Concentrated in the House, though. Which is what people seem to be forgetting. All the shit that Boehner and Cantor and the Tea Party want to do would not be stopped if there was no Senate. I'm not willing to live with that just so stuff I do like can get through easier.
You think a GOP Senate wouldn't have stopped it too? Please.
The point is, your system is neither inherently more stable nor inherently good. In fact, it's in large part inherently opaque, fucked up and corrupt. And set up to be incredible UNstable since one party can easily completely shut down the legislative process and grind the government to a halt.
You keep trying to pass this off as an issue with the voters, but that's bullshit. It's an issue with the system itself.
I don't know wtf kind of instability you see over in the UK, but one of the best parts of a Westminster parliamentary system is that when the government grinds to a halt, it generally gets dissolved and a new one is elected.
Quite simply, the voting process does not work if the public can't figure out who's in charge and what's being done. This is both fundamental and should be blindingly obvious. How do you chose the direction of a government when you can't understand how it works?
I didn't mean to come off as thinking the Westminster system is a bad one, I've got a lot of respect for it. Britain is also a much smaller country (numberwise) than the US and isn't as multicultural, for lack of a better term.
To address the bolded, I'll repeat:
The problem with US government is US voters not knowing what the fuck is going on and having a bigger, more powerful House will only exacerbate the problem. Educated voters who are informed and active (and probably running for office, too) would root out the systematic corruption. This was what the system was designed for in the first place, anyway. Voters are just as integral to the process as the Senators and Representatives.
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
shryke on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Concentrated in the House, though. Which is what people seem to be forgetting. All the shit that Boehner and Cantor and the Tea Party want to do would not be stopped if there was no Senate. I'm not willing to live with that just so stuff I do like can get through easier.
You think a GOP Senate wouldn't have stopped it too? Please.
The point is, your system is neither inherently more stable nor inherently good. In fact, it's in large part inherently opaque, fucked up and corrupt. And set up to be incredible UNstable since one party can easily completely shut down the legislative process and grind the government to a halt.
You keep trying to pass this off as an issue with the voters, but that's bullshit. It's an issue with the system itself.
I don't know wtf kind of instability you see over in the UK, but one of the best parts of a Westminster parliamentary system is that when the government grinds to a halt, it generally gets dissolved and a new one is elected.
Quite simply, the voting process does not work if the public can't figure out who's in charge and what's being done. This is both fundamental and should be blindingly obvious. How do you chose the direction of a government when you can't understand how it works?
I didn't mean to come off as thinking the Westminster system is a bad one, I've got a lot of respect for it. Britain is also a much smaller country (numberwise) than the US and isn't as multicultural, for lack of a better term.
To address the bolded, I'll repeat:
The problem with US government is US voters not knowing what the fuck is going on and having a bigger, more powerful House will only exacerbate the problem. Educated voters who are informed and active (and probably running for office, too) would root out the systematic corruption. This was what the system was designed for in the first place, anyway. Voters are just as integral to the process as the Senators and Representatives.
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
Also, I wouldn't mind that after we let that run for a few generations, we get a voting privilege system similar to what Heinlein envisions in Starship Troopers. Mandatory (and possibly lethal) public service for the right to make decisions that affect the public at large.
Why?
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
It's an objectively-accepted fact that when you have no separation of powers, you have no problem determining who is to blame. In Britain, it's the party in control of the House of Commons; here, it could be the President, the Senate, the House, or even the Supreme Court.
Also, I wouldn't mind that after we let that run for a few generations, we get a voting privilege system similar to what Heinlein envisions in Starship Troopers. Mandatory (and possibly lethal) public service for the right to make decisions that affect the public at large.
Why?
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
There is no way that that filters for "concerned" or "informed."
Let's think about the most disciplined single group you have in the U.S. Who is willing to put aside other things, to do what a hierarchical system tells them to? It sure as hell ain't the secular humanists.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
You can't just magically make voters more informed, though. And a parliamentary system along the lines of Britain would make US voters far more informed than they are now. Right now it's a system of multiple veto points, arcane rules, individual electeds differing from party platform, and a non-representative distribution of power (in the Senate). There's no conceivable way to make this a persuasive case: "You know how you elected a supermajority of us in 2008? Well, it turns out some of us aren't really supporters of the platform you voted for, a single Senator can stonewall all our appointments, and all the ways in which we dropped the ball could totally be solved if you just vote for more of us next time! I promise!"
