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%
  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Voting Thread Open!

    Hi all,

    This thread is a part of a new series I'm starting on fostering improved solution-based civil discourse, if you haven't read Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse you should definitely check it out! It basically goes over some of the problems which I feel contribute to our society's constant failure to get much of anything done, one of which, being a severe political division and ever-increasing levels of polarization which hamstring our elected representatives, and leave citizens unwilling to engage with one another to resolve disagreements.

    But the fact of the matter is, we are going to disagree at times. That is part of living in a society with freedom of thought. That doesn't mean that we should avoid discussing issues where there is disagreement. Nor does it mean we should start calling each-other names or be content to just endlessly point fingers. What we should do in such cases, Is ask ourselves how are we going to resolve those differences?

    The obvious answer (at least in the broad sense), is that we should strive to establish some democratic resolution mechanisms. I would hope that we could all at least agree upon that much. And if not, then I seriously worry about our future. But simply having a democratic system to resolve our differences, does not mean that the system we put in place is automatically perfect...Obviously, there is always room for improvement, and I believe that our own (U.S.) system is well overdue for some. Because as technology advances, and as the issues themselves change over time, so too should we evolve our democratic systems.

    Why do I say we are overdue for this? Well...as many posters on this site have already pointed out,
    Obviously there is an issue with the way things are set up now when comments like these have become commonplace. So the question is, what can we do to purge the rampant partisan dysfunction in Washington, and by extension, in our own lives? I have my own ideas of course, which I'll post below, but I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on what the solution(s) might be.

    -Meta
     
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
  3. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So...what do I think we need to do in order to end partisan dysfunction?
    In short, We need to Dump FPP Plurality Voting!...and institute a Ranked Voting system in its place!

    My belief is that all that dysfunction we so frequently see in politics stems from the fact that our current system is inherently set up to favor the existence of two, and only two, major parties. Aspirations of independents/third or fourth parties having significant say or representation, are quickly snuffed out by the realities of our election processes. Moderation between the two so called 'main' or 'major' parties is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Since they are each essentially in a position such as to be unchallenged/unchalleng-able by anyone else they are incentivized to endlessly demonize one another to win elections rather than focusing more on convincing the voters of why it is that their policies are what the country needs. Successfully sliming the other party in this case, leaves voters only one other realistic choice, so mud slinging and fervent demonization has unfortunately become a characteristic staple of politics. And that demonization and more often than not unnecessary mud-slinging really only acts to make it that much more difficult for sides to come together in compromise when it comes time to do so.

    And no, the perpetual dominance of these two parties over everything else, and the increasing un-moderated division between the two, is not merely because American voters want it that way. If Americans actually wanted what we have now, one would think we wouldn't be seeing declining rate of confidence nation-wide as the parties continue to become ever more polarized.

    [​IMG]
    There is a reason for why Washington and other founding fathers warned against two-party politics...and I believe we are seeing it now.

    Opinion of the Republican Party falls to all-time low
    Views of Democratic Party hit lowest mark in 25 years


    And yet, despite our seemingly clear desire for a better, more functional, government...
    time and again we as citizens have chosen the same types of politicians, from the same two parties which have failed us in the past. I believe there are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which being campaign finance related issues, and media coverage. But the most impactful reason in my opinion by far, is encapsulated by a simple question that any voter might ask themselves when they walk into that voting booth and have to make a choice between three or more candidates...

    "Do I vote for who I like/who I think will do the best job....or do I vote for who I think can win?"

    Some might jump to blame the voter themselves for whatever option they might choose.
    But the way I see it, the very fact that anyone ever has to even ask themselves such a question is a serious flaw in and of itself, and is the key factor in our system which leads our country to the current two-party duopoly that many of us so despise. In fact, its so bad, that the mere existence of this sort of quandary can prevent a lot of the better and or more moderate candidates from running at all, as they too have to ask themselves a similar question when making such decisions.

    [​IMG]
    But the path to breaking up that caustic two-party duopoly is not really all that complicated when you think about it. All we really need to do...is to make things fair for third parties by, again, immediately Dumping FPP Plurality Voting!...and instituting a Ranked Voting system in its place...

    Doing so makes it possible for a popular third party to have substantial say in government,
    and that would naturally tend to decrease division over time by forcing compromise, cooperation, and ultimately moderation. Its very presence as a meaningful force in congress would give lie to the binary thinking we currently see in Washington. And when voters are no longer forced to pick between extremes, It will lead to the re-emergence of a much needed middle-ground.

