|
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 |
On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in.
Well, our system voted him in. The american people voted HRC by 3mil
|
On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in.
who're you talking to?
I don't think any of the relevant "yous" are in the thread at the moment.
|
On July 21 2018 05:31 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. Well, our system voted him in. The american people voted HRC by 3mil
Yeah, but he represents our country now. We own him, as much as we own the congress that refuses to do anything to slow him down as he abuses Presidential powers related to National Security.
|
On July 21 2018 02:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:12 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 01:51 mikedebo wrote:On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment.
[quote]
By popular vote?
[quote]
That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched. Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters. zlefin has a really good book linked in their sig that mostly debunks this argument and which I wish more people would read. I am aware of Democracy for Realists(a truly terrible title, IMO), though I have not read it. I dislike the term "debunks" in political discussions because this is not a science. We cannot even use the scientific method when it comes to elections. So the findings of a book like Democracy for Realists and the theoretical merits of an educated and engaged voting population can co-exist as fact at the same time. On July 21 2018 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I will say the combination of FPTP and the electoral college create an unholy gestalt of badness. Basically trivializes the votes of Republicans and Democrats in equal measure throughout heavy red and heavy blue states.
It's also weird how to me how post-2016 everyone seemed to take up arms about how we need (or don't need) the EC to give some advantage to rural communities when the college itself just favors small population states (which are somewhat predisposed to being rural, but that's a state connection not a rural community connection). States allocating EC votes proportionally would maintain this small population advantage, but it seems to never be on the table. Changing/removing the electoral college would require an entire political party to run on the platform of changing the electoral college. Amendments to the foundation of our government are the acts of entire generations, not something that we do because one bad election. That being said, I think that a shakeup of the way political power in distributed in the US is in order, if only to remind the political parties and population that the systems of power are not fixed. An amendment requires 2/3 of of states to ratify it. Nuking the EC would shift a lot of power away from small states, so it seems extremely unlikely they'd go for it. That's beyond a political party making it their platform anyways.
There is some author who thinks California should divide itself into 6 states in order to game the senate. He says it is theoretically easier than changing the constitution. And he said that Washington and Puerto Rico should be given statehood. This would create way more states that vote blue. Similarly, the courts should be packed in order to dillute the power of conservative judges.
|
On July 21 2018 05:31 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. Well, our system voted him in. The american people voted HRC by 3mil
This. While America has it's flaws and does stupid things, I draw the line at accepting blame for the election of Donald Trump to the office of president.
A majority of Americans voted for Clinton and for a Democrat controlled Senate in 2016. Dumping more suffering on those people isn't going to empower them to change the systems that enable minority rule in this country.
I have been continually pleased and relieved that foreign governments responding to Trump's tariffs have been aware of this and largely targeting products from deeply red states with their retaliatory tariffs.
On July 21 2018 05:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:31 IyMoon wrote:On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. Well, our system voted him in. The american people voted HRC by 3mil Yeah, but he represents our country now. We own him, as much as we own the congress that refuses to do anything to slow him down as he abuses Presidential powers related to National Security.
I disagree. We owned Bush because a majority of the country affirmed his position in 2004. The United States collectively doesn't own Trump. We don't own the GOP congress, either. That might change in 2020 if somehow the country actively reelects them, but until then, Republicans who voted for them have sole ownership.
|
On July 21 2018 03:35 On_Slaught wrote:
Interested to see how Trump responds. Based on that one tweet he views this as a personal slight from Cohen (even tho Cohen had no say in what the FBI took, tho maybe he is talking about recording him at all). His instincts will tell him to go on the offensive against Cohen rather than the smart move of trying to save the relationship. If he does the former, he will just further drive Cohen to cooperating with Mueller.
Looking forward to the two pages of straight-faced arguing on this forum on whether or not Trump knew he was being recorded and said the wrong thing intentionally on the tapes to troll the media of the future.
|
On July 21 2018 05:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. who're you talking to? I don't think any of the relevant "yous" are in the thread at the moment.
Last i checked "you" had a non elected president after bush vs gore... But the outrage was minimal because Bush didn't "trigger" snowflakes.
You could and should have changed your system right there... You didn't. Your democracy is bankrupt ever since.