It's human nature to avoid the action which just brought you something dissatisfying. We've had three cycles in a row now of "throw the bums out" and it looks like we're in for a fourth. That's not a sustainable way to run a democracy. A parliamentary system would absolutely mean more tea party influence in the short run. It would also mean that voters would actually come to understand what the conservative agenda really looks like, and wouldn't let it slowly eat away at the social fabric of society for 40 years like we've been doing.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
You can't just magically make voters more informed, though. And a parliamentary system along the lines of Britain would make US voters far more informed than they are now. Right now it's a system of multiple veto points, arcane rules, individual electeds differing from party platform, and a non-representative distribution of power (in the Senate). There's no conceivable way to make this a persuasive case: "You know how you elected a supermajority of us in 2008? Well, it turns out some of us aren't really supporters of the platform you voted for, a single Senator can stonewall all our appointments, and all the ways in which we dropped the ball could totally be solved if you just vote for more of us next time! I promise!"
It's human nature to avoid the action which just brought you something dissatisfying. We've had three cycles in a row now of "throw the bums out" and it looks like we're in for a fourth. That's not a sustainable way to run a democracy. A parliamentary system would absolutely mean more tea party influence in the short run. It would also mean that voters would actually come to understand what the conservative agenda really looks like, and wouldn't let it slowly eat away at the social fabric of society for 40 years like we've been doing.
I think Thatcher and New Labour would like word with you.
There is no perfect form of government, all I'm saying is a switch to a Westminster style system would absolutely not solve the problems we have now since the UK has, basically, all the problems we have now.
There's nothing magical about informing voters. Fix our education system to produce more literate and science conscious students and you wouldn't be able to pull historical or scientific wool over people's eyes. It's not a quick fix and it's not a magic bullet but it would take just as much work as the complete restructuring of our government and it's more realistically doable.
Also, I wouldn't mind that after we let that run for a few generations, we get a voting privilege system similar to what Heinlein envisions in Starship Troopers. Mandatory (and possibly lethal) public service for the right to make decisions that affect the public at large.
Why?
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
There is no way that that filters for "concerned" or "informed."
Let's think about the most disciplined single group you have in the U.S. Who is willing to put aside other things, to do what a hierarchical system tells them to? It sure as hell ain't the secular humanists.
It doesn't filter for informed, but it definitely filters for concerned. Unless you REALLY give a shit about that right to vote, most folks won't put up with a tough few years of government service.
How I would structure it is similar to the military model, but I'd strip away a bunch of the benefits that we currently give and push those down the road to more "career" individuals. Three years gets you the right to vote. For the measly pay that a Private makes, with no college benefits, only the ones who will value that right, the ones who have concerns about their government, are going to be the ones going through the process.
The trick is the process, creating a system of government service, both military and civil, where your first few years are harsh and where anyone can be put to use. You need to develop a system that can place people into positions according to what they are physically and mentally capable of doing, and then work them like a pack animal for several years. Pay them, give them health care, but that's it. They can opt to stay beyond those first initial years and progress up the chain into nicer, better paying jobs where civil service can be a career (except the military, cause our lives are gonna suck a bit more regardless due to the nature of the work), and thats when benefits like retirement and free college come into play, but otherwise those first years need to suck.
You do that, people will value their right to vote, and the ones with the right will be the ones more concerned with government for the good of all. It's not a perfect system, but I definitely think it would help.
Also, I wouldn't mind that after we let that run for a few generations, we get a voting privilege system similar to what Heinlein envisions in Starship Troopers. Mandatory (and possibly lethal) public service for the right to make decisions that affect the public at large.
Why?
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
There is no way that that filters for "concerned" or "informed."
Let's think about the most disciplined single group you have in the U.S. Who is willing to put aside other things, to do what a hierarchical system tells them to? It sure as hell ain't the secular humanists.
It doesn't filter for informed, but it definitely filters for concerned. Unless you REALLY give a shit about that right to vote, most folks won't put up with a tough few years of government service.
How I would structure it is similar to the military model, but I'd strip away a bunch of the benefits that we currently give and push those down the road to more "career" individuals. Three years gets you the right to vote. For the measly pay that a Private makes, with no college benefits, only the ones who will value that right, the ones who have concerns about their government, are going to be the ones going through the process.
