US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6518

On January 07 2017 13:09 Sermokala wrote:

So you want the party bosses and elites to decide who gets to run for what offices and you think thats less egalitarian? do you realize that there are elections where the one party is the only party? You're basically just selecting who wins the office at that point. Thats literally inviting in and asking for corruption instantly. You either have no idea what a primary is or are an idiot.

The parties are forced to compromise their principles pivoting to represent the most amount of people possible in exchange for power. What more do you want from people? Do you believe some people don't deserve a vote?

On January 07 2017 13:12 Sermokala wrote:

democratic Ie to represent the majority's decisions. It works decisions by decision on a small scale with time to debate and argue but basic compromises have to be made for stability and lo we get electing representatives and judge them on their decisions to see if its in line with the ones we'd make in their positions. I get sarcastic because some people don't like to think their positions through enough for my respect.

On January 07 2017 13:14 Nyxisto wrote:


Party bosses and elites running a party is a fairly typical arrangement, after all a political party is an actual institution with some organisational structure, not just a walking strawpoll with a label. I don't know why this is supposed to be so controversial, it's a fairly typical arrangement.

And of course everybody still gets a vote, in the general election. Maybe if you'd get rid of the primaries political issues would gain prominence again and stop it from being the personality contest that the US elections have turned into. The primaries looked like a fucking reality TV show.

On January 07 2017 13:17 zlefin wrote:

ah, so you're one of those people relying on the normative theories of democracy that have been proven to not actually work in the real world. I was wondering when I'd first meet some, as I don't get out much. it's helpful to label sarcasm.
people don't judge based on what they would do in the position if they had the info. and a large host of other things, like people often being quite wrong on the basic facts, on what the positions are, that people mostly vote on partly affiliation rather than policy, stances, or competence.

perhaps the problem is that you haven't thought through the positions enough yourself, and haven't examined the research on the topic.
i'm reading a very nice book on the topic at the moment, would you like the info so you can read it?

On January 07 2017 13:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Or just remove the primary process altogether. At election time anyone with enough signatures can get on the ballot. They are not allowed to disclose their party and doing so will get them fined. Accusing your opponent of being in a party will be an even bigger fine. That money goes into funding social security. The more mud is slung, the more into social security.

On January 07 2017 13:37 zlefin wrote:
but what details make such a system operate? and how well does it work in practice? that's why we need more tests to work out the details; what feedback mechanisms to use, what checks. how do we identify the suitable people? how do ensure a wide enough mix of them?
proper ideology isn't feasible to use, as ideologies are in generally not that well defined, and most people do not in fact subscribe to any ideology.
political literacy might be feasible, but it's not so easy to do; how do you prevent the tests from being gamed? especially with ubiquitous internet to find the info to answer the questions.

On January 07 2017 13:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
The problem isn't democracy, it's that a democracy requires a sensible and informed electorate, but politicians require an idiotic and emotional one. They care a hell of a lot more about themselves than they do a healthy democracy. So this is what we get, them whining about people falling for "fake news" is the height of hilarity.

On January 07 2017 13:34 Sermokala wrote:

Party boss's running a machine party isn't a "typical" arrangement its literal and straight corruption that ends the majority of the peoples involvement in who gets elected president. If you can't understand why having only rich and powerful people chose who gets in office being a problem you've got to have a serious think about you.

You're an idiot. Okay so the common argument is a 40-40 split or so in the nation for the people who are actual in a party or associate with a party because it lines in their thinking. The middle 20 percent is whats campaigned on in an election.

Like the basic misunderstanding you have with why there are parties and why people would organize along common thinking lines just baffles me. How do you get so full of yourself that you can honestly write "people don't vote based on self interests they vote based on the organizations that tell them who best represents their self interests" and not see the obvious discontent there.

On January 07 2017 13:37 Sermokala wrote:

So your answer to the system is to just end the system and invite chaos instead? You're trying to deny a basic human instinct to organize and instead just telling them to be hush hush about it and disenfranchising the people who are too dumb to keep a secret.

On January 07 2017 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:


People can organize all they want. But candidates and their teams can only talk about their policies and promises.

On January 07 2017 13:39 zlefin wrote:

well, let me ask how much of the scholarly research on the topic you have read?
and that's not what I wrote, you need ot read more carefully. i said some similar things, but I did not say that.


in response to the post you added: duh, I know that. the point is that we know enough NOW to try making significant improvements, but have not been doing so and testing them out adequately. perhaps we could make some new better forms of government. but there's not near enough research or funding into that.

On January 07 2017 13:42 Sermokala wrote:

So you're in the group of people that are sure that super pacs and candidates and their teams have no involvement with each other at all? Do you understand how dumb what you are proposing is? You're just replacing the focus on the organization that decides who gets elected instead of the people we're electing in the first place. Literally enforcing the thing you are trying to change.

On January 07 2017 13:47 Sermokala wrote:

I've read the history of nations and how they did in history. How the USA takes more pages in its imperialism from Carthage instead of Rome and how the British was the opposite. I also dated a poly sci major for three years so that has to count for some scholarly research.

On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote:

You're askign the same questions that people having been asking for the entirety of humanity in one form or another. Representative democracy is the least worst form of government that we've found so far for the modern world.

You're blaming a dog for being a dog. Politicians are suppose to care about themselves more then a healthy democracy because that's all they are incentived to do. This is exactly the fault of representative democracy.

On January 07 2017 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:


There's a different read. Instead of accepting a closed off, ignorant electorate, they can agree that an inclusive, informed, and sensible electorate benefits all of us, including them. This was a tougher sell before they lost control of the masses to someone like Trump. Now they may be able to see the risk of intentionally keeping our electorate limited and/or ignorant.

On January 07 2017 13:30 LegalLord wrote:
We should create a system where good, smart people who understand proper governance get to vote, while everyone else does not. Perhaps a "political literacy and proper ideology" exam to receive voting rights. I think that will solve the problems you all are worried about.