Well yeah, but that doesn't mean you can't work to change that. I think we can all agree that an informed, active electorate can only be a good thing for a democracy.
You're right, but remember what I was responding to:
Returning government to the people is literally the worst possible solution for fixing government. "People" are stupid and wander around aimlessly in their lives like sheep. See California.
My increase on term length suggestion wasn't actually proposed to decrease money in politics, though I do think that would be a by-product, as far as money-influence goes. I mention it only because I think the popular vote (specifically, popular instantaneous sentiment, as we have so often now) should be marginalized.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well yeah, but that doesn't mean you can't work to change that. I think we can all agree that an informed, active electorate can only be a good thing for a democracy.
You're right, but remember what I was responding to:
Returning government to the people is literally the worst possible solution for fixing government. "People" are stupid and wander around aimlessly in their lives like sheep. See California.
Ah, agreed then.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My increase on term length suggestion wasn't actually proposed to decrease money in politics, though I do think that would be a by-product, as far as money-influence goes. I mention it only because I think the popular vote (specifically, popular instantaneous sentiment, as we have so often now) should be marginalized.
But that's why we have six year term and a three class system in the Senate, to balance that effect out.
Returning government to the people is literally the worst possible solution for fixing government. "People" are stupid and wander around aimlessly in their lives like sheep.
I don't believe we've done enough to marginalize it, to be honest. As PSphere mentions above, we are acting very similar to other periods in history that mimic our current state of affairs. This is all the same. It's been done before and it is a bit unfortunate that it seems a foregone conclusion that it will happen again.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think one of the under-discussed advantages to publicly financing elections is that it would weaken the political parties.
The parties have a lot of discretion on where to allot dollars, and if you remove that you weaken the whip the old guard leaders can exert.
Exactly. I would almost want to remove private donations from the process all together, but I think that it has some place in the system because in an ideal world people would just give money to who they like and it wouldn't be the ConHitler Group footing the bill for the grass roots "Geriatrics in the Fight Against Vegan Stalin and His Army of Gay Hitlers".
But that's why we have six year term and a three class system in the Senate, to balance that effect out.
And beyond that, consider the vitriol directed towards the senate these days, even on this very thread. It is obvious that we're seeing the tip of a very large populist movement, similar to the 1870s, 1920s. It sounds a little different because we have iphones and we're a bit snarkier, but it's all the same.
Returning government to the people is literally the worst possible solution for fixing government. "People" are stupid and wander around aimlessly in their lives like sheep. See California.
One quick way to decrease money in politics is to increase term limits.
What evidence do you have that removing Capital's ability to maintain a stranglehold on government is the worst possible solution to "fixing government?"
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I think one of the under-discussed advantages to publicly financing elections is that it would weaken the political parties.
The parties have a lot of discretion on where to allot dollars, and if you remove that you weaken the whip the old guard leaders can exert.
Exactly. I would almost want to remove private donations from the process all together, but I think that it has some place in the system because in an ideal world people would just give money to who they like and it wouldn't be the ConHitler Group footing the bill for the grass roots "Geriatrics in the Fight Against Vegan Stalin and His Army of Gay Hitlers".
I would like donations to be limited to individuals, and at that, limited to something like $100 or $500. This could supplement a base of public financing for all campaigns that achieve a certain threshold of petition signatures or something like that. That, in itself, could be financed by a check box on your tax return that entails a small general contribution.
To be honest I don’t think our system of government is fundamentally broken. The problem we have is that over the years we have contrived to remove the aspect of choice from politics. From what I see this problem comes from three things.
1. A disinterested electorate: Voter turnout is horrifyingly low. Through disillusionment and apathy we have a voter turnout with a high of 57% in the last 50 years. This shifts the dialogue of our country substantiality away from the center to the fringe ideologies or corporation rule.
2. Corporate entwinement with politics: I’m not sure if this is entirely a bad thing, but when fundamental roles of the government, such as telling corporations “please don’t let your products kill people” or “hey, please don’t engineer a collapse of our entire financial system” are compromised, it’s clear that the government is less by the people for the people and more by the corporations for the corporations.
3. Significant absence of choice in key areas. Take for example the next election; if you have Obama running vs Romney, you basically have two people who are very cozy with wallstreet and the mega rich sparring off over unrelated issues. If you think that a politician enabling wallstreet is a problem, well I guess it sucks to be you.