The trick is the process, creating a system of government service, both military and civil, where your first few years are harsh and where anyone can be put to use. You need to develop a system that can place people into positions according to what they are physically and mentally capable of doing, and then work them like a pack animal for several years. Pay them, give them health care, but that's it. They can opt to stay beyond those first initial years and progress up the chain into nicer, better paying jobs where civil service can be a career (except the military, cause our lives are gonna suck a bit more regardless due to the nature of the work), and thats when benefits like retirement and free college come into play, but otherwise those first years need to suck.
You do that, people will value their right to vote, and the ones with the right will be the ones more concerned with government for the good of all. It's not a perfect system, but I definitely think it would help.
"Caring" and "informed" are two completely different things.
Really old people care about voting a lot. Super-religious people care about voting a lot. Neither group is at all well-informed.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Didn't once mention "caring". Mentioned being informed and being active.
You do that, people will value their right to vote, and the ones with the right will be the ones more concerned with government for the good of all.
you have skipped like, a half dozen crucial steps in the process of jumping to this conclusion
Let's consider who is likely to volunteer for such dangerous service.
1) First, the young. They have both the physical ability and the requisite lack of life commitments.
2) The poor. Those with little money or few skills or both who turn to service as a means of survival.
3) The uneducated. Similar to the poor, those without more compelling opportunities outside the service.
(shockingly enough, this begins to sound fairly similar to actual military enlistment.)
None of these groups are the so-called "concerned." Most people who are "concerned" are probably not a member of any of these groups, because they have the random time in their life to spend thinking/reading about politics. Not to say that a relative few "concerned" people wouldn't enlist (just as they do today), but this is hardly a recipe for attracting them. And even if it were, it would probably attract a particular segment of "concerned" people, which isn't really a great way to form a popular government.
And all of this ignores the whole "consent of the governed" thing, which by most people is considered kind of a requirement for a legitimate government.
You may or may not find heinlein's writing interesting, but as a political philosopher he's a fucking quack.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You do that, people will value their right to vote, and the ones with the right will be the ones more concerned with government for the good of all.
you have skipped like, a half dozen crucial steps in the process of jumping to this conclusion
Let's consider who is likely to volunteer for such dangerous service.
1) First, the young. They have both the physical ability and the requisite lack of life commitments.
2) The poor. Those with little money or few skills or both who turn to service as a means of survival.
3) The uneducated. Similar to the poor, those without more compelling opportunities outside the service.
(shockingly enough, this begins to sound fairly similar to actual military enlistment.)
None of these groups are the so-called "concerned." Most people who are "concerned" are probably not a member of any of these groups, because they have the random time in their life to spend thinking/reading about politics. Not to say that a relative few "concerned" people wouldn't enlist (just as they do today), but this is hardly a recipe for attracting them. And even if it were, it would probably attract a particular segment of "concerned" people, which isn't really a great way to form a popular government.
And all of this ignores the whole "consent of the governed" thing, which by most people is considered kind of a requirement for a legitimate government.
You may or may not find heinlein's writing interesting, but as a political philosopher he's a fucking quack.
It's why the movie had to be a joke. WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE? We can start a different thread if so.
Didn't starship troopers have a high casualty rate and a culture of enlistment that made sure most of the population joined the service anyway
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
It's an objectively-accepted fact that when you have no separation of powers, you have no problem determining who is to blame. In Britain, it's the party in control of the House of Commons; here, it could be the President, the Senate, the House, or even the Supreme Court.
People tend to default to the president though, probably because he's the most visible single political figure out there; the only one most people can identify.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
It's an objectively-accepted fact that when you have no separation of powers, you have no problem determining who is to blame. In Britain, it's the party in control of the House of Commons; here, it could be the President, the Senate, the House, or even the Supreme Court.
People tend to default to the president though, probably because he's the most visible single political figure out there; the only one most people can identify.
And I would argue that just because you can assign blame doesn't make it a better system. You can assign blame pretty well in a dictatorship but I don't think any of us are going to argue that's a good way to solve the problem.
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
It's an objectively-accepted fact that when you have no separation of powers, you have no problem determining who is to blame. In Britain, it's the party in control of the House of Commons; here, it could be the President, the Senate, the House, or even the Supreme Court.
People tend to default to the president though, probably because he's the most visible single political figure out there; the only one most people can identify.
And I would argue that just because you can assign blame doesn't make it a better system. You can assign blame pretty well in a dictatorship but I don't think any of us are going to argue that's a good way to solve the problem.
Though that last thread would disagree with me...
Dictatorships also have flags. Are flags now bad too?
