|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 07 2017 13:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 12:58 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates. This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe. 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?
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 13:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 12:57 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure. also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society? 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.
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?
|
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.
|
On January 07 2017 13:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:09 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:58 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates. This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe. 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? 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.
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.
On January 07 2017 13:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:12 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:57 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure. also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society? 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. 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?
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.
|
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.
|
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 13:34 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.
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.
|
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 13:37 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.
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.
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.
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 13:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:14 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 13:09 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:58 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates. This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe. 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? 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. 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. Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:17 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 13:12 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:57 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure. also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society? 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. 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? 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.
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 13:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
People can organize all they want. But candidates and their teams can only talk about their policies and promises.
|
On January 07 2017 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:37 Sermokala wrote: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. 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. People can organize all they want. But candidates and their teams can only talk about their policies and promises.
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 13:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:34 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:14 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 13:09 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:58 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates. This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe. 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? 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. 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. On January 07 2017 13:17 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 13:12 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:57 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure. also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society? 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. 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? 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. 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.
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.
|
I still don't understand how direct democracy stops corruption. People love to vote for corrupt demagogues, you're about to crown Trump and the Italians have repeatedly voted for Berlusconi. Direct democracy produces the most popular candidate, not the least corrupt
|
On January 07 2017 13:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 13:37 Sermokala wrote: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. 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. People can organize all they want. But candidates and their teams can only talk about their policies and promises. 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.
If you can get 4,000,000 signatures then you can run for president. When you run you can't mention of talk about your party or affiliations. When you're in office you can't talk about it. You team, partners, and allies can't talk about it.
No advertisements allowed, no flyers allowed. If superpacs want to influence people money will have to be poured into union halls and door knockers.
|
On January 07 2017 13:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:39 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 13:34 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 13:14 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 13:09 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:58 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? No, that's why I'd want to get rid of primaries. They're hugely egalitarian and favour popular vote which gives 'bible thumping southerners' great influence. Just let parties decide the candidates. This is not easily done in the US because there's only two parties. In a way it combines the worst of all worlds. The very populist direct democratic vote in the primaries and the gridlock into two opposed camps. It also doesn't help that huge parties are easily able to be undermined by extremist forces. The Tea party has it way easier inside the Republican party than any extremist party in Europe. 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? 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. 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. On January 07 2017 13:17 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 13:12 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 12:57 zlefin wrote:On January 07 2017 12:54 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2017 11:29 Nyxisto wrote:On January 07 2017 11:24 Gorsameth wrote:On January 07 2017 11:09 zlefin wrote:
I wanna switch to a gov't form which has selections based on policy and competence. I feel like we should be doing more to design new forms of government, and start field-testing them. After all, new forms of government can't just spring up and be expected to work right, as with all things, there's a lot of little details it's helpful to have better worked out beforehand. Conflicts with basic human instincts makes such a government probably impossible. And while I would welcome our AI overlords, people seem to be afraid of something called skynet. I don't think you need to go full AI overlord, but restoring some basic checks & balances would probably be good. The US was intentionally set up with some distance between officials and the population, the EC is only one example. If they'd actually be able to express their opinion again instead of just being pure representatives some problems would probably be solved I also don't know who came up with the idea of primaries but I don't think it was exactly the brightest invention what do you mean the idea of primaries? how else is a party going to decide who gets its endorsement democratically? People can't be trusted to express their opinions just look at Greece and France for two big example. The EC has nothing to do with it, its just a mechanism to shift the electoral margins in a beneficial way. Do you really want bible thumping southerners to be able to express their "opinions" in the same capacity as the "enlightened" urban dwellers? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be partially being sarcastic or something, but i'm not sure. also, what does it mean to be "democratic", and why would that necessarily be a good thing? if it's demonstrable bad, or demonstrably false, then what value does it serve for society? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.
dating someone doesn't really count. especially a mere major in it. how much people communicate on such things in a relationship can vary widely.
you appear to be fairly well read generally, I recommend you try out this book from a library, as it will explain things better:
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html
|
On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Show nested quote +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. 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.
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 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 13:39 Sermokala wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
the electorate is ignorant all on its own. it does not require any "elite" or politicians to keep it that way. basic economic theory of self interest, as well as practical observation of that, amply demonstrate so.
|
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.
How do you determine who is good and smart? By what standards? As soon as you have an entity determining what is 'good/smart', you give that power to them, and power ultimately corrupts.
|
On January 07 2017 14:08 MilkDud wrote:Show nested quote +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. How do you determine who is good and smart? By what standards? As soon as you have an entity determining what is 'good/smart', you give that power to them, and power ultimately corrupts.
By the standard that I deem most suitable to ensuring that the proper people are allowed to vote and everyone else is deprived of that right. How else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