Arguably the most powerfull people in your country are a few life time appointed judges with no responsibilty to anyone. In what world is this even remotely democratic (or sane?)... Lifetime appointments? Really?
|
On July 21 2018 06:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:34 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. who're you talking to? I don't think any of the relevant "yous" are in the thread at the moment. Last i checked "you" had a non elected president after bush vs gore... But the outrage was minimal because Bush didn't "trigger" snowflakes. You could and should have changed your system right there... You didn't. Your democracy is bankrupt ever since. Arguably the most powerfull people in your country are a few life time appointed judges with no responsibilty to anyone. In what world is this even remotely democratic (or sane?)... Lifetime appointments? Really?
But see they are apolitical and judge things purely by the constitution. That's why they always all agree on what the law says, and never could a personal opinion or political bias ever cause them to disregard the constitution literally or in spirit.
Why then should it matter if Obama or Trump places all 9 of them?
|
On July 21 2018 06:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:34 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. who're you talking to? I don't think any of the relevant "yous" are in the thread at the moment. Last i checked "you" had a non elected president after bush vs gore... But the outrage was minimal because Bush didn't "trigger" snowflakes. You could and should have changed your system right there... You didn't. Your democracy is bankrupt ever since. Arguably the most powerfull people in your country are a few life time appointed judges with no responsibilty to anyone. In what world is this even remotely democratic (or sane?)... Lifetime appointments? Really?
Man, take a step back. The US has a lot of questionable stuff in its institutions because the rules are centuries old and extremely hard to change.
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
Also, how the fuck do you expect us to have changed our system right there (in 2000 after Bush v Gore) when the people holding power are the ones who benefited from the flaws? We have some seriously undemocratic flaws in our electoral processes. I don't disagree with you on that. But Republicans have won the popular vote in just one out of the last seven presidential elections. Just once in the last twenty eight years. If you think you're going to have better success convincing them to voluntarily give up the only thing that will ever let them hold the presidency again than everyone else who has tried, please, be my guest.
|
On July 21 2018 07:21 Kyadytim wrote:
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
This is a major misunderstanding. There might have been a time when the average life expectancy was that low. But the reason for that is that like half the children died very young. If you came of age in the 1800s, your life expectancy was probably 65 or 70 or so. It is just that you had a pretty high chance to die of some random shit as an infant.
On July 21 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 02:13 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 20 2018 18:24 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 07:10 Sermokala wrote:[quote] It would be poor strategy or stupid if it was controlled in any way. Instead we get calls for impeachment every other development that everyone knows will go no where. We get predictions that muller will be fired in the week every single week. People even in this thread talk about civil war and a military coup to take trump out of power. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/americans-are-right-to-wonder-if-great-experiment-has-failed-richardson/index.htmlThis article by cnn is questioning if "the great experiment" of america has failed. They're talking about how america might be a failed state. If thats not hysterics you need to check yourself in. Yawn at dismissing academic speculation over whether the election of Trump means democracy has failed in America as hysteria. Entirely valid question to consider given the myriad other ways democracy appears to be faltering - Trump is just the most prominent example right now. US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure. The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to the problem Parliamentary systems are irrelevant to the problem of constituency simple plurality. The U.K. has a parliamentary system but uses constituency simple plurality. The issue I was describing is that if you have two seats up for grabs and the vote is split 51/49 then each side would get one, unless you turn it into two separate regional races, when one side gets both. But that isn't how our representation works in states. I only get to vote on 1 state rep and one senator any given election. The state wide voted doesn't matter for my House Rep, only the votes in their district. What you are asking for is to remove districts, which presents its own set of problems and removes direct accountability to a specific district. The rural parts of my state would matter even less to the federal goverment than they do now, which would be impressive.
Just because you have percentage based representation does not mean that you can't also have local representatives. Germany for example has a system with two votes. One is for your local representative, the second is for a party to set the percentage of seats they gain. There are more seats than local representatives, each party gets the amount of seats according to their percentage, filled firstly by local representatives and then from a party list. There are a few more rules which in effect lead to each party having a percentage of the total seats that corresponds to the amount of secondary votes they got, and each person who won a local election also getting a seat.
