EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3436
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 12 2022 21:07 gobbledydook wrote: You'd be surprised. Here in Australia nothing gets done either. Every time a party proposes for radical change they get attacked and lose votes so both parties have learned to not do anything unless it's widely popular. You can't equate the levels of "nothing gets done" between the two systems. You just finished saying the majority party can do anything it wants at risk of losing the next election. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
On January 13 2022 00:20 KwarK wrote: He’s right that the Republican social media figures are gutless cheerleaders that say one thing publicly and do another. Their hypocrisy should absolutely be held against them. The problem he’ll have with that strategy is that anyone who starts to recognize this is starting down the path of realizing that all of them, including him, do that. Probably wiser to have all of them get away with it than none of them. Still, scammers like Candace Owens (freedom phones, let’s go Brandon coin, her previous left wing activist gofundmes etc.) absolutely should be raked over the coals by someone from the right. It’s ridiculous that they just let her get away with stealing their money. She clearly has no ideological attachment to the right and uses her persona as a very profitable business. I don't see how it is at all in Trump's favor to be calling out grifting or ideological purity... E: on the other hand, people would probably eat it up if he said that what he did wasn't grifting, just "savvy business", whereas Candace Owens is a filthy grifter, so who knows... | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On January 13 2022 03:15 Acrofales wrote: I don't see how it is at all in Trump's favor to be calling out grifting or ideological purity... E: on the other hand, people would probably eat it up if he said that what he did wasn't grifting, just "savvy business", whereas Candace Owens is a filthy grifter, so who knows... I think he can probably do it implicitly by occasionally doing things that are well, less insane and have others make judgements on the reaction. If I’m a more moderate fellow who’s been slightly put off to say the least by some Trump craic, and he does something sensible like ‘oh yeah vaccines are alright’ I’m a tad placated. His true believers won’t have their noses too put out of joint as they’ll process this as Trump not really meaning this/playing 4D chess as they do often do, so it shouldn’t negatively impact him too much. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On January 13 2022 02:42 Mohdoo wrote: You can't equate the levels of "nothing gets done" between the two systems. You just finished saying the majority party can do anything it wants at risk of losing the next election. They could do anything they want and in the past they used to actually do that, but recently they have decided that only avoiding unpopular policies is their main goal, not leading the country. I guess the mechanism for doing nothing is different in the two countries; in the US the system of Congress itself makes 'do nothing' the default where it is the political environment that causes Australian politicians to do nothing. Either way, I'd say that it is pretty difficult to get anything done nowadays anywhere in the world unless you either hold overwhelming majorities (or are a dictatorship), or what you are doing has public consensus. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On January 13 2022 07:08 gobbledydook wrote: They could do anything they want and in the past they used to actually do that, but recently they have decided that only avoiding unpopular policies is their main goal, not leading the country. I guess the mechanism for doing nothing is different in the two countries; in the US the system of Congress itself makes 'do nothing' the default where it is the political environment that causes Australian politicians to do nothing. Either way, I'd say that it is pretty difficult to get anything done nowadays anywhere in the world unless you either hold overwhelming majorities (or are a dictatorship), or what you are doing has public consensus. The bold, particularly the last sentence, isn't true as there are a lot of popular topics and bills people want pass, but the vocal minority is keeping it from being passed. From gun reform, police reform, social justice, voting rights, UBI, etc. There are a lot of pressure on Biden and the Dems to just do whatever they need to do anyway, but the monied interests in Congress and outside, are keeping it from happening. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass? | ||
KwarK
United States44195 Posts
On January 13 2022 12:40 gobbledydook wrote: I think a key question is how much support should there be for a policy before it should be passed into law? If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass? Yes? Obviously? Rejecting is a policy, just as much as approving. The options are the old policy and the new policy, and the new policy is more popular. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 13 2022 12:40 gobbledydook wrote: I think a key question is how much support should there be for a policy before it should be passed into law? If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass? Not doing something is still taking an action. Take those percentages and apply them to: Should the holocaust continue, yes or no? Should we prevent women from voting? Should humans from Africa be considered humans? It is easy to view a motion failing as some sort of ethical high ground, since it is the existing scenario, but we have numerous examples of existing scenarios being an action themselves. Not all existenjng scenarios are good. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