I suppose I would be interested in hearing what people think could be possible constitutional(or amendable) and enactable solutions, because I just don't really see a way of dealing with this from within the system.
The failure of every Democracy that has ever existed as it trends towards populism.
What unique challenges do you feel populism in today's culture present and why do you believe they cannot be sufficiently solved except via slavery to Capital?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
A strong republic is not necessarily giving in to the whims of your "Capital." There are no unique challenges. Nothing has changed since Athens vs. Sparta. You are just on one side of the fence and don't yet realize it. Or you do realize it, in which case, my edit was untimely.
Zombie Nirvana on
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The failure of every Democracy that has ever existed as it trends towards populism.
That is not what caused the failure of every Democracy ever created. The end of Greek democracy was based in a couple poorly fought wars, the elites thinking the peasants had too much influence and a romanticism about the Spartin classical society and their political stability. The end of the Roman democracy was triggered by a Coup d'état, followed by an assassination, a civil war and another Coup d'état. Indian and Mesopotamian early democracies were mostly just caste systems and not really compatible with our definition of democracy. There wasn't a lot of democracy after Rome collapsed until really the Magna Carta kick started parliament in England, but that was only vaguely democratic with the houses and such. There really haven't been that many failed democracies for you to use as examples. That statement is rather flawed in that respect.
A strong republic is not necessarily giving in to the whims of your "Capital." There are no unique challenges. Nothing has changed since Athens vs. Sparta. You are just on one side of the fence and don't yet realize it. Or you do realize it, in which case, my edit was untimely.
Oh, you mean Democracy vs Oligarchy in general, as well as education and enlightenment vs obedience and control rather without specific regard towards capital? You can try to paint this as merely an ideological difference of opinion as much as you want but you're still going to have to defend that too. Why has nothing changed? Technology and education are at levels we would be lucky to have seen in the ancient world. That alone makes mountains of difference.
So do you actually have a point or do you just want to continue along your merry way assuming you're right because you said so and only because you said so?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
So do you actually have a point or do you just want to continue along your merry way assuming you're right because you said so and only because you said so?
Maybe he was just agreeing with me, and that is the reason why he edited his post?
Your suggestion was that journalism by for-profit organisations was hopelessly compromised. There has been almost nothing but journalism by for-profit organisations throughout the nation's history.
A business is responsible to its shareholders. It is required, by law to pursue profit at all costs. It does not matter if they have to shoot nuns, eat babies, or do whatever. If they can do it, if it will increase the bottom line, and it is not completely illegal then the business is required, by law to pursue it at all reasonable costs no matter what.
Once a business has reached that point of obligation, yes, it has become hopelessly compromised because its mandate by law supersedes its duty to inform, educate and at times upset, which is a requirement in the relentless pursuit of truth embodied by journalism.
Counterpoint: The profit motive promotes robust, fractious, diverse, and highly-motivated journalism.
Evidence in support: The entire history of journalism.
I get the feeling you aren't actually familiar with the history of journalism.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
edited December 2011
We should change the way government contracts are handled. I could reduce agency overhead by %5-%10 easily without reducing employees or benefits by changing the way we handle contracts. Now contractors will shit their britches because their profits will be significantly reduced, but fuck them, they'll make money just not make a mint.
Maybe he was just agreeing with me, and that is the reason why he edited his post?
I didn't see what was before or an edit notice so I wouldn't know that. -_-;;
It's just that making a rather bold claim that Democracy is horrible, unworkable, and can never work while refusing to offer a real defense of why that is so, especially after it's pointed out he doesn't even have any real supporting evidence or a point (by you.) Whether he's agreeing with you or not it's insulting to everyone's intelligence here for him to just go: So yup, Democracy will never work, don't really have any evidence, just 'cuz I said so. Bye! When the rest of us are actually taking the time to debate this shit and try and make salient arguments.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Why do you (plural) not like the Senate? I assume it's because of the importance the "flyover" states get, but isn't it important to safeguard the interests of the non-populous states? I (and the Founders) would rather not see the small states screwed over because New York or California have dozens of members and Rhode Island or Wyoming get five.
Not that I can see a scenario where that would happen, but still the Senate shouldn't be burned just because that's where the "others" are.
The interests of the residents of non-populous states are already safeguarded by the House and the Presidency. I see no reason to give them a tonguebath by assigning far more Senatorial power than they deserve.
The interests of the residents of non-populous states are already safeguarded by the House and the Presidency. I see no reason to give them a tonguebath by assigning far more Senatorial power than they deserve.