You guys helped us write our constitution after WW2. Learn from that experience and use it to improve your own.
|
On July 21 2018 06:52 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 05:34 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2018 05:28 Velr wrote:
I just hope this is going on for long enough so you will have shattered all your long time relationships with canada/mexica/europe so you will feel the hurt.
You voted that moron in. Never forget that. You voted him in. who're you talking to? I don't think any of the relevant "yous" are in the thread at the moment. Last i checked "you" had a non elected president after bush vs gore... But the outrage was minimal because Bush didn't "trigger" snowflakes. You could and should have changed your system right there... You didn't. Your democracy is bankrupt ever since. Arguably the most powerfull people in your country are a few life time appointed judges with no responsibilty to anyone. In what world is this even remotely democratic (or sane?)... Lifetime appointments? Really?
you have no idea what you're talking about. learn to recognize your own lack of knowledge. ask and learn.
to whit:
there was a LOT of outrage at the time about the bush v gore situation, especially since it seemed a supreme court ruling may have affected it. that you're unaware of the outrage is on you and your false assumptions.
It was NOT possible to change the system at the time, because the republicans would not have allowed it, and they easily had enough votes to prevent an amendment. and since then they have continually had enough votes to prevent such a change; so there was never an opening to change it.
As to the judges; I have less quibble with you about those, as you're not blatantly wrong; but some things you should consider:
it's democratic because a democratic system designed it to be that way. Part of the point of the court is to be insulated from popular stupidity, and in particular to protect against some of the excesses of majoritarianism. There's nothing undemocratic about deciding to use an indirect rather than a direct selection process. And the notion that making it more "democratic" via popular voting would always make it better is false; sometimes it works better, sometimes it doesn't.
For all the courts flaws, they on average do a better job than the presidents and congresses.
it's sane because it's one of many plausible choices, each with upsides and downsides, and with no clear answer as to which is best. especially at the time it was made.
|
On July 21 2018 08:04 zlefin wrote:For all the courts flaws, they on average do a better job than the presidents and congresses.
They did a better job in part because the President and Senate were putting justices on the Supreme Court who would set aside their personal opinions and beliefs. If the President is appointing judges who are openly embracing their personal opinions while hearing cases and the Senate confirms them, the whole thing falls apart.
On July 21 2018 07:44 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 07:21 Kyadytim wrote:
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
This is a major misunderstanding. There might have been a time when the average life expectancy was that low. But the reason for that is that like half the children died very young. If you came of age in the 1800s, your life expectancy was probably 65 or 70 or so. It is just that you had a pretty high chance to die of some random shit as an infant.
It both is and isn't. The average lifespan of the first 15 presidents was around 74 years. That's still around 25 to 30 years less than the average lifespan of our most recent presidents. The early supreme court justices had shorter lifespans than the presidents. The point still stands. Our supreme court justices are living an entire generation longer than the earliest supreme court justices did.
|
|
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 21 2018 08:50 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 08:04 zlefin wrote:For all the courts flaws, they on average do a better job than the presidents and congresses. They did a better job in part because the President and Senate were putting justices on the Supreme Court who would set aside their personal opinions and beliefs. If the President is appointing judges who are openly embracing their personal opinions while hearing cases and the Senate confirms them, the whole thing falls apart. Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 07:44 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2018 07:21 Kyadytim wrote:
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
This is a major misunderstanding. There might have been a time when the average life expectancy was that low. But the reason for that is that like half the children died very young. If you came of age in the 1800s, your life expectancy was probably 65 or 70 or so. It is just that you had a pretty high chance to die of some random shit as an infant. It both is and isn't. The average lifespan of the first 15 presidents was around 74 years. That's still around 25 to 30 years less than the average lifespan of our most recent presidents. The early supreme court justices had shorter lifespans than the presidents. The point still stands. Our supreme court justices are living an entire generation longer than the earliest supreme court justices did.
You think the average lifespan of our most recent presidents is 99 to 104?
Zlefin is right, average life expectancy at birth for most of history is composed of two factors, of which the more important one is infant mortality.
|
United States24578 Posts
People who make it to retirement age spend more time alive in retirement than was true in years past. I agree, that effect is not as strong as the change in infant/child mortality rate compared to 100 years ago, but it is not negligible either.