    As it is now though, the rift between the two major parties is so wide and empty,
    that to disagree with one side is to automatically agree with the other, to agree with one is to disavow the other. Or so the saying goes. This sort of false dichotomy is not healthy for a democracy. What we want, or should want, is to give voters more options. Having viable independents/third/fourth/fifth parties is particularly useful in cases where both of the current major parties are disliked. But please please please do note that the current non-viability of such candidates is not simply due to a lack of effort on their part; no, the system itself is inherently stacked against such candidates in an unfair way due to the booth question I mentioned earlier.

    [​IMG]
    If we change the system to actually give third parties etc. a fair shot, it would force the two current parties to moderate... either shift their policies to better reflect what the people actually need and want...or, if they cannot, disappear and be replaced by a third party that can. In fact, the whole idea of representative democracy is that we're supposed to be able to replace representatives that are not working out... if the system as we have it set up, does not allow for us to efficiently replace our representatives or the parties in power when they are no longer liked...then it is the system itself that needs to be replaced.

    And I know what some of you might be saying... having a third or fourth party, on par with the current two parties, might make for a more difficult choice for voters to make as they head off to the polls. And I would definitely agree that it is easier to choose between two options than it is to choose between three or more, But artificially limiting the number of options one can choose from also removes from them a certain amount of agency... agency which I personally would prefer to keep, for to remove it is to end up with scenarios where for, e.g. voters are forced into choosing between two options neither of which are liked (no one wants that). Its where the whole lesser evil thing comes in. Or to put it another way, if you were going to take your friends out for ice-cream, all else being equal, would you take them out to the shop boasting a full range of flavors, or would you take them to the one that only had vanilla and chocolate?

    Which is why I say again, we need to send FPP Plurality Voting straight to the trash-heap of history where it belongs! and institute a Ranked Voting system in its place...

    I seriously cannot stress enough just how bad our chosen FPP Plurality election method is for deciding anything other than a genuine two-choice inquiry. Its basically one of the worst options out there as far as it comes to enabling voters to voice their desires. But to really understand why, I believe that we also need to again get past this habit of binary thinking and understand/acknowledge the fact that there are often more than a mere two options for any given referendum. To our detriment, we artificially limit ourselves when we ignore that fact or insist upon using a system which is unable to fairly accommodate people choosing what they want from among all of the options, without having to risk inadvertently increasing the chance of getting something they favor the least.

    Really, about the only advantage that FPP Plurality has is its simplicity.
    And while simplicity can be a good thing, over-simplicity is not. As a famous person of history once said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". And while it may have at one time made sense to use FPP Plurality, back when the whole idea of democracy was fairly new, and no one really quite knew how it would all work out, I believe the issues we face today have shifted to such a degree that FPP Plurality voting is now far too simple for the job we need it for.

    ...So what does that leave us with?...
    It turns out, there are plenty of other options out there. Below are only a few.
    Some work better for certain types of votes. Pretty much all of them would be better than what we have.

    Instant Runoff - This method allows for multi-candidate elections while significantly reducing the chances of things like spoiler candidates or tactical voting. And when I say significant...I mean that there is almost no chance of those issues occurring under this system. Imagine an election but with a runoff vote, well this is basically that multiple times except you only have to poll the voters once. This method also gets props for being very easy to understand.

    Ranked Pairs (or other Condorcet method) - this method is slightly more complex than instant runoff, but its advantage is that its essentially the 'perfect' method, if our measure of perfection is simply the ridding of spoiler candidates and tactical voting,
    as it is literally impossible for those issues to occur under this method. By definition a Condorcet method is one in which the winner of the tally would always beat out any other option in a one on one election (assuming such a winner exists).


    Approval Voting - In my opinion, this (non-ranked) method isn't the best one for contests in which there can be only one winner, though its popular in some circles for that purpose. Where it shines above the other methods imo though is in multi-option referendum type votes where more than one 'winner' option can be chosen. Voters here pretty much just say whether or not they approve of options, (they can approve of how ever many they want), and options which receive over a certain percentage of approval (say, 50%) or the top (x)# can be implemented or instated. It is simple, and can be used by itself or in combination with the other two for certain votes.