How are they safeguarded by the House, where they are outnumbered one-to-one, and with the Presidency? Last I knew the President was the executive in charge of carrying out laws, not some arbiter between the states. I'm really curious about this!
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The Senate gives us layer of protection against rapid tide changes. Example, the House went Dem then Rep from 08 to 10 and hopefully will swap over again in 12 but the Senate stayed about even, the "majorities" in the Senate are only like one or two off I think. The Senate is a necessary part of American federal government.
The interests of the residents of non-populous states are already safeguarded by the House and the Presidency. I see no reason to give them a tonguebath by assigning far more Senatorial power than they deserve.
How are they safeguarded by the House, where they are outnumbered one-to-one, and with the Presidency? Last I knew the President was the executive in charge of carrying out laws, not some arbiter between the states. I'm really curious about this!
Minorities are not guaranteed equal voices to the majority. That's not how democracy works. If you're part of a group that's about 10% of the population, you don't get to have 50% of the political power. (numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get my point)
The interests of the residents of non-populous states are already safeguarded by the House and the Presidency. I see no reason to give them a tonguebath by assigning far more Senatorial power than they deserve.
How are they safeguarded by the House, where they are outnumbered one-to-one, and with the Presidency? Last I knew the President was the executive in charge of carrying out laws, not some arbiter between the states. I'm really curious about this!
Minorities are not guaranteed equal voices to the majority. That's not how democracy works. If you're part of a group that's about 10% of the population, you don't get to have 50% of the political power. (numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get my point)
But we are not, never have been, and never should be a democracy, we're a Republic and one of our oldest ideas is that the minority should be protected from the tyranny of a majority. That's why we put the Senate in in the first place (and to placate the smaller colonies).
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
The Senate gives us layer of protection against rapid tide changes. Example, the House went Dem then Rep from 08 to 10 and hopefully will swap over again in 12 but the Senate stayed about even, the "majorities" in the Senate are only like one or two off I think. The Senate is a necessary part of American federal government.
I agree! It's needed to prevent whoever controls the House from ramming through items to send to the President. If your party controls the House, the Senate provides either a helping hand (if you control it) or a line of defense for the other party, and vice versa.
It's not really working well at the moment but I don't think we should scrap it.
All the Senate protects against is any change at all. The Senate just stops legislation, period.
Which is exactly what you don't want in a crisis.
And when you aren't in a crisis the legislature is, frankly, barely relevant. Look at Belgium, who haven't had a government in like ... a year or more now?
Government bureaucracy can run a country surprisingly well on it's own. You need a legislature when shit needs to change. When shit needs doing.
An entire branch of government devoted to holding up all change at any cost (until they get their kickbacks of course) is of service to nothing and no one.
The Senate gives us layer of protection against rapid tide changes. Example, the House went Dem then Rep from 08 to 10 and hopefully will swap over again in 12 but the Senate stayed about even, the "majorities" in the Senate are only like one or two off I think. The Senate is a necessary part of American federal government.
I agree! It's needed to prevent whoever controls the House from ramming through items to send to the President. If your party controls the House, the Senate provides either a helping hand (if you control it) or a line of defense for the other party, and vice versa.
It's not really working well at the moment but I don't think we should scrap it.
When has it ever worked? What good has the Senate ever done?
The Senate gives us layer of protection against rapid tide changes. Example, the House went Dem then Rep from 08 to 10 and hopefully will swap over again in 12 but the Senate stayed about even, the "majorities" in the Senate are only like one or two off I think. The Senate is a necessary part of American federal government.
The Senate allows minorities of Americans to throttle the will of the majority. The simple fact of modern American life is that people have moved out of the small states toward urban centers, leaving many Senate seats to degrade into the equivalent of the UK's old rotten boroughs. People have already voted against those states with their feet.
A state with a dwindling handful of citizens should not have the same level of power as a state with ten times the population. It's an undemocratic relic of a bygone age, when state identities mattered more.* If the majority of Americans want a change and the courts okay it, a group of 20 Senators representing 15 percent of the population should not have the power to thwart the other 85 percent.
That's not balance. That's an invitation to dysfunction and eventual systemic collapse.
* And slavery needed protecting. The origin of the Senate is all about protecting slavery.
The interests of the residents of non-populous states are already safeguarded by the House and the Presidency. I see no reason to give them a tonguebath by assigning far more Senatorial power than they deserve.
