Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Meta777, Mar 30, 2018.

?

Interested in Participating in PF 'Demonstration' Votes?

  1. Yes

    12 vote(s)
    70.6%

  2. No

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%

  3. Maybe (Please Explain)

    3 vote(s)
    17.6%
Page 7 of 10
  1. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not that I care for her at all, but what did she mean? Apparently Breitbart and their ilk pounced on her statement to declare she wants free and open immigration for anyone to come to the US. But that isn't at all what she said.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/hill...order-immigration-policy-for-migrants-2016-10

    http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...iuliani-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-open-bo/
     
    Kode, Apr 11, 2018
    #151
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, well it basically just means that there is one and only one round of voting in which voters specify a single top preference,
    and that the winner is the candidate with the most votes at the end of that one round,
    regardless of whether they received a majority (>50%) or not.

    There are a lot of issues with that method of voting, and with Plurality voting in general as explained in this link:
    https://ivn.us/2015/04/02/5-biggest-reasons-plurality-voting-fails/
    One of those issues being that it tends to divide the voter base into polarized groups rather than uniting them around shared compromises.
    And that polarization just gets worse over time the more times the Plurality method is used.

    Yes. We need to get organized. But I would say that a prerequisite to even that, is for more folks to become informed on the issue and to start taking an interest. Then again, its sort of a chicken or the egg scenario. To become organized requires at least a few people to be informed and to take interest...but organization can be geared towards informing people and generating such interest among even more people.

    Either way, we can't let those who would like to keep us divided succeed. That whole 'we need a common enemy greater than ourselves to unite us' thing has some truth to it, at least in so far as a common enemy acts as a pretty good motivator for otherwise uncooperative folks to resolve their differences, even if only temporarily. Just look at WWII, or any major war for that matter...I'm hoping though that it wont take a World War, Civil War, nuclear Holocaust, or fascism as you mentioned to get us there. My hope, is that we would all instead recognize division itself as our common enemy, and in doing so avoid a large number of unnecessary casualties.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 11, 2018
    #152
    Kode likes this.
  3. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So it is the name/description of the system we currently have, right?


    How do we get people to take an interest in getting informed? I think they will have to be pushed, shoved, driven into it. They need motivation.... -a reason.


    That sounds like MoveOn.org, Democracy Now, Bold Progressives, Sierra Club, RootsAction, Common Cause, WWF, Democracy Collaborative, Indivisible, 350.org, and about 20 others. Deteriorating political and economic and environmental conditions have led to growth in their membership (which tells us something about why people get involved) but most people remain mostly uninvolved even as they acquire a little bit more information and analysis.


    I really think Russia has put some lies and spin in our politics that are really, really hard to overlook and ignore. They even know that once a major lie, like "millions of immigrants voted in 2016" becomes accepted and creates outrage, and then it is proven totally false, those who became enraged by it will find it very hard or impossible to let it go. We saw that with the lie that Obama was born in Kenya and other lies about him. Even today there is a significant number of people who still believe those lies. That causes divisions to persist and Russia wanted to divide us.


    We don't see that happening very fast if at all. With all of Trump's ignorant tweets and poorly advised statements reflecting his bull-headed, Fox News pandering belief, and bullying personality, I think I see WWIII gathering steam. He keeps feeding the frenzy and walking right into it.
     
    Kode, Apr 11, 2018
    #153
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, starting off by just being informative about something is definitely the way to go. Though I do think there are times where it makes sense to dig deeper into one another's views in cases where there is some disagreement. But I think why some debates go on and on for so long instead, might be because people aren't always content to simply post information. They want feedback to that info. And a debate tends to be a good way to get it.

    Problem is though, if you do it the wrong way it can also lead to arguments that weren't necessary and or explanations for things that didn't need to be there. This is where having a goal in mind when you go to do these sorts of things can really help out a lot in my opinion.

    And if one's goal is simply to try and convince one particular specific individual of something, then sure, go ahead and debate away.
    But if the goal is to persuade instead a number of people, it should be kept in mind that getting stuck in a back and forth with just one individual may not be necessary nor helpful.

    But people yet want feedback, and those who agree with you may not always let you know it.
    You can specifically make sure to ask for feedback to help with that.
    Another helpful way to get that sort of feedback, is polling.

