour of the right wing but the people wanted a change and got it. If Trump wins, it'll be in spite of the American media, who as usual are backing the right wing (in an economic sense) candidate. They're businesses and want a pro-business environment.
Some things that we have in Canada that help to have multiple parties in Parliament and the last election being a 3 way race. A non-partisan group running the elections, including fairly setting the ridings (districts), so no gerrymandering. Federal and Provincial elections are divorced, so the people can focus on one election. When I vote (excepting municipal), there is usually one choice. This allows new parties to start at the Provincial level and perhaps move to the Federal level. It also stops the straight ticket voting.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by art guerrilla on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:31PM
why, yes, there are a number of measures which would go far to institute an actual, functioning, small-dee democracy...
which is precisely why it will not happen under the current version of Empire...
1. repeal superior personhood of fictitious legal entities...
2. have Big Media give free air time for candidates (thus eliminating the 'need' for zillions in campaign funding), they are OUR airwaves, have them work for us, for a change...
3. instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods have the potential to give us REAL choices, third+ parties, and break the one Korporate Money Party's stranglehold... (in case you did not know, we only have the one Korporate Money Party, with the smiley face (dem'rats ), and frowny face (rethugs) being the two faces of the same borg...
4. i would dump the existing computer-based PROPRIETARY vote-rigging systems, as well...
5. um, i realize this is NOW apostasy, but when i was a tiny little civics student, there was this evil apotheosis to small-dee democracy called gerrymandering, which was supposed to be ipso facto UNdemocratic... now that we are the smartestest, most bravestest, totally modern nekkid apes, apparently gerrymandering is a good thing...
there is more, but we will NEVER be able to enact even modest reforms like the above, while Empire is in the saddle...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:03PM
I'm rather in favor of a combination cage match, cook off & talent show. They can make it a big weekend and we could start voting as soon as it was done.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:24PM
Read an interesting article a few days ago that says people make gerrymandering worse by moving out of "bad" neighborhoods and concentrating in "good", like-minded ones. And it seems Democrats are worse about this than Republicans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:08AM
So, the claim is that "White flight" is less about the party that switched sides of the political divide to what -had- been called "The Party of Lincoln" after those folks were already calling themselves "Dixiecrats".
...and is instead more about the party that passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Interesting hypothesis.
Seems counterintuitive.
Oh, look who posted that: (bzipitidoo, the Reactionary consumer of Fox so-called News).
Of course, it could be that there are simply fewer declared Republicans (21 percent compared to 29 percent declared Democrats).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @03:48AM
Missing the point.
Do some googling about "The Big Sort". You'll find references to Bill Bishop, who illustrated how like-minded people cluster together; essentially self-gerrymandering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @04:13AM
1. repeal superior personhood of fictitious legal entities...
Yeah, no duh.
2. have Big Media give free air time for candidates (thus eliminating the 'need' for zillions in campaign funding), they are OUR airwaves, have them work for us, for a change...
They're OUR airwaves, but not OUR transmitters -- and getting bogged down in arguments about who subsidized what when, or whether they could have succeeded without using the state to exempt corporations from the normal rules, or... That's ALL a losing game.
The first step is recognizing the radio spectrum as a commons, which you've done (or close enough); the second step is managing that commons in some sane fashion, renting rather than selling chunks of it off permanently, that sort of thing. Then you've got a bulletproof basis to demand, as part of the rent, that they use a certain amount of time on their transmitters to display state-controlled content, including candidate airtime.
That said, I distrust state propaganda, even (or especially!) when it's supposedly neutral; how do I know that candidates aren't being told what they can and can't say on their free airtime, etc.? Good thing I have internet and don't watch/listen to anything on the airwaves anyhow -- because I trust Google so much more than the state! AAAAAaaaaarrrrggghhhh! (I really don't have a good answer.)
3. instant runoff/ranked choice voting methods have the potential to give us REAL choices, third+ parties, and break the one Korporate Money Party's stranglehold...