Assigning blame is CRUCIAL to a democracy. If you can't figure out who did what, how can you know who to vote for?
Didn't once mention "caring". Mentioned being informed and being active.
"Caring" is a synonym for "concerned."
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
How I would structure it is similar to the military model, but I'd strip away a bunch of the benefits that we currently give and push those down the road to more "career" individuals. Three years gets you the right to vote. For the measly pay that a Private makes, with no college benefits, only the ones who will value that right, the ones who have concerns about their government, are going to be the ones going through the process.
You'd find that the large swathes of the population would be unable to get the right to vote because of prior obligations that would prevent them from spending X number of years in military service for a pittance wage. Anyone with kids, for example. People with aged or diabled relatives they need to take care of. Anyone with siginificant debts that they need to keep paying.
Your proposed approach to voting would quickly lead to the the wealthy becoming disproportionately represented in the voter pool. If your family has money, you can go serve X number of years because your parents can cover your expenses. On the other hand, if you're poor you don't have that luxury.
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
The average Air Force officer, who has a college degree and tends to be more intelligent than the population as a whole, isn't likely to fall into the uninformed voter category.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The Civil War happened because of slavery - more specifically, the fact that we, including Congress, disagreed so seriously that a war broke out.
Not really?
The Civil War happened because slavery presented an undue advantage to Southern capital. This was the official line of the Republican Party for sometime, who feared the power growing in the Southern aristocracy.
It was, like most wars, over money and political power and not about emancipation.
The Civil War happened because slavery presented an undue advantage to Southern capital. This was the official line of the Republican Party for sometime. It was, like most wars, over money and political power and not about emancipation.
Not really.
The North was quite happy to make money off slavery for decades. Boston's famous baked beans and dried cod were food for slaves, and the New York magnates were heavily involved in the slave trade. Just like today, the Northern urban centers were quite happy providing services and capital for Southern enterprise, even enterprise that operated in a way that would be illegal in the North. While the Northern industrialists were industrializing using immigrant labor, they were also providing capital to Southern experiments in building factories using slave labor.
Things ran off the rails when the Abolitionist movement made slavery into a political problem. As the population of the North became radicalized against slavery, and the South turned into a police state in reaction to the Abolitionists, Northern politicians found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to balance the increasing antipathy of the citizenry and the unease of business leaders who were still making fortunes off the Southern cotton trade.
Even then, things came to a head because Southerners overreacted and panicked, mostly because they had propagandized themselves into believing that Northern Abolition was a more powerful political force than it actually was. That ended up cracking the Whig Party, sending the Southern states into rebellion and opening the space for the small and rather radical Republican Party to gain power.
It was a political problem well before the abolitionist movement. It was a more influential political rail via the Free Soil Party and eventually the Republican party more so than abolition. The Free Soil Party only sought the abolition of slavery because it affected, specifically, political and capital power for Northern politicians and businessmen. Again, this was the official party line of the Free Soil Party and the Republican party, which was created from the Free Soil Party. This is the same reason later Republicans placed emphasis not on ending slavery in the South but on preventing it from spreading to territories claimed and potential new territories.
"The Civil War was about Slavery" is only tangential because slavery was the means by which the Southern aristocracy gained power and spread their influence. The North wanted to prevent the spread of political influence. Northern political power did not endure to end slavery merely because it was the right thing to do.
Thus, it's about capital first, slavery second. Though you are correct in that the Southern states whipped themselves into a frenzy.
"The Civil War was about Slavery" is a pedestrian, shallow, romanticization of the entire ordeal.
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
The average Air Force officer, who has a college degree and tends to be more intelligent than the population as a whole, isn't likely to fall into the uninformed voter category.
Yes, because I've never known anyone who went to college who's not well informed.
There isn't enough eye-roll in the known universe.
Not to mention the fact that... what, 20% of the Air Force is made up of officers? If that?
The fairness doctrine stuff is rather stinky bullshit.
Firstly having the current government determine what is 'fair' is not fair at all.
Next, it seems to assume that people are so naturally stupid that all they have to do is tune into either foxnews or CNN to become instantly brainwashed. It is virtually impossible in the people who designed this law's eyes to consider that people watching either of these networks can still manage to decide how to vote for themselves.