    Implement any one of those, and not only will you see our politicians begin to moderate and function more effectively, I believe that even the voters themselves will change for the better as they are forced to think more about the choices they make come election-time and will be less inclined, hopefully, to always think of things in terms of black and white.

    Now, I don't expect changes like these to happen soon/overnight, or to occur without ample further debate. But its high time that we as citizens at least get the conversation going on this and start to spread awareness that there are significantly better alternatives than what we have. We have the technology to do this...we now need only inform our fellow citizens and generate the political will.

    To help us out, I'm going to be putting together a few, special polls/'Demonstration' votes, to illustrate how the alternative methods work in practice, and how they compare to the antiquated FPP Plurality method. I'll start with something simple, uncontentious, inoffensive, inconsequential, and noncontroversial just to demonstrate the concepts. Then I'll move onto actual political topics, and eventually, maybe even a vote on the election methods themselves once I'm sure folks have a good understanding of them.

    List of Planned Votes

    Note: this isn't some official politicalforum event or anything like that. Think of it more as...an experiment/demonstration. Though I do believe the results will say something about the politicalforum community. Whatever that may turn out to be, I suppose we'll all just have to take it as it is. And having said that, I'm just as interested in finding out what folks opinions are after having participated in these alternate systems, and seeing how that changes, depending on whether or not their favorite options get chosen as winners. When I set up the votes, I'll be sure to post and link them here, so keep an eye out. For now though, what are your thoughts on these alternative election methods? Do you agree that they are a good way to tamp down on partisan dysfunction? If so, do you think elections of all types and levels should make the shift? Or perhaps only certain ones? And what other things can we do as a country to improve the way our government functions?

    Thanks for reading,

    -Meta
     
    DennisTate and Turin like this.
  4. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    9,057
    Likes Received:
    5,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought the Instant Runoff system seemed fair, and I like its simplicity.

    Why not orchestrate a presidential vote in PF using the IR system listing the major candidates from last year? Our choices could be ....

    Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, John Kasich, and Jim Webb.

    Then show how the votes tallied up and who was the winner.
     
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great Idea!
    I added that one to the list.
     
    MissingMayor and Seth Bullock like this.
  6. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't reduce partisan politics with votes. It's an ideological divide with people on one side who want to be left alone, and people on the other side who can't leave people alone.

    Imagine two guys sitting at a bar. One guy pulls a gun and says "pay for my booze!". Can the other guy who just wants to be left alone say "let's agree to disagree"? Nope. Your idea of some democratic resolution puts three guys at the bar, and two guys vote that the third guy pay for their booze. The only solution to that is if you just want to pay for your own booze, then just don't participate.

    Honestly, the only solution I can see is a gunfight at Mel's Tavern.
     
    ButterBalls and webrockk like this.
  7. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I completely disagree with the idea that violent conflict is a necessary outcome of disagreement (even in a country as polarized as ours).
    Besides, if you really think that's where we're headed given our current system, surly then you would agree, wouldn't you,
    that we ought to at least give a different system (say Instant Runoff) a try before we up and start shooting each-other. Right?

    Also, in your example, there are basically still only two sides even when you added the third person.
    In other words, there were no moderates in that bar. Second, I don't see how the gun was necessary to the analogy at all.
    And third, like you yourself alluded, in that scenario there is no reason for the first guy, practically or morally, to participate.
    In a true democratic system, there are typically plenty of reasons morally and practically for participants to want to be involved in the process.
    Each person tends to get something out of it, even if they don't necessarily get everything that they want all of the time. That's how compromise is supposed to work.

    So a better example I think, would be to think of two guys sharing a ride to a bar.
    One guy wants to go to a bar where the drinks are cheap and where they crank the music up to 11.
    The second guy wants to go to a bar with soft conversation-facilitating music and drinks so expensive that the first guy can't afford them.
    So who gets to choose? Assuming they can't get another ride and the bars aren't next to each-other,
    they can either say, screw it, and just not go anywhere, or perhaps they can take turns.
    But now add in a third person, a moderate. And the three gents will end up settling on that one bar down the road
    where the music is moderate and the drinks, while not the cheapest, are still affordable.
    Sure, not a perfect outcome for either of the first two guys, though the moderate will surely like it,
    and at least guy one will be able to buy a drink and guy two will be able to hear himself think.

    -Meta
     
  8. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,970
    Likes Received:
    9,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lol, you guys are actively replacing Americans with non-Americans and asking how do we come together and compromise? Seems pretty clear that ethnic cleansing is your solution to creating a better “democracy” for yourselves. I’m not exactly sure how the other side is supposed to meet you in the middle of that.
     