How are they safeguarded by the House, where they are outnumbered one-to-one, and with the Presidency? Last I knew the President was the executive in charge of carrying out laws, not some arbiter between the states. I'm really curious about this!
Minorities are not guaranteed equal voices to the majority. That's not how democracy works. If you're part of a group that's about 10% of the population, you don't get to have 50% of the political power. (numbers pulled out of my ass, but you get my point)
But we are not, never have been, and never should be a democracy, we're a Republic
The US is not a pure democracy, but that's hardly the only kind.
and one of our oldest ideas is that the minority should be protected from the tyranny of a majority. That's why we put the Senate in in the first place (and to placate the smaller colonies).
Yes, well, a lot of things we started with ended up being shitty ideas, and you've yet to demonstrate that the more rural states would be fucked over by everyone else.
The Senate gives us layer of protection against rapid tide changes. Example, the House went Dem then Rep from 08 to 10 and hopefully will swap over again in 12 but the Senate stayed about even, the "majorities" in the Senate are only like one or two off I think. The Senate is a necessary part of American federal government.
I agree! It's needed to prevent whoever controls the House from ramming through items to send to the President. If your party controls the House, the Senate provides either a helping hand (if you control it) or a line of defense for the other party, and vice versa.
It's not really working well at the moment but I don't think we should scrap it.
When has it ever worked? What good has the Senate ever done?
And slavery needed protecting. The origin of the Senate is all about protecting slavery.
That's a wrong statement if I ever saw one. Most of the slaveholding states (Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia) were enormously populous, and hated the idea of being on equal representation with the smaller New England colonies. 3/5ths Compromise, yes. Senate, no.
All the Senate protects against is any change at all. The Senate just stops legislation, period.
Which is exactly what you don't want in a crisis.
What. What are you guys not getting about this? Why don't you understand that the Senate is the only thing that is stopping Republicans from sending 50 bills banning abortion to the president each session? Not to mention if we abolish the Senate, the 2/3rds veto of Congress will only apply to the House, thus making the presidential veto useless.
And antebellum era senate seems pretty nice.
Captain Marcus on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Um, no? You realize every law that passes ever goes through the Senate, yes? Name an era where the House was useful, bam, Senate's there too.
And slavery needed protecting. The origin of the Senate is all about protecting slavery.
That's a wrong statement if I ever saw one. Most of the slaveholding states (Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia) were enormously populous, and hated the idea of being on equal representation with the smaller New England colonies.
All the Senate protects against is any change at all. The Senate just stops legislation, period.
Which is exactly what you don't want in a crisis.
What. What are you guys not getting about this? Why don't you understand that the Senate is the only thing that is stopping Republicans from sending 50 bills banning abortion to the president each session? Not to mention if we abolish the Senate, the 2/3rds veto of Congress will only apply to the House, thus making the presidential veto useless.
Republicans cannot muster 2/3 of the House for anything controversial.
Posts
You're right, but remember what I was responding to:
Ah, agreed then.
But that's why we have six year term and a three class system in the Senate, to balance that effect out.
The parties have a lot of discretion on where to allot dollars, and if you remove that you weaken the whip the old guard leaders can exert.
Exactly. I would almost want to remove private donations from the process all together, but I think that it has some place in the system because in an ideal world people would just give money to who they like and it wouldn't be the ConHitler Group footing the bill for the grass roots "Geriatrics in the Fight Against Vegan Stalin and His Army of Gay Hitlers".
*hugs*
And beyond that, consider the vitriol directed towards the senate these days, even on this very thread. It is obvious that we're seeing the tip of a very large populist movement, similar to the 1870s, 1920s. It sounds a little different because we have iphones and we're a bit snarkier, but it's all the same.
What evidence do you have that removing Capital's ability to maintain a stranglehold on government is the worst possible solution to "fixing government?"
I would like donations to be limited to individuals, and at that, limited to something like $100 or $500. This could supplement a base of public financing for all campaigns that achieve a certain threshold of petition signatures or something like that. That, in itself, could be financed by a check box on your tax return that entails a small general contribution.
1. A disinterested electorate: Voter turnout is horrifyingly low. Through disillusionment and apathy we have a voter turnout with a high of 57% in the last 50 years. This shifts the dialogue of our country substantiality away from the center to the fringe ideologies or corporation rule.