No, No, No! IRV is EVIL -- it has the same 2-party lock-in tendency as plurality.
And ranked choice ballots in general suffer pathological behavior compared to scored choice ballots (range/approval voting).
We now have an unresolvable cycle; any voting system that manages to make sense of that is a monstrosity that makes sense out of nonsense. (Most ranking systems would call that a 3-way tie, BUT if there's other voters, most systems will combine PART of our three ballots with the other ones, and quite possibly return a completely different result than if we three had not voted at all.
A simple, elegant voting system can actually add those up (A=14,B=12,C=18) and say who won.
C won because you mostly favored it, he completely favored it, whereas B failed because I rated it very low -- this time, we put more information in, and it can actually be solved. And, if other people voted? Our votes mostly canceled each other out, but not entirely -- so we'll have just the right proportionately small net effect. These voting systems not only let voters express honest preferences, they are mathematically well-behaved.
4. i would dump the existing computer-based PROPRIETARY vote-rigging systems, as well...
Yeah, no duh.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday November 03 2016, @03:31PM
The list of ways to fix the systemic issues(with some proven success at getting the desired results in other countries) are numerous:
*Smaller electoral districts increasing the ability of small groups of dedicated people to swing an election
*Proportionate party voting ballots: give power to ideals, not people, and in proportion to the people who believe in those ideas. It would, for example, utterly divorce the libertarian side of the repubican party from the racist, nationalist fuckwit side, and put some actual socialists in congress.
*Automatic runoff/ranked voting: more for executive elections than representative: make it so that people voting 3rd party never feel like they're throwing away their vote and can vote their conscience first, their pragmatism second.
Any of those reforms would alleviate so much bullshit from this country's political process, and it pains me that none of them will ever happen.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:06PM
You and art guerilla are right that they'll never happen under the current "Empire." That doesn't mean we shouldn't compose them into the American Constitution 2.0, to be adopted after the avatars of Empire are torn to bloody shreds. It helps to have a plan, lest everything devolve to strong-man rule.
I would second what you both have listed, especially on scrapping the artificial personhood of corporations. I'd also add that we need measures to exclude psychopaths/sociopaths from public office, and to short-circuit oligarchy. For the latter, we need to absolutely shut down the revolving door between industry and the federal government. We cannot allow industries to write their own regulations.
Lastly, and this is personal preference, we should scrap Washington, DC, and move the capital West, perhaps to Denver. The cultural mindset of the Northeast is toxic to democracy. I say, if we're gonna make a clean break, let's make a clean break.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:19PM
The northeast US is fucking fine.
The physical infrastructure of the national government is fine.
The current constitution is pretty(but not perfectly) well equipped to prevent strong-men, and that was one of the most important design elements to how it was originally written. It just needs some updating to address the tribalism that maybe the founding fathers weren't perfectly aware of.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:32PM
yeah, but...
the superficial form is still there, but it has been hollowed out to the point it is NOT functioning as intended, AND the checks and balances supposedly to keep the ship of state from listing are not functioning (which is precisely as the puppetmasters like it)...
for example, anyone recall any dusty old, musty old -i don't know- 'tradition' of kongress 'declaring war' ? ? ?
um, just how many undeclared non-war wars are we in right now ?
minor shit like that, murdering hundreds of thousands for Empire on the say-so of one Emperor...
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday November 03 2016, @04:50PM
Sadly, congress has "approved" of the use of force without using the word "war" in each of these cases: Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and "The war on terror".
What we have are a bunch of losers afraid to use sincere words to describe what they're doing. And, sadly, I have to blame Harry Truman for starting that tend with renaming our department of war to department of defense, when there has been zero defensive activities since that renaming.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:17PM
It's not, though. And it's mainly the tribalism you cite that I'm thinking of. People here go 'down the shore' and 'summer in the hamptons' and 'out to the cape.' They think it's normal to have supper clubs. Endlessly dividing themselves by ethnicity. There's a little bit of that in a couple other places outside the northeast, like Chicago, but it's completely pegged to one end of the spectrum here. The culture of entitlement, the very thing we're talking about that drives the elites, is so deeply rooted here.