    Thought Criminal and webrockk like this.
  9. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only system that would work is to go back to how government originally worked which was a form of defense against foreign aggression. When that happens, the country pulls together to fight a common enemy. An instant runoff would not satisfy my friends on the left or the right, unless it resulted in getting what they want. There is no win-win scenario in that.

    Would the moderate position be only paying for half the drinks, rather than all? I added the third person because if it was just two guys, they'd both vote for the other guy to pay for the drinks, thus resulting in a tie.

    I'm not really sure what a tax-payer gets out of having to fund the current welfare state. It was an interesting idea at one point, but we've seen how it works and all it does is create far more poor people than you had before.

    I'd certainly be in favor of that over what we have now because it would be a true safety net, rather than a career.


    The poorest guy is going to be unhappy, the richest guy is going to be dreaming about the bar he could afford if he wasn't saddled with the other two, and the moderate guy is where he would have gone anyway. What use do any of them have for the others?
     
  10. thinkitout

    thinkitout Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Divisions are created because of differences in prioritization of values or even agreement upon them, or just as often, situational differences. . . . We are presently motivated more by survival issues and special interests than by what is best for America. If voters were more conscientious, our choices of candidates would improve, also.

    I hope it doesn't take another major war to revive patriotism.
     
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What are you talking about? Where have ever said anything about replacing Americans or Ethnic Cleansing???
    It seems to me, that your post is based on the exact sort of harmful false-dichotomy binary thinking I was talking about in the OP.
    In other words...the type of post you just made is actually part of the problem. You assumed, based on who-knows-what,
    that I am not on, your side. You assume that there are only two sides. You assumes that if I am not on your side, I must be on this other side.
    And then you assume based on that, that I must believe things of which I know for a fact I have never stated or posted anywhere!

    Do you think what you posted was helpful in any way? Do you think it is beneficial for civil discourse or for reducing dysfunction,
    for people to unilaterally assign beliefs to one another? To pigeonhole each-other into ridiculous and or narrow positions that they've never claimed to support? If so,...I'd love to see you try and explain how.

    -Meta
     
  12. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,342
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will preface this. I have not yet read the material in detail on alternate methods to plurality voting. There is a lot of reading and thinking to do. I would suggest that the hyper partisanship and total paralysis is not fundamentally about the two party system being too old or simplistic or dated to resolve dysfunction. I think it corresponds to changes in the way media covers politics. We handled the change to radio, then television and managed to function. The real breakdown came with the advent of cable where four major networks and twelve stations providing us access, was replaced by 40 stations and competing 24 hour news networks for our dollars. News and commentary had to become more like a prime time soap opera competing for ratings in order to survive. Channel surfing required networks to provide instant gratification, shorter stories, and more of a horse race mentality. Politicians, PR firms and lobbyists that could adapt their style to the new reality had an evolutionary advantage and networks that could attract those most successful at providing 'drama' to their cameras were rewarded. This is about Jerry Springer and Sally Jesse Raphael vs Edward R. Morrow and Walter Cronkite. Guess who won? The civility is gone, the depth is gone, and the chairs are bouncing off the ropes. Now we as vessels have changed and all that happened even before the cyber revolution allowed us to spend hours in our own partisan echo chambers.

    I am not sure how we vote is going to solve the problem of how we think and how we are wired to absorb political information.

    Maybe way off the topic Meta was looking for , but I think it should be mentioned.
     
    Lucifer, Meta777 and thinkitout like this.
  13. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a theory that democrats can't win by arguments so they are stuffing the country and ballot boxes full of third world immigrants who overwhelmingly take advantage of social welfare services and vote democratic. That's why they insist on keeping those borders open and maintain what they call "sanctuary cities". Then they raise the taxes on the working class in order to pay off their third world immigrants. This results in working Americans not being able to afford to raise their own children because of a wealth transfer from them to their immigrants. They pay by the kid, and they pay far more than they would be able to make in their own countries.

    You might find it a crazy conspiracy theory, but if you can think of an alternate theory for why they are doing this, then I'd love to hear it.

    Until then...
     
    Thought Criminal and Baff like this.
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Theory? Reason? Ok. I'll take a shot at it.

    "They insist on keeping those borders open".
    I've never heard anyone express such an idea other than the right with conspiracy theories.