2. Corporate entwinement with politics: I’m not sure if this is entirely a bad thing, but when fundamental roles of the government, such as telling corporations “please don’t let your products kill people” or “hey, please don’t engineer a collapse of our entire financial system” are compromised, it’s clear that the government is less by the people for the people and more by the corporations for the corporations.
3. Significant absence of choice in key areas. Take for example the next election; if you have Obama running vs Romney, you basically have two people who are very cozy with wallstreet and the mega rich sparring off over unrelated issues. If you think that a politician enabling wallstreet is a problem, well I guess it sucks to be you.
I suppose I would be interested in hearing what people think could be possible constitutional(or amendable) and enactable solutions, because I just don't really see a way of dealing with this from within the system.
What unique challenges do you feel populism in today's culture present and why do you believe they cannot be sufficiently solved except via slavery to Capital?
Oh, you mean Democracy vs Oligarchy in general, as well as education and enlightenment vs obedience and control rather without specific regard towards capital? You can try to paint this as merely an ideological difference of opinion as much as you want but you're still going to have to defend that too. Why has nothing changed? Technology and education are at levels we would be lucky to have seen in the ancient world. That alone makes mountains of difference.
So do you actually have a point or do you just want to continue along your merry way assuming you're right because you said so and only because you said so?
I mean, simplest an most feasible solution is to just kill the filibuster. It's doable and it solves so many problems.
After that, you burn the senate to the ground.
I get the feeling you aren't actually familiar with the history of journalism.
I didn't see what was before or an edit notice so I wouldn't know that. -_-;;
It's just that making a rather bold claim that Democracy is horrible, unworkable, and can never work while refusing to offer a real defense of why that is so, especially after it's pointed out he doesn't even have any real supporting evidence or a point (by you.) Whether he's agreeing with you or not it's insulting to everyone's intelligence here for him to just go: So yup, Democracy will never work, don't really have any evidence, just 'cuz I said so. Bye! When the rest of us are actually taking the time to debate this shit and try and make salient arguments.
Not that I can see a scenario where that would happen, but still the Senate shouldn't be burned just because that's where the "others" are.
How are they safeguarded by the House, where they are outnumbered one-to-one, and with the Presidency? Last I knew the President was the executive in charge of carrying out laws, not some arbiter between the states. I'm really curious about this!
But we are not, never have been, and never should be a democracy, we're a Republic and one of our oldest ideas is that the minority should be protected from the tyranny of a majority. That's why we put the Senate in in the first place (and to placate the smaller colonies).
I agree! It's needed to prevent whoever controls the House from ramming through items to send to the President. If your party controls the House, the Senate provides either a helping hand (if you control it) or a line of defense for the other party, and vice versa.
It's not really working well at the moment but I don't think we should scrap it.
Which is exactly what you don't want in a crisis.
And when you aren't in a crisis the legislature is, frankly, barely relevant. Look at Belgium, who haven't had a government in like ... a year or more now?
Government bureaucracy can run a country surprisingly well on it's own. You need a legislature when shit needs to change. When shit needs doing.
An entire branch of government devoted to holding up all change at any cost (until they get their kickbacks of course) is of service to nothing and no one.
When has it ever worked? What good has the Senate ever done?
The Senate allows minorities of Americans to throttle the will of the majority. The simple fact of modern American life is that people have moved out of the small states toward urban centers, leaving many Senate seats to degrade into the equivalent of the UK's old rotten boroughs. People have already voted against those states with their feet.
A state with a dwindling handful of citizens should not have the same level of power as a state with ten times the population. It's an undemocratic relic of a bygone age, when state identities mattered more.* If the majority of Americans want a change and the courts okay it, a group of 20 Senators representing 15 percent of the population should not have the power to thwart the other 85 percent.
That's not balance. That's an invitation to dysfunction and eventual systemic collapse.
* And slavery needed protecting. The origin of the Senate is all about protecting slavery.
Or, what good has ever been done in America ever?
The problem is the Senators, not the Senate.
That's a wrong statement if I ever saw one. Most of the slaveholding states (Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia) were enormously populous, and hated the idea of being on equal representation with the smaller New England colonies. 3/5ths Compromise, yes. Senate, no.
What. What are you guys not getting about this? Why don't you understand that the Senate is the only thing that is stopping Republicans from sending 50 bills banning abortion to the president each session? Not to mention if we abolish the Senate, the 2/3rds veto of Congress will only apply to the House, thus making the presidential veto useless.
And antebellum era senate seems pretty nice.
Republicans cannot muster 2/3 of the House for anything controversial.