I do like other things about the northeast, but the northeast super-elites are very closely responsible for what's wrong with America and you can see that very plainly if you live in New York. I grew up in the West, went to college and grad school in Chicago, and spent a lot of summers in Texas and the South, and the northeast is an anachronism. It can't host the capital of a new America.
Again, that's my personal perspective, and may seem outlandish to some. But there it is.
I agree that the first Constitution is pretty strong. When I said it's good to have a plan for what happens after a historic dislocation, I meant that without an alternative the breakdown of established orders so often means rule-by-warlords. I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to assert that nobody wants that.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:25PM
Let's remember that the Kennedy clan are from New England. They turned out a couple decent people, and they turned out some real scuzzy sons of bitches as well. And, New Englanders kept reelecting one of the Kennedy clan's worst scuzzbags, Chappaquidick Ted.
Yes, Northeasterners love their elites.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 03 2016, @07:22PM
There is so very much about US Code that is simply WRONG today. I believe it started with re-interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Act. Between ever-growing power put in place by the feds, and the fed's ability to tighten purse strings to coerce compliance, they bully the states into anything and everything. The states are beginning to grow some balls, in regards to the "war on drugs" - they need to find their spine and stand up to other issues as well.
The senate - supposed to be composed of two people from each state, appointed by the state's governor/government? When that was changed, the states were screwed again.
Basically, the feds have been doing end runs around the constitution ever since the Civil War, gutting state's rights. And, that has a major affect on our lives today.
More on topic - the same people who have engineered the fed's ability to bully the states are the people who have reworked federal funding for parties, and prevented any serious challenge from third parties.
I really don't like where we are today, and I really despise our "leadership". What's worse, I'm afraid of any constitutional convention, because things CAN get much worse, if the wrong people attend that convention!!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday November 04 2016, @02:48AM
Direct election of senators was instituted because the appointment of senators was turning into a government office available for sale to the highest bidder. There was also a problem with some state governments being more dysfunctional than the feds are now. Also, it wouldn't have gone through had the state governments and the (appointed) senate not approved the constitutional amendment that made it a reality. So I'm not seeing the signs of federal overreach on this one - yes, it diminished the power of state governments, but not without the state governments' approval.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Thursday November 03 2016, @05:17PM
I found this series enlightening:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638 [youtube.com]
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 04 2016, @09:40AM
MMP was completely new to me and I don't see how it fails to have any of the desirable properties listed in Arrow's Theorem (that no voting system has all these desirable properties) - do you know how it fails?
After learning about the principles behind MMP, I'm convinced that it's the standout (family of) voting system(s). I've not delved into the variants enough to be sure I have a single favourite. The rest seem to have either inferior results or more complexity, or both!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Redundant) by fritsd on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:27PM
I do enjoy pontificating about US politics. Even though (or maybe because?) I don't actually know much about it. OK here goes:
Well, one of the most important principles is, that the voting has to be *understood* to be fair, by most voters (i.e. also with an IQ under 100).
So nothing fancy like advanced Condorcet voting. Stick to the basics: one person one vote proportional representation, with political parties to summarize and simplify the myriad options.
(I know you don't need political parties, but they make things easier for the voter.)
Red pencil and paper. If you don't understand the argument for voting on paper ballots, educate yourself. The percentage of people that is blind or disabled will just have to mandate a friend or family member to vote for them. It's harsh, but it simplifies things a great deal and makes fraud lots more difficult than anything at all with voting computers. Every voter V is allowed to vote for themselves, *and* they are allowed to accept the mandate of one (1) person B voting in absentia, whereby that second person B(lind) fills in and signs a paper form that they mandate V to cast the vote for them on that day.
Every person that has a legal residence, gets written in in the voting station closest to that legal residence. (Of course there are forms to fill in if you want to change your preferred voting station). I don't know what to do about homeless people who want to vote. Maybe give them one of those forms half a year before.