    On that note, I'm going to be setting up some polls here soon.
    Hopefully will get some good feedback from them. :)

    Yeah, there are a lot of good ones out there.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 11, 2018
    #154
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    George Washington? There also seems to be a lot of goodwill towards Eisenhower here.
    Though we've had our Plurality system since pretty much the beginning, so things have always been flawed.
    But its the sort of thing that gets worse with time. And it doesn't just apply to presidents.

    Just look back to the early 2000's. We saw congressional approval peak back around 9 11 (84%), and its been all downhill from there.
    Could you imaging an approval rating anywhere near that level today?

    So no, we've never had an ideal setup to date, but we're now at historic lows when it comes to people approving of our elected officials, and at record highs for folks 'holding their noses' when they go to vote. But we need stop voting for these 'lesser evils'. Its high time we start voting for who we actually want to win for a change. But for that to happen and things to be fair and results to be representative, we are going to have to Dump FPTP Plurality Voting!...and institute a Ranked Voting system in its place!

    And I believe that that should not be the case.
    People shouldn't be encouraged to vote against who they don't want to win.
    They ought to be persuaded to vote for the people they actually would like to see holding the job.

    The fact that its currently the other way around is just yet one more flaw in our two-party duopoly setup.
    And yet one more reason for why we need to Dump FPTP Plurality Voting!...and institute a Ranked Voting system in its place!

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 12, 2018
    #155
  6. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. I think it beats out Ranked Pairs due to its simplicity. And while I can definitely appreciate technical perfection, for something like this it isn't really necessary. 99.99% of the time the two methods are going to be producing the exact same results, so it makes sense to go with the one that's easier to understand.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 12, 2018
    #156
    MissingMayor likes this.
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there is no candidate which is favored by a majority of the voters,
    then the winning candidate is going to be preferred by a minority any way you slice it.
    So given that, would you prefer that an extreme fringe minority chooses the winner,
    or that a minority from the moderate middle gets their preferred candidate instead?

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 12, 2018
    #157
  8. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course the masses have a choice.
    Currently that choice is unfairly limited, a flaw which I think can and ought to be fixed.
    What is the alternative? To simply give up on the idea of democracy? I don't really like option myself.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 12, 2018
    #158
  9. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually kind of like that option. I don't want my choice of dinner to be dictated by democracy. I'd prefer to make that choice myself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
    Longshot, Apr 12, 2018
    #159
  10. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We were supposed to be a constitutionally limited republic, but that idea is pushing up daisies now.

    Democracy is just mob rule, so that is out. You can have your mob rule where you live, but we weren't supposed to be about that.

    I agree with longshot. Just say to hell with the whole thing. I'm tired of trying to keep this nonsense patched together. We can't live together, so let's just go for an American exit. We tried having the smallest federal government and ended up with the largest.

    No more!!!!!
     
    Belch, Apr 12, 2018
    #160
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good spin. Silly however.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
    Kode, Apr 12, 2018
    #161
  12. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right! It's a great strategy when opposing something that is popular and ultimately sensible to raise a nonsensical extreme in order to illustrate irrationality.
     
    Kode, Apr 12, 2018
    #162
  13. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Par for the course of a democrat. I write something that is obvious to anybody who understands anything, you disagree, but nobody knows why.
     
    Belch, Apr 12, 2018
    #163
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's only "obvious" to right wing extremists fed on a fox diet.
     
    Kode, Apr 12, 2018
    #164
  15. webrockk

    webrockk Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Messages:
    25,361
    Likes Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Finding common ground would be a start. fair warning; I have absolutely nothing in common with sanctimonious moral busybodies who are too cowardly to do their own stealing.
     
    webrockk, Apr 12, 2018
    #165
  16. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What common ground is there?

    I pointed out this lack of any common ground to Meta long ago. We have none. Lefties want more government and righties want less government.

    The only common ground we have is that we're willing to kill for our values. That's not very long in the coming...
     
    Belch, Apr 13, 2018
    #166
    webrockk likes this.
  17. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting that the current Plurality method does not in fact disenfranchise an even larger segment???
    Or are you, like Belch and Longshot, reiterating a blanket dislike of democracy in general???

    Or perhaps...are you suggesting that political outcomes ought to be more consensus/compromise based?
    (trying to be generous here...)

    First...you have to get folks out to vote.
    They may be more inclined to vote, if they feel they actually have a fair choice on things
    and an understanding that their choices actually mean something. For the second part, it helps if we can somehow get people more interested, involved in, and educated on the goings on and implications of politics. Perhaps, we just need to send them all to this site. Lol

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 13, 2018
    #167
  18. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What fair choice do you have in things if you vote, and lose?