Lets take a situation where all media is banned. While the press has been around longer then the U.S, until 50 years ago or so people didnt have anything like up to date information, and literacy was hardly everywhere. People are just going to have the exact same response from listening to the viewpoint of a neighbor or parents or how they were raised then they would listening to Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. All the fairness doctrine does is give more power to the government to control media and while I will agree that media in some areas (mostly social) is out of control, this is one area that we cannot let them influence if we want to keep even the illusion of freedom in this country. I may think both michael moore and rush limbaugh are completely full of shit, but it is their right to say whatever they way to say.
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
The average Air Force officer, who has a college degree and tends to be more intelligent than the population as a whole, isn't likely to fall into the uninformed voter category.
Yes, because I've never known anyone who went to college who's not well informed.
There isn't enough eye-roll in the known universe.
Not to mention the fact that... what, 20% of the Air Force is made up of officers? If that?
All things being equal, I'd say college-educated people are more likely to be informed voters.
And the evangelical thing in the Air Force is an issue at the Air Force Academy. Air Force enlisted are pretty much like any other enlisted WRT religion (probably smarter than your average Marine or Army grunt, given what they do, though).
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Didn't once mention "caring". Mentioned being informed and being active.
"Caring" is a synonym for "concerned."
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
I'm not looking for a system to filter out "informed".
There's nothing magical about informing voters. Fix our education system to produce more literate and science conscious students and you wouldn't be able to pull historical or scientific wool over people's eyes. It's not a quick fix and it's not a magic bullet but it would take just as much work as the complete restructuring of our government and it's more realistically doable.
Right now you get away with banging the abortion drum and the climate change is bollocks drum because people aren't science literate and religion is used as a cudgel. I'm not pretending that there's some magic solution but if you can't see how better education can improve things than you're either choosing to be difficult or you're a Republican candidate.
It takes other voters (like maybe the kind who float around forums or organize protests about economic disparity) to form together and spread information and get the vote out.
Nothing in the system you're arguing for would do that except "people would see how bad things can get". Well, people can see how bad things get here. There's really nothing more than a semantic difference between us and the UK government. Surprisingly, they have the same problems we do, but their education system provides a more informed voting base so they're better equipped to talk about things and call their leaders out on shit.
The argument that "if we let the Tea Party go nuts people will realize how bad that is" relies on people paying attention and knowing what's going on. Also, why do that if you have a system that can prevent it if used properly? Simply being able to "assign blame" isn't enough, people who know what the fuck they're talking about can assign blame in our system well enough. It's not that difficult to understand:
Legislature creates law, Executive enforces, Judicial interprets and applies.
That's like lesson one in government class. Of course, it's not as black and white as that but that's the gist of it.
Our government was created with the idea that voters would be involved and be informed about what was going on, that they're not now has everything to do with our education standards and our mainstream media that is more likely to hound after who a presidential candidate happens to be fucking rather than stopping a President from going to war on false pretenses and giving the people who are ruining the economy a shit ton of free money. Sure there's places like ThinkProgress but its not as wide read as it could be because people don't care. Until you solve that problem, nothing you do to "fix" government will mean a damn thing.
And as someone said earlier, it isn't anything new. But it is something we can work hard to correct.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
The average Air Force officer, who has a college degree and tends to be more intelligent than the population as a whole, isn't likely to fall into the uninformed voter category.
Yes, because I've never known anyone who went to college who's not well informed.
There isn't enough eye-roll in the known universe.
Not to mention the fact that... what, 20% of the Air Force is made up of officers? If that?
All things being equal, I'd say college-educated people are more likely to be informed voters.
And the evangelical thing in the Air Force is an issue at the Air Force Academy. Air Force enlisted are pretty much like any other enlisted WRT religion (probably smarter than your average Marine or Army grunt, given what they do, though).
It also has a lot to do with how ingrained Christianity has become with public service. Obama's probably about as religious as anyone on this forum, but he still has to prance around and pretend to go to church.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The fairness doctrine stuff is rather stinky bullshit.
Firstly having the current government determine what is 'fair' is not fair at all.
Next, it seems to assume that people are so naturally stupid that all they have to do is tune into either foxnews or CNN to become instantly brainwashed. It is virtually impossible in the people who designed this law's eyes to consider that people watching either of these networks can still manage to decide how to vote for themselves.
Lets take a situation where all media is banned. While the press has been around longer then the U.S, until 50 years ago or so people didnt have anything like up to date information, and literacy was hardly everywhere. People are just going to have the exact same response from listening to the viewpoint of a neighbor or parents or how they were raised then they would listening to Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. All the fairness doctrine does is give more power to the government to control media and while I will agree that media in some areas (mostly social) is out of control, this is one area that we cannot let them influence if we want to keep even the illusion of freedom in this country. I may think both michael moore and rush limbaugh are completely full of shit, but it is their right to say whatever they way to say.