Every voter that approaches the voting booths, shows ID to the volunteers, and then in the (paper!) voting book the field next to their name is crossed out, and if it was already crossed out there will be trouble. After that they are given a ballot envelope.
Get rid of the Electoral College (do more than half of the voters understand what it's for? No? Then get rid of it.)
One person one vote immediately gets rid of your crazy "gerrymandering" in one fell swoop. Now, suddenly all votes count no matter where you live. This is good for democracy!!
Do the federal government election and the state election on the same day, a sunday every 4 years; do the typically American local dog-catcher and judge elections on the other (4*365.25-1) days, so the pensioners have something else to do besides Bingo.
Nobody else elects their judges and dog-catchers, guys. Do more than half of your voters understand they should vote for judges and dog-catchers as well as president and parliament? Does anyone bother?
Make it a federal crime to refuse your employees free time off to do their voting. Them voting is more important than your company's production schedule!
Now despite my big mouth I've never actually even visited the USA (let alone live there, God forbid!) so I'm sure I've bulldozed over nuances and details. Maybe the Cherokee and other Indians get guaranteed representation at the federal level, for example. I don't know if Washington DC is a state or not (it is drawn with a different colour on maps). I have no clue about Puerto Rico, either.
Maybe vest the power in the House of Representatives, with all laws subject to veto by the President and amendment and/or sending back by the Senate. Or is it that way already.
House of Representatives can sack the President if they win a motion of no confidence [wikipedia.org]. (That's actually a very well functioning mechanism).
The people elect the parties (which form the parliament); the parliament is sovereign, the president can go spin on it.
Have a low threshold of 3% of the vote; if a political party gets above that threshold, they get a proportional slice of the pie of *taxpayer-based* advertising money. Have prime-time TV slots pre-bought by this advertising money and distributed proportionately amongst the parties with > 3% votes. Any other sources of money to a political party with more than 3% votes means: go directly to jail, do not pass start.
The joke "America: the best government money can buy", is actually a bit shameful, don't you think? How much are the volunteers paid, by the way? Probably not as much as the lobbyists..
Whew.. did I miss anything? What I probably haven't articulated is, that if you have a proportionate voting system, the type of politics changes: political parties *know* they have to compromise and form coalitions sometimes, so the type of debate becomes much less adversarial, and more aimed at the actual issues. Imagine each political party as a Rorschach blotch on a 2-dimension Political Compass map. They overlap. The combined blob(s) which represents most of the voters, should govern. I for one welcome our new blobby overlords!
Observe the enormous difference in meaning between purple coalition (in the Netherlands) vs. the "red-vs-blue" states in the USA [wikipedia.org]. The people benefit if coalitions are somehow found that represent their wishes, not when it's guaranteed that 50% of the electorate gets shafted!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03 2016, @06:49PM
Your prescriptions miss a few details.
The separation of powers is actually pretty important in the US. Making the president beholden to the House actively destroys that. This is a bad idea.
Unalloyed democracy turns into a tyranny of the majority, and the US of A is quite a diverse country. Telling the people of Wyoming, by default, to just suck it if the people of Wisconsin don't agree with them, is not exactly good for coherence. So, doing away with the electoral college or states' rights in general? Bad idea.
And yes, people do vote for other electoral offices.
And as for coalition governments? We'll ask Belgium how well that's worked for them first, I think.
What might make more sense is change representatives to public servants, who are not elected. Instead people vote for issues, and the representatives are banned (backed by stiff legal penalties) from voting to pass any law that violates the stated preferences of their constituency, with automatic standing for any constituent to lay a claim against their representative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @12:43AM
Stick to the basics: one person one vote
That's garbage; there should be a ranked voting system. Anything else encourages voting for the 'lesser' evil.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @02:22PM
{They came from a political system that inevitably devolves into an oligarchy masquerading as a two party system.
FTFY