I don't think we need "centrism" (as defined within the current American political context), both of our major parties tend to agree a lot more on meat and potato issues than most people realize. They pretty much only disagree nowadays on culture war "wedge" issues, and most organized centrists (often with some billionaire funding) seem to not differ widely on economic policy from the current powers that be, but moreso differ on social policy (often apathetic towards them). Just my 0.02
Nuanced debate is useless in a country of individual interests that are more targeted to those interests than any policy outcome. One example is in health care, where people want the pre-existing conditions problem solved and are willing to accept insurance mandates that will eventually drive up healthcare costs and insurance premiums to do it. These interests are wedded to groups that are created to leverage power. Less government is better government when too much government is worse.
@Saukko31 from things like this "If any group gains majority, and attempts to pass undemocratic laws," that seems contradictory to me, if a group gains a majority then that is democratic so how can a majority pass "undemocratic laws" "two wolves and a lamb voting for what have for lunch wouldn't happen" If one group does not get to impose their preferences upon another, what is it that distinguishes what you are talking about from voluntary solutions to problems? Why even call it a government.
@PluralOfEverything What would keep it from happening? Please? When there is no rule, but might makes right, what keeps the mightiest from stepping on everyone? With a government we have laws, they may get broken, but we can seek redress for them, if they are violated enough, there will be an uprising against the government. If no laws exist to protect anyone, those who rule will be those who can instill the most fear.
@egokick But I'm not claiming that I model everything after what U.S. is today, I'm not american (a fact that I'm very grateful for). One system that I definitely would like to see changed in U.S. is voting system, what was the topic the video. If any group gains majority, and attempts to pass undemocratic laws, constitution makes those impossible. Two wolves and a lamb voting for what have for lunch wouldn't happen.
@Saukko31 Tyranny of the majority, is that not democracy? How effective has the US constitution been in controlling the government? If any group large enough can force their way "minority be damned" the very first thing we would want to do is not have a monopoly on force and stockpiles of weapons and a monopoly on the ability to tax. I'm not exactly sure creating a government that gives certain groups a monopoly on these things would solve the problem of groups that "force their way".
Although IRV is better than plurality, it still isn't a great system. I'll send you a message with links later today to explain why. The most pragmatic solution is to have an open-non-partisan primary that every candidate runs in regardless of party. Approval voting should be used to get the top 2 candidates which would go onto the general election. This way it will be the 2 very best candidates that will face off in the general.
Thank you for talking about this! I am so pissed off at Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks for never talking about the problems with our voting system. When the Conservatives got elected in Canada because the left parties split the vote, Cenk's conclusion was that we just shouldn't have 3rd parties. It didn't occur to him that there is fundamental problems with the voting system. If we want to hold politicians accountable, we have to have competitive elections.
If you accept that government is force, that is to say, the thing that distinguishes the government from any other institution is that it holds a monopoly on the ability to tax within a given geographical region and a monopoly on the use of force. Then an increase in voter turn out usually translates to an increase in the number of people that believe violence is an effective way to solve social problems.
"other than the anarchists among us we all agree that some amount of government is necessary" Why? What is it that government does that is beneficial that cannot be done voluntarily? All resources acquired by government are taken, i.e. taxes, if you consent to policy a, b and c, why not give your resources (time/money/skills) voluntarily to only these policies and advocate others do so, rather than attempt to force everyone to support policies they may not agree with, through the government.
@PluralOfEverything Ok, so if you admit no one should be allowed to make a decision unless everyone consents to it, please name a single action which could be agreed up by everyone. I'm going to actually demand you even justify 'breathing', as there are some people who want everyone dead and would even veto that.
Increasing voter turnout IS generally a BAD thing. Does anyone know why? It is because what matters is not so much how many people vote, but how those who do vote vote. If 10% of potential voters are well informed because they did research while the other 90% vote with their gut, would you prefer that only the 10% who did research vote or that everyone votes?
I lost confidence in our government when I was 11, I thought I had read an error in my history book....I literally went around asking a few teachers and adults if this "electoral college" was real. These simple ideas R.A are everything you say they are....I'm wondering though if our media will portray them as such. lol
While I agree with both changes, and hope they get implemented - and soon! - I have to doubt the claim that they will cost nothing to implement. Surely the existing voting infrastructure will have to be retooled to support instant runoff voting - and that ain't free.
@WarmWeatherGuy Ideally, I'd want to use the Condorcet method, but it would be a nightmare to implement and explain to people. I think the most pragmatic solution would be to use approval voting with a top two runoff. That way, the two very best candidates will be facing off in the general election.
I know it's not specifically about the US but I'm curious about why you think the UK voted against switching to the alternative vote (aka instant run off) and what you think it would take to avoid the same result if it ever made it to a US referendum.
@PluralOfEverything I see you have no idea what a theoretical question is. Taking about classes and skills missed out on in school. Go back, reread it, and ask yourself 'what if', and see what you come up with.
@joshm60 In addition, social psychologists will tell you that most people who vote basically vote with their gut. I want those people to abstain from voting. This is why I generally oppose efforts to increase voter turnout.
@WarmWeatherGuy IRV is better than plurality, but it isn't the best the best system or very good in general. zesty.ca(slash)voting(slash)sim Go to that site to see how different voting systems compare with honest voters.