On July 21 2018 09:22 kollin wrote:
Ridiculous.
|
You went way too far this time Kollin.
|
On July 21 2018 10:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 08:50 Kyadytim wrote:On July 21 2018 08:04 zlefin wrote:For all the courts flaws, they on average do a better job than the presidents and congresses. They did a better job in part because the President and Senate were putting justices on the Supreme Court who would set aside their personal opinions and beliefs. If the President is appointing judges who are openly embracing their personal opinions while hearing cases and the Senate confirms them, the whole thing falls apart. On July 21 2018 07:44 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2018 07:21 Kyadytim wrote:
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
This is a major misunderstanding. There might have been a time when the average life expectancy was that low. But the reason for that is that like half the children died very young. If you came of age in the 1800s, your life expectancy was probably 65 or 70 or so. It is just that you had a pretty high chance to die of some random shit as an infant. It both is and isn't. The average lifespan of the first 15 presidents was around 74 years. That's still around 25 to 30 years less than the average lifespan of our most recent presidents. The early supreme court justices had shorter lifespans than the presidents. The point still stands. Our supreme court justices are living an entire generation longer than the earliest supreme court justices did. You think the average lifespan of our most recent presidents is 99 to 104? Zlefin is right, average life expectancy at birth for most of history is composed of two factors, of which the more important one is infant mortality.
Whoops. I failed some basic math there. That should have been 20 to 25. Reagan and Ford died at 93, Carter is 93, and the elder Bush is 94. Clinton, the younger Bush, and Obama have a reasonable chance of hitting 100.
|
On July 21 2018 10:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 08:50 Kyadytim wrote:On July 21 2018 08:04 zlefin wrote:For all the courts flaws, they on average do a better job than the presidents and congresses. They did a better job in part because the President and Senate were putting justices on the Supreme Court who would set aside their personal opinions and beliefs. If the President is appointing judges who are openly embracing their personal opinions while hearing cases and the Senate confirms them, the whole thing falls apart. On July 21 2018 07:44 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2018 07:21 Kyadytim wrote:
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
This is a major misunderstanding. There might have been a time when the average life expectancy was that low. But the reason for that is that like half the children died very young. If you came of age in the 1800s, your life expectancy was probably 65 or 70 or so. It is just that you had a pretty high chance to die of some random shit as an infant. It both is and isn't. The average lifespan of the first 15 presidents was around 74 years. That's still around 25 to 30 years less than the average lifespan of our most recent presidents. The early supreme court justices had shorter lifespans than the presidents. The point still stands. Our supreme court justices are living an entire generation longer than the earliest supreme court justices did. You think the average lifespan of our most recent presidents is 99 to 104? Zlefin is right, average life expectancy at birth for most of history is composed of two factors, of which the more important one is infant mortality.
I just Googled it, and the first thing that popped up was that life expectancy in 1850 if you made it to 10 years old was still under 60 years old.
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 21 2018 10:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 10:03 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 08:50 Kyadytim wrote:On July 21 2018 08:04 zlefin wrote:For all the courts flaws, they on average do a better job than the presidents and congresses. They did a better job in part because the President and Senate were putting justices on the Supreme Court who would set aside their personal opinions and beliefs. If the President is appointing judges who are openly embracing their personal opinions while hearing cases and the Senate confirms them, the whole thing falls apart. On July 21 2018 07:44 Simberto wrote:On July 21 2018 07:21 Kyadytim wrote:
Lifetime appointments made sense when the average life expectancy was under 40 years old.
This is a major misunderstanding. There might have been a time when the average life expectancy was that low. But the reason for that is that like half the children died very young. If you came of age in the 1800s, your life expectancy was probably 65 or 70 or so. It is just that you had a pretty high chance to die of some random shit as an infant. It both is and isn't. The average lifespan of the first 15 presidents was around 74 years. That's still around 25 to 30 years less than the average lifespan of our most recent presidents. The early supreme court justices had shorter lifespans than the presidents. The point still stands. Our supreme court justices are living an entire generation longer than the earliest supreme court justices did. You think the average lifespan of our most recent presidents is 99 to 104? Zlefin is right, average life expectancy at birth for most of history is composed of two factors, of which the more important one is infant mortality. I just Googled it, and the first thing that popped up was that life expectancy in 1850 if you made it to 10 years old was still under 60 years old.