    They maintain what they call "sanctuary cities".
    The reason for that is that the right fails to make very important distinctions and instead threaten to deport everyone who is not a citizen and has no passport or green card. There is much more than that to it all, and in the process of resisting the black-and-white tunnel vision of the right, there are families that need to be protected. When the right learns to make distinctions and how normal human compassion, sanctuary cities will no longer be necessary.

    "They raise the taxes on the working class in order to pay off their third world immigrants."
    When? Where? Who did it?
    Taxes are historically LOW. And Democrats mostly raise taxes on the rich.

    "wealth transfer"
    The only egregious wealth transfer is occurring from the middle class to the rich.
     
  15. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you talking...Articles of Confederation?

    I don't believe there is ever going to be a system in which everyone always gets exactly what they want.
    But like I was mentioning before, that's kind of how compromise is supposed to be.
    Everyone gets a little of what they want. Or that's the ideal anyways.

    In a democratic system, the goal is not to satisfy everyone 100%,
    but to generate the largest amount of satisfaction for the largest cross-section of a varied populous.
    Our current voting system tries to approximate, but I believe the alternative methods would do a much better job.
    Either way, whatever we do, I'd still consider it at least a win, if we could figure out how to solve our issues without having to pull out the guns.

    But I am curious, supposing the only change to our current system we could make was to the election method.
    What is your opinion of something like Instant Runoff as it compares to FPP Plurality Voting??
    Would you say that one is better than the other? Do you think they're both exactly the same?
    Please let me know how you feel about them. Thanks!

    -Meta
     
  16. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, we want everybody who is not in the country legally to be bumrushed out of the country. That is the only important distinction.

    Anyway, these are not arguments. You've said nothing.
     
  17. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I'm talking about the rational for government. Why have one? Well, the traditional reason was because it's a cold hard world out there, and governments keep the barbarians at the gates.


    The further away government is from the governed, the worse things are. This is why the constitution as it is written gives the federal government only a tiny amount of actual power. Then you have state governments which are closer, county, then municipal governments are even closer.

    The way things are, it's upside down with the federal government being the most powerful, and city governments charged with zoning laws and speed bump placement.

    Is that not a great compromise? That way, if a democrat wants to have single-payer health insurance, city hall is a 20 minute bus ride away. I don't have to be bothered by them complaining about how I should have to pay for their geritol, and we're all happy.

    except we both know that's not what the left wants. They want me to pay for their geritol, and there is no compromise with them on that. I've tried and they flat-out refuse.
     
    Baff likes this.
  18. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In which case, they'd probably each just end up paying for their own drink.
    Add in a third guy, we still can't call him a moderate though, because there aren't opposing views to moderate between in this case.
    The first two guys each essentially have the same position of self-interest with no additional differences in what they want, other than that.
    So the third guy comes in, and we'll say his position is simple self-interest too, and all things being equal, we end up with the same result.
    Assuming there aren't any factors pushing any of the men to single out one of the others,
    in the end each guy still ends up paying for their own drink.

    But that doesn't really tell us all that much about voting, as it relates to things like Plurality vs Instant Runoff which is why I didn't think it was a particularly good analogy, at least the way its constructed now. I think you could probably tweak it a bit though.


    There's a lot that taxpayers get out of government. So-called welfare is only a piece of what government does.
    And one does have to consider the bigger picture. Consider things like protection from the military, police,
    firefighters, or availability of various types of infrastructure. These are just a few ways that taxpayers
    benefit from having government around, and there are plenty of others. That said, there are certainly
    serious flaws in how a lot of that stuff is provided, welfare included, and we should do what we can
    to improve upon how those things function. If we happen to disagree on how things should be improved,
    well then...that's where our democratic processes ought to come in.

    ??

    Remember, in that example the men all had to share the same ride, not much unlike how all of us are forced to share a country. They don't particularly have any use for the others, though perhaps they just enjoy eacother's company. Either way, if they don't cooperate, then you wind up with a situation in which either some or all of them don't get to go to a bar at all.

    So, assuming that their ride/gas and or friendship required them all to go to the same bar,
    how would you have them decide on which bar to go to, if not democratically?
    Take turns perhaps? One bar one week, another the next?
    But you still got to decide on which to visit first.

    -Meta
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    11,922
    Likes Received:
    878
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is your opinion on things like spoiler candidates and tactical voting?