I don't think you need a fairness doctrine if you have an audience that can call bullshit.
I'd like to see something like the BBC in the states, where you don't need to sell ad space, but we'd never get people to fork over tax dollars for it (look at NPR/PBS).
It also has a lot to do with how ingrained Christianity has become with public service. Obama's probably about as religious as anyone on this forum, but he still has to prance around and pretend to go to church.
It's pretty pronounced in the military. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the military recruits heavily in the South and Midwest. Also, liberals tend not to enlist at the same rate as conservatives.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It also has a lot to do with how ingrained Christianity has become with public service. Obama's probably about as religious as anyone on this forum, but he still has to prance around and pretend to go to church.
It's pretty pronounced in the military. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the military recruits heavily in the South and Midwest. Also, liberals tend not to enlist at the same rate as conservatives.
Yup. The military is mostly poor kids from the "flyover" states. Even the officer corps has a fair share, at the very least they learn how to use it to their advantage.
Yup. The military is mostly poor kids from the "flyover" states. Even the officer corps has a fair share, at the very least they learn how to use it to their advantage.
I wouldn't say poor kids. Enlisted tend to be more working class, but officers tend to come from the middle class, generally. It does tend to draw heavily from rural areas all over the country. And the military has been a great ladder to the middle class for minorities.
The military is also becoming a "family business" where multiple generations of a family enlist.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
There's more than a semantic difference between the US and UK governments. The basic structure is different, and our problems are not all the same.
Some of the differences are those of scale (money in politics is a problem over here as well, not nowhere near the extent it seems to be in the US), but there are definite differences in the political system as well. One elected house over here (with another unelected house as a 'lesser' one), not two. Head of State entirely seperate from government (except in ceremony). Religion pretty much a non-factor in our elections. Regular interrogation of PM by opposition in public which means that electing someone totally nutso and unable to handle actual questions (hello Sarah Palin) won't be put forward by a party as a potential leader. Those are off the top of my head.
There's more than a semantic difference between the US and UK governments. The basic structure is different, and our problems are not all the same.
Some of the differences are those of scale (money in politics is a problem over here as well, not nowhere near the extent it seems to be in the US), but there are definite differences in the political system as well. One elected house over here (with another unelected house as a 'lesser' one), not two. Head of State entirely seperate from government (except in ceremony). Religion pretty much a non-factor in our elections. Regular interrogation of PM by opposition in public which means that electing someone totally nutso and unable to handle actual questions (hello Sarah Palin) won't be put forward by a party as a potential leader. Those are off the top of my head.
I was talking more about political corruption (which is rooted out easier in the UK), economic collapse, crippling national debt, rising unemployment, flailing manufacturing and industrial sectors, and a witch hunt against immigration.
I do like the PMQs and think that's something we could adapt to our system in some fashion, but the US is too big and too diverse for a parliamentary system on a national scale, it would probably work on a state level though.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"The Civil War was about Slavery" is a pedestrian, shallow, romanticization of the entire ordeal.
It's also the broadly accepted understanding among professional historians. Both states rights and economic determinism have been floated and then torn apart.
The evidence points to it being a conflict about slavery. The social divide was between people who wanted it and those that did not. All other factors are subordinate to this.
Phillishere on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"The Civil War was about Slavery" is a pedestrian, shallow, romanticization of the entire ordeal.
It's also the broadly accepted understanding among professional historians.
Yeah, the Civil War was definitely about slavery. Sure, there were other economic and "state's rights" causes. But all those causes? Slavery was the motivation, either stopping it or spreading it.
Also, I wouldn't mind that after we let that run for a few generations, we get a voting privilege system similar to what Heinlein envisions in Starship Troopers. Mandatory (and possibly lethal) public service for the right to make decisions that affect the public at large.
Why?
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
There is no way that that filters for "concerned" or "informed."
Let's think about the most disciplined single group you have in the U.S. Who is willing to put aside other things, to do what a hierarchical system tells them to? It sure as hell ain't the secular humanists.