@egokick Where that question came from? I have been talking about government in every post, I support things like universal healthcare, free education, anarchist doesn't want government at all.
I love how you just demonstrated how we (Canada) just elected a prime minister with a majority government, with 6 million / 15 million votes. Oh, and I like your Bob.
@Saukko31 Okay, but if you are not going to force people to do and pay for things they don't want by using a government, what is the difference between you and an anarchist?
Here's a little syllogism for why lower voter turnout may be better. Poorly functioning democracy is caused by voters who have thought less about or researched less about political issues. Those more interested in politics tend to research and think about politics more. Those less interested in politics are more easily discouraged from voting. Therefore discouraging the general population from voting will improve democratic function.
"Few would argue that increasing voter turnout and confidence is a bad thing." I'm one of those few. And there's actually quite a bit more than a few people who agree with me on this. Higher voter turnout doesn't mean better elections. Who are the voters opposing? Only each other. Whether government becomes better or worse is entirely dependent on whether the voters are intelligent enough to make good voting decisions, and not on whether enough people voted. continued
@mordinvan The question was flawed because it depended on the existence of something that can't exist. We have to get past that point in order for you to construct a valid analogy. It's like if you were arguing for a law against killing unicorns, and you told people to imagine a world with unicorn corpses everywhere infecting the water supply. There are no unicorns, so the point is moot. Furthermore, people already break laws that are inconvenient to them. They speed, they murder, they...
@mordinvan I said that the only legitimate government is one that rules by the unanimous consent of every individual. That means each person has the right not to be ruled over by a government that did not ask for his or her consent. If you don't think that the consent of the governed is what makes government legitimate, then you probably got bad grades in government classes, assuming you took any.
The problem with "Democracy" is, as Ben Franklin says, "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner". It's where 49% of the people can get screwed. That's why our system was defined as a Republic (however it barely registers as either a Democracy or Republic these days considering the rampant corruption.) I don't have near the assumed trust that you do in our "systems" such as public education and mainstream media.
@Mutex50 Thanks for the link. I am OK with changing to something other than IRV if it is better but what we have now sucks. I have seen (several times now) the argument for why all the different voting systems are flawed. They have to use very contrived (not likely to happen) scenarios to show this. Clearly some are better than others. Why shouldn't we have the best system rather than one of the crappiest systems? We now have computers so everyone would not have to go vote multiple times.
I'm with you on IRV. Of course some idiot is going to say that every voting system has been proven to have flaws but IRV is way better than what we have now. I'm not sure why you think that having more people vote is a good thing. The most important thing is to have educated voters. Just having more voters may cause there to be a greater percentage of clueless voters who vote on who looks better.
@mordinvan Laws do not protect people. Everyone who wants to murder someone does it even though it's against the law. What's keeping the world from becoming like your twisted vision is the fact that it is in people's nature to cooperate. We're social animals. Without power being in the hands of an elect few, there would be less corruption and more cooperation.
do drugs, they rape, etc. The law is not a deterrent. Society is peaceful because people are generally peaceful. It's only when you put guns in their hands and tell them they can shoot people if they want that they become violent.
A few thoughts occured to me while checking out nationalpopularvotedotcom. 1. Do we want to change the way our government works? Yes. 2. How can we do that? 2.a. Change the system of government by minuscule (
"a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" So either we increase the number of Senators and Representatives that the Senate and House of Representatives will allow to participate in congressional matters or we amend the Constitution to add the number of Electoral College appointees to represent the number of people in populating each state. 1 for each 10,000 would be my recommendation.
Not to even mention how fucked up it is that we only have 538 votes representing 260,000,000 eligible voters. I seriously think we need to reconsider the electoral college as the middle man between America and the President who is the head of our government. Maybe there should be 1 electoral college member for every 100, 1000 or even 10,000 people in America. The population of Michigan is 10,000,000 people, why is it we only have 16 people to represent 10,000,000? It should be more like 10,000.
Mind you of the 312 million Americans only 260 million or so are eligible to vote and only 220 million or so are registered to vote but only 100 million or so do actually vote. Those aren't the exact numbers but they do represent the proportions when you look at voter turnouts. You will see numbers like 65 million or as many as 130 million but when a candidate wins when their popular vote was 31 or 62 million keep in mind that they only represents 10% or 20% of the American people's opinions.
How important are politics for people? Probably 5-10% of the average person's life is spent concerned over politics i.e. how things are run. Therefore I suggest we have more politicians who will represent the greater diversity of people. Let's say 1 politician for every 100 people. That way we would have 3 million politicians representing america as opposed to the 10 thousand or so we have now. That way MORE PEOPLE get their opinions represented by a politician at some level of government.
(2) Clause 2 states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
I think a problem bigger than lack of participation in elections is a lack of participation BETWEEN elections. People bitch and moan but few bother to contact their representatives to express their grievances, much less effectively band together for a common cause.
(1) I think it's time to Amend Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Article 2 is "Article Two of the United States Constitution creates the executive branch of the government, comprising the President and other executive officers." Section 1 covers the "President and Vice President"
Never-the-less I did fill out the form at nationalpopularvotedotcom and participated in this, what I consider to be, 'minuscule' change. Perhaps one of millions among thousands can make a small difference.