    -Meta
     
  20. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    15,765
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My analogy is restricted to the dichotomy I referred to earlier with one group wanting to be left alone and the other group wanting to bother everybody. There is no moderate position to take on that, nor an ability to agree to disagree. This is why it doesn't matter what kind of elections we have. If Hillary had won, the democrats would have been happy and the republicans looking to put her behind bars. Trump won, so naturally the democrats want to put Trump behind bars.

    There is an intractable difference between us that cannot be remedied at the ballot box. I know you don't like the alternative, but I truly don't see a way out of it. Not with run offs or pure democracy/mob rule, nor a parliamentary system, nor anything.



    Government is a zero-sum game at best, with the barbarians being kept at the gates. All that other stuff is local government, which I don't think any of us have a problem with. Fire fighters, police, roads, schools are all things that should be paid for by the locals.


    sorry, but I edited out the important parts to that. I was referring to a minimalist security net for people who truly do need help, and for some reason, charity hasn't worked. I would be in favor of a very temporary system for kids, and maybe something for people who can benefit society (this doesn't include the vast majority on welfare now) but needs a small helping hand to get going. If it is still needed in a month, then sorry but you had your chance.

    I discounted that because if we have no need for each other, then there's no need for a government.

    No, you can't work from the a priori assumption that government is a necessity. Many have died, and probably for very good reasons. This one will die soon enough, and I'm sure it'll be because we simply have no need for each other.
     
  21. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    1,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The real way to get things done, is not a two party system, but a one party system.
    Beware "getting things done".

    In the UK we have a two party system with all the democratic safeguards that brings. (Essentially it stops people "getting things done" against the interests of other people).
    But we are reformist in nature. We have no constitution to slow us down.

    With less checks and balances in our system of government more gets done and quicker.
    Problem is... what gets done is not always good,

    A one party system.
    AKA communism.

    Things get done. Things get done to people. Be careful what you wish for.
     
    Thought Criminal likes this.
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,153
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After 231 years, we still don't have the laws we need for an orderly society? I say we stop electing these legislators and just go with the laws currently on the books.
     
  23. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    1,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you shift to a multi party system, instead of the voter choosing to compromise his ideals, a load of uncompromising politicians get elected and they then choose to compromise their ideals.
    Consider the European coalition systems as a model for this.

    Might as well let the voter decide on what compromises he prefers. No need to defer those decisions to an elite.



    I prefer that the only time things get done on a national scale is when everyone agree's.
    Very few things will hence get done and as a result of this much injustice will be avoided.

    There is no need to force others to co-operate with you. Those who want to can and those who don't want to don't have to.
    The very essence of a free society. Liberalism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
    MississippiMud likes this.
  24. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    1,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Electoral systems.
    One of things I like best about my electoral system is that it is geographic in nature.

    So I don't get mob ruled by London.
    A London fashion, such as vegetarianism or white gloves, cannot be inflicted on my area of the country side.
    A gun ban in London for example is not applied to farmers.
    Or a car ban in the centre of Cambridge is not extended to the countryside where people have long distances to travel and no alternative methods.
    An example of this not working is fox hunting. Banned by city folk, who ultimately aren't affected by it.


    On size does not fit all. And so we devolve decision making wherever we can.

    Because of this voting systems should avoid proportional representation.
    While it allows minority party's greater influence in parliament, there is no case for allowing them greater influence in parliament.
    The objective of democracy is to restrict power over others, not to enable it.


    So in your poll can we have options for..
    The UK's favourite flavour of Ice Cream.
    America's favourite flavour of ice cream.
    Russia's favourite flavour of ice cream etc.
    And you will find that coconut and banana flavour is more popular in Trinidad for example.

    Because we don't need to be ruled as one people. We can get a closer group match to individual preference by breaking us down into smaller groups.

    And in smaller groups it is much easier for us to find things we all agree on.
    To find common purpose.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018
  25. Baff

    Baff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    1,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This.

    It's primarily polemic ideology that results in polemic politics.

    Yes factionalism is a big part of it. But not the core.
    We factionalise to protect ourselves from other people attempting to rule over us.

    When the threat is gone, factions fall apart.
    Splinter into to smaller factions, against smaller rivals.

    I disagree that there is no compromise.
    When we band together to defeat the lefties, we accept righties rule over us to do so.
    We accept the lesser evil.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2018

Share This Page