Not to mention putting huge hurdles in the way for people that don't fit the standard mold. That blind quad Amputee has a unique view of our society that we do well to include. Demanding he play guinea pig before we allow him to vote? Dude endures more hardship and sacrifice then most front-line soldiers on a daily basis. Dumb frat boy? Walk right this way to easy Kitchen duty abord a navy ship far from combat.(this assumes we are at war, if not.... 2 year camping trip vs risking life and sanity in medical testing):
Not to mention a heavy bias towards millitary duty with a large standing army. Never a good thing.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Also, I wouldn't mind that after we let that run for a few generations, we get a voting privilege system similar to what Heinlein envisions in Starship Troopers. Mandatory (and possibly lethal) public service for the right to make decisions that affect the public at large.
Why?
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
There is no way that that filters for "concerned" or "informed."
Let's think about the most disciplined single group you have in the U.S. Who is willing to put aside other things, to do what a hierarchical system tells them to? It sure as hell ain't the secular humanists.
Not to mention putting huge hurdles in the way for people that don't fit the standard mold. That blind quad Amputee has a unique view of our society that we do well to include. Demanding he play guinea pig before we allow him to vote? Dude endures more hardship and sacrifice then most front-line soldiers on a daily basis. Dumb frat boy? Walk right this way to easy Kitchen duty abord a navy ship far from combat.(this assumes we are at war, if not.... 2 year camping trip vs risking life and sanity in medical testing):
Not to mention a heavy bias towards millitary duty with a large standing army. Never a good thing.
Building a civilization on the basis of requiring people to submit themselves to essentially a random lottery of life, death or suffering is an idiotic and amoral idea.
Why not demand people donate a non-vital organ before being allowed to vote? Why not require blood donation each year to be allowed to vote?
And, perhaps most importantly, how do you address the transition period? What about the hundreds of millions of people who have not done any military or civil or whatever service? Will their right to vote be revoked after the initiative is implemented?
Coz boy I bet the advocates of such a policy would back away right fast if that was in there.
Posts
How will a more powerful house exacerbate that problem?
You need to seriously consider that the reason voters don't know what's going on isn't cause they are stupid, but because it's confusing and opaque as shit.
When people on this board who follow politics closely have trouble sometimes figuring out wtf is going on, it's not a problem with being stupid or ignorant.
I would consider people on this board to be in the segment of "informed and active" voters. Yes, there is room for improvement, but you can't say that a majority of the US voting age populace is ill-informed and inactive. The current political establishment gets off on this and uses it to their advantage.
Right now, if the House was the only side we had and/or it was larger and more powerful, the Tea Party effect would be proportionally worse. What's opaque about the US's voting system? We vote, we elect. In Congressional elections there's no electoral college to get in the way. People don't pay attention, this is how you get poll results that say "Congress is shit but MY rep is AOK."
Again, it's not people on this board. The very act of coming online to debate this kind of things shows you're in the camp of being informed and involved. But the PA forums are a very small section of the population.
Because I agree with Heinlein that it is the most non-discriminatory method of restricting the right to vote and turning voting into something valuable. There is something lost when the right to vote isn't earned if you don't have a compelling need to be political, get something from the system, or have a strong sense of civic duty. Open system of government service for all according to their ability, with hardship and sacrifice involved. Quadruple amputee with no eyes and bad hearing? You can be a volunteer for new medical testing for your country, or something to that effect. You do your time, you earn the right to vote. Free to quit any time, but you can never get a second chance.
I think something like that would help drive an informed, concerned voting base that valued their vote.
Let's think about the most disciplined single group you have in the U.S. Who is willing to put aside other things, to do what a hierarchical system tells them to? It sure as hell ain't the secular humanists.
You can't just magically make voters more informed, though. And a parliamentary system along the lines of Britain would make US voters far more informed than they are now. Right now it's a system of multiple veto points, arcane rules, individual electeds differing from party platform, and a non-representative distribution of power (in the Senate). There's no conceivable way to make this a persuasive case: "You know how you elected a supermajority of us in 2008? Well, it turns out some of us aren't really supporters of the platform you voted for, a single Senator can stonewall all our appointments, and all the ways in which we dropped the ball could totally be solved if you just vote for more of us next time! I promise!"
It's human nature to avoid the action which just brought you something dissatisfying. We've had three cycles in a row now of "throw the bums out" and it looks like we're in for a fourth. That's not a sustainable way to run a democracy. A parliamentary system would absolutely mean more tea party influence in the short run. It would also mean that voters would actually come to understand what the conservative agenda really looks like, and wouldn't let it slowly eat away at the social fabric of society for 40 years like we've been doing.
I think Thatcher and New Labour would like word with you.