On January 13 2022 12:40 gobbledydook wrote: I think a key question is how much support should there be for a policy before it should be passed into law? If 50.1% support and 49.9% reject a proposed policy, should it pass? IMO, no. A 0.2% support swing is too plausible, and would create a situation where the government could be changing its stance on issues too regularly. I'd say 55 / 45 would be fine, as I don't think public support would sway by 10% or more too often. And if it does happen too often, make it 60/40 threshold and you'll rarely have to reverse course unless something big happens to change peoples' minds. Of course, we are pretty far beyond 55% or even 60% for a handful of issues that still don't get actioned on by the federal government. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On January 13 2022 15:45 Dromar wrote: IMO, no. A 0.2% support swing is too plausible, and would create a situation where the government could be changing its stance on issues too regularly. I'd say 55 / 45 would be fine, as I don't think public support would sway by 10% or more too often. And if it does happen too often, make it 60/40 threshold and you'll rarely have to reverse course unless something big happens to change peoples' minds. Of course, we are pretty far beyond 55% or even 60% for a handful of issues that still don't get actioned on by the federal government. The pipeline for percentage support for issues and equivalent voting in the legislature is all out of whack, as you say. I guess vehemence of support/opposition also counts for something. Someone may, when pressed by a pollster express a preference for option A over B, but not really care about it either way, where another person may hugely care about it and actively campaign for it in their spare time. Of course accounting for that, or other intricacies such as ‘vaguely knowing things’ would be extremely tricky, especially given we can’t collectively seem to manage basic majoritarianism particularly well, but in an ideal science fiction system would probably be factored in. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
On January 13 2022 15:45 Dromar wrote: IMO, no. A 0.2% support swing is too plausible, and would create a situation where the government could be changing its stance on issues too regularly. I'd say 55 / 45 would be fine, as I don't think public support would sway by 10% or more too often. And if it does happen too often, make it 60/40 threshold and you'll rarely have to reverse course unless something big happens to change peoples' minds. Of course, we are pretty far beyond 55% or even 60% for a handful of issues that still don't get actioned on by the federal government. That might matter in a direct democracy. It's why referenda have all manner of extra requirements, such as a minimum attendance and sometimes a threshold above simple majority. But mostly the US has a representative democracy: you don't vote on policies, you elect people to vote about those policies. Anything other than 50% +1 is a pretty surefire way to get nothing done... | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28866 Posts
In Norway, most suggested bills are adopted if there's majority support in the parliament. We have 169 representatives, so if there's the support of 85 of them, that's sufficient. We do however have different rules for changing the constitution. In the event where you want to make a change to the constitution - basically, the framework of our society, the suggested change will only be voted on in the next parliamentary period - meaning that the population will have the opportunity to vote in accordance with the suggested change, AND, there needs to be support from 2/3 of the members of parliament as opposed to the normal simple majority. I think that's a nice compromise. Most laws/bills only need a simple majority, but bigger societal changes, and ones that influence future voting, need more support. (For example, there's a recurring debate whether or not 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. We have some understanding of which parties would stand to benefit from 16 year olds being allowed to vote. If those parties got a 51% majority and they gave voting rights to 16 year olds, that'd be likely to benefit them in the next election.) A simple majority not being able to influence laws that give them an increased chance at winning future elections is the sort of inertia you want to have, but otherwise, I don't really see why one should be inherently favorable towards inaction. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44195 Posts
If we’re going to renege on our treaties then at least make it right. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
On January 13 2022 23:27 JimmiC wrote: It wouldn't be the worst idea. I think Putin wouldn't engage in a war that nuclear hes to smart and too self interested. I more worry about whoever is next. Less so with Ukraine but given the rise of authoritarian populists that can rise to power in democracies the idea of more countries with nukes is also scary. Seems like there are a lot of bad options and the goal is to try to figure out which one is the least bad instead of best. It would be a terrible idea. Ukraine with nukes "solves" the current issue at the cost of having a... Ukraine with nukes. It's not as if Ukraine is a stable, safe democracy... India, Pakistan and North Korea with nukes are already plenty bad enough without expanding the list willy nilly. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44195 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1987 Posts
On January 13 2022 21:39 Liquid`Drone wrote: I believe a lot of countries have different rules for different types of legislation. In Norway, most suggested bills are adopted if there's majority support in the parliament. We have 169 representatives, so if there's the support of 85 of them, that's sufficient. We do however have different rules for changing the constitution. In the event where you want to make a change to the constitution - basically, the framework of our society, the suggested change will only be voted on in the next parliamentary period - meaning that the population will have the opportunity to vote in accordance with the suggested change, AND, there needs to be support from 2/3 of the members of parliament as opposed to the normal simple majority. I think that's a nice compromise. Most laws/bills only need a simple majority, but bigger societal changes, and ones that influence future voting, need more support. (For example, there's a recurring debate whether or not 16 year olds should be allowed to vote. We have some understanding of which parties would stand to benefit from 16 year olds being allowed to vote. If those parties got a 51% majority and they gave voting rights to 16 year olds, that'd be likely to benefit them in the next election.) A simple majority not being able to influence laws that give them an increased chance at winning future elections is the sort of inertia you want to have, but otherwise, I don't really see why one should be inherently favorable towards inaction. I think it is very interresting that Norway is still not a "perfect" democracy. A party with 3,9% of the votes will get substantially fewer reps than one with 4.0%, and votes in sparsely populated districts can count near double. For reasons like this, Norwegian governments with a majority in the parlament do not always have a majority in the population. I also don't think a more direct democracy would work, as large groups of people can be swayed in one direction or another for terrible reasons. It is also an effective way of removing accountability. | ||
| ||