1850s politicians aren’t particularly average. Low chance of dying in childbirth for example. The elites have always lived pretty long, even in antiquity. Not as long as they would now, but longer than people think.
|
On July 21 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 00:32 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:30 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:25 kollin wrote:On July 21 2018 00:16 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 00:10 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2018 00:06 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2018 23:50 Slydie wrote:On July 20 2018 22:59 kollin wrote:On July 20 2018 20:49 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
[quote]
US democracy failed in 2000. Now it's just provably very far past the point of mere failure.
The interesting part of the debate is that we can't really know whether this is just a mid life crisis or terminal disease. One of the defining features of strong democracies appear to be their ability for self-correction, and regular function in the face of great duress - US presidential elections continuing throughout WW2 is an example of this. Whether the damage Trump wreaks on democratic institutions and norms is fatal or not is something we won't know until irs too late, but it's fun to speculate! Does it have much to do with Trump, though? -You have a system for regulated corruption built into the presidental elections through the big donations. -Electorial college... wtf is the point with that in 2018? - The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system.-The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. -The problem with the senators especially will get even worse, as even more people move to the big cities on the coasts. -You allow Gerrymandering, which is incredible to outsiders. -It is not a secret that big coorporations and organisations can easily buy inflence in Washington. -Unions are surpressed, and workerrights are under constant fire. But the ones benefitting from status quo are also the ones who can change it, so I have no idea how your country could ever improve as a democracy. Maybe if rich, populated states on the coast threaten to leave the US because they had enough of the misrepresentation and corrupt policies? I do love it when the people not from America come in and tell us how dumb our nation of state system is. Its like they miss the part where we have 51 governments, not 1 goverment. -The way congressmen and senators are elected differs WIDELY from how the population vote through an awful and outdated voting system. By popular vote? -The same awful voting system makes sure you have only 2 parties while you should really have at least 6. That has nothing to do with our voting system itself, but that the executive branch exists and is designed to represent the country as a whole. Every other section of government is settled by popular vote. Constituency simple plurality isn’t really an expression of the popular vote across a state, as you well know. States have a primary process that people are free to engage with to select a candidate for either party. We don’t have a parliamentary system in any state, so we are limited in how many candidates our elections can support. And frankly, seeing how productive some parliamentary systems are, I am not sure it’s the silver bullet to this problem. That there's allowed to be some diversity within the parties doesn't change the fact that the US is a two party state where people are forced to choose between those options - it's facile to think either party, established as they are, could morph overnight into something else. And by criticising proportional systems for not being effective at problem solving, you're only highlighting a problem with democracy in general, which has two very important functions in the form of giving dignity to the populace through expression, and providing effective problem solving. The former is denied by FPTP, the latter seems to be made harder to achieve in proportional systems but, if we look at the real problems facing everyone - climate change, nuclear states, inequality etc - all democratic states appear unlikely of reaching solutions, and the problem solving process seems increasingly extra-democratic through tech companies and the like. Denying any form of a more proportional representation - even in the form of a presidential election system with rounds, like France - reduces the efficacy of the democratic process because people only vote for 'their side', even while that side is captured by extremists because most people don't have the time/energy to go out and vote in primaries. The idea that FPTP can be just as democratic as PR systems within a capitalist society in which people hold jobs is ridiculous - the system adopted by any country must fit the realities within that country, rather than reach for a hopeless idealism that engenders the breakdown of democratic norms. I don’t disagree with any of these critiques, but what you are requesting would require a lot of work. Each of our states control their own voting system and how they put candidates on the ballot, so each would need to be separately lobbied to change their voting systems. Changing the current system would require a lifetime of work. Absolutely haha, the problem with America being the cradle of democracy is that the institutions it's established - including the right to shoot politicians in the face should it come to it - are really really entrenched. Part of the problem is people searching for the perfect system of democracy to counteract the pitfalls of democracy, rather than accept that it has always been broken. There is no system that will prevent voters from shooting themselves in the foot except smarter, better engaged voters. And it is really hard to make smarter, bettering engaged voters.
Hence, my advocacy for AI overmind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