    You had a choice, but that was to take part in a plurality. Very few people see that as a choice when their choice is ignored by the plurality. You either win or you lose. If you lose, are you going to feel as if you're responsible for the outcome?

    all those #notmypresident folks certainly didn't see it like that. Nor did pretty much anybody on the left. Trump isn't really their president as far as they are concerned. But maybe if we had forgone the electoral college and gone with a straight up plurality? Nope, not going to happen. We're not going to give up because california wants to become a third world country full of illegals voting.
     
    Belch, Apr 13, 2018
    #168
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meta777, Apr 13, 2018
    #169
  20. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Its my view though that the more options voters have, the more likely that at least one of those option will be good.
    Problem we have now is that good options are dissuaded from running due to the spoiler effect, and for the same reasons,
    voters are also dissuaded from voting for what they view as the good options, even when they do run.

    BTW, if you're interested in experimenting with a method of voting which doesn't have these issues,
    I've got a test vote going on now about smartphones and the more folks who participate the better.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ranked-vote-what-is-the-best-smartphone.530505/

    Should give us a good idea of how these alternate methods play out as opposed to plain old Plurality.

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 13, 2018
    #170
  21. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, great, wonderful. But we have another problem, and it's a "biggie": the president is elected by the electoral college. That is what got us into this mess. So go ahead with ranked choice voting but be ready to see it mean nothing when it's overridden by the electoral college.
     
    Kode, Apr 13, 2018
    #171
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,645
    Likes Received:
    1,741
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I posted a few ways a ranked system could be incorporated into the Electoral college, assuming we didn't want to bother with the effort of amending the constitution. I think if we pick one of those methods to use, I don't think Electoral college will be overriding the results.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ion-in-politics.529608/page-8#post-1068933378

    -Meta
     
    Meta777, Apr 13, 2018
    #172
  23. thinkitout

    thinkitout Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,897
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Expanding the selection to enhance the probability that an ACCEPTABLE candidate is in the running would be simply avoiding the issue of WHY undesirable nominees are even considered. . . .Unfortunately, candidates are a reflection of the voters that they are wooing.

    Ideally, elected officials should strive to follow agendas that would best serve their country, not to represent special interests. . . . Voters are to blame for mediocre choices and election outcomes, not the system; public opinion reflecting patriotic values is NECESSARY to implement reform.
     
    thinkitout, Apr 13, 2018
    #173
  24. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,352
    Likes Received:
    16,249
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Meta, this is a good subject- and while I wish you well, I don't think we are anywhere close to having the ability to resolve it.

    Obviously, it is possible for any persons of groups of persons with different opinions to discuss it rationally and respectfully.
    To me, the first question is, What prevents that? And of course, the answer is the character of the people involved. Not just the differences, but the willingness to bait, insult, deny and in general turn a discussion into an adversarial contest- a sort of combat, where the object is to win at all costs... It's more important to "win" than to be right. We see that everyday.

    IF we were to find a way around that, I think we would first have to agree on some basic objectives.
    That would would begin with an agreement that truth was critical- and regardless of which side truthful facts benefit, both sides need to acknowledge them.
    Get people to do that and you have a chance. Until they do... Not a prayer.
     
    spiritgide, Apr 13, 2018
    #174
    thinkitout likes this.
  25. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,644
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think options 1, 3, and 6 are out. But they all add complexity and I'm more in favor of simplicity and straight-forward solutions. From that perspective I question why we would want to bother with voting if the electoral college is going to cast the deciding votes which will be the only ones counted without regard for the public vote. Every option that includes the electoral college introduces a possibility that the E.C. could ignore the public and just do what they want. So I say either the public should boycott voting for the president entirely, or a constitutional amendment is needed to eliminate one or the other, -the public vote or the electoral college.

    We-the-people could take this into our own hands if we wanted to. You advocated educating the people to effect change. This would be education of the people to advance democracy by making it a choice of the people only and not the E.C.. Since our vote is actually irrelevant and the E.C. is the body that chooses the president, it wouldn't harm anything to get the public to boycott presidential voting entirely, and it would pave the way for a demand for a Constitutional amendment.
     
    Kode, Apr 13, 2018
    #175
Page 7 of 10

Share This Page