There is no perfect form of government, all I'm saying is a switch to a Westminster style system would absolutely not solve the problems we have now since the UK has, basically, all the problems we have now.
There's nothing magical about informing voters. Fix our education system to produce more literate and science conscious students and you wouldn't be able to pull historical or scientific wool over people's eyes. It's not a quick fix and it's not a magic bullet but it would take just as much work as the complete restructuring of our government and it's more realistically doable.
It doesn't filter for informed, but it definitely filters for concerned. Unless you REALLY give a shit about that right to vote, most folks won't put up with a tough few years of government service.
How I would structure it is similar to the military model, but I'd strip away a bunch of the benefits that we currently give and push those down the road to more "career" individuals. Three years gets you the right to vote. For the measly pay that a Private makes, with no college benefits, only the ones who will value that right, the ones who have concerns about their government, are going to be the ones going through the process.
The trick is the process, creating a system of government service, both military and civil, where your first few years are harsh and where anyone can be put to use. You need to develop a system that can place people into positions according to what they are physically and mentally capable of doing, and then work them like a pack animal for several years. Pay them, give them health care, but that's it. They can opt to stay beyond those first initial years and progress up the chain into nicer, better paying jobs where civil service can be a career (except the military, cause our lives are gonna suck a bit more regardless due to the nature of the work), and thats when benefits like retirement and free college come into play, but otherwise those first years need to suck.
You do that, people will value their right to vote, and the ones with the right will be the ones more concerned with government for the good of all. It's not a perfect system, but I definitely think it would help.
Really old people care about voting a lot. Super-religious people care about voting a lot. Neither group is at all well-informed.
you have skipped like, a half dozen crucial steps in the process of jumping to this conclusion
Let's consider who is likely to volunteer for such dangerous service.
1) First, the young. They have both the physical ability and the requisite lack of life commitments.
2) The poor. Those with little money or few skills or both who turn to service as a means of survival.
3) The uneducated. Similar to the poor, those without more compelling opportunities outside the service.
(shockingly enough, this begins to sound fairly similar to actual military enlistment.)
None of these groups are the so-called "concerned." Most people who are "concerned" are probably not a member of any of these groups, because they have the random time in their life to spend thinking/reading about politics. Not to say that a relative few "concerned" people wouldn't enlist (just as they do today), but this is hardly a recipe for attracting them. And even if it were, it would probably attract a particular segment of "concerned" people, which isn't really a great way to form a popular government.
And all of this ignores the whole "consent of the governed" thing, which by most people is considered kind of a requirement for a legitimate government.
You may or may not find heinlein's writing interesting, but as a political philosopher he's a fucking quack.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It's why the movie had to be a joke. WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE? We can start a different thread if so.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yup. Starship Troopers is actually a pretty fair look at how society could grow under the direction the GOP wants us to go down.
Another good example is The Road.
Most of the poor. In the book, it was shocking to his family when Rico, the son of a wealthy family, enlisted.
Though the whole thing is kind of warped since it takes place during a war where the bad guys leveled Buenos Aires as an opener.
People tend to default to the president though, probably because he's the most visible single political figure out there; the only one most people can identify.
And I would argue that just because you can assign blame doesn't make it a better system. You can assign blame pretty well in a dictatorship but I don't think any of us are going to argue that's a good way to solve the problem.
Though that last thread would disagree with me...
Dictatorships also have flags. Are flags now bad too?
Assigning blame is CRUCIAL to a democracy. If you can't figure out who did what, how can you know who to vote for?
And you still haven't explained how your system filters for "informed." Because, I mean, right now, the Air Force is full of a metric shit-ton of Evangelical Christians. They are not "informed" in any way, shape, or form; in fact, they're eight kinds of retarded.
Your proposed approach to voting would quickly lead to the the wealthy becoming disproportionately represented in the voter pool. If your family has money, you can go serve X number of years because your parents can cover your expenses. On the other hand, if you're poor you don't have that luxury.
The average Air Force officer, who has a college degree and tends to be more intelligent than the population as a whole, isn't likely to fall into the uninformed voter category.
Rigorous Scholarship
Not really?
The Civil War happened because slavery presented an undue advantage to Southern capital. This was the official line of the Republican Party for sometime, who feared the power growing in the Southern aristocracy.
It was, like most wars, over money and political power and not about emancipation.
/derail
Not really.
The North was quite happy to make money off slavery for decades. Boston's famous baked beans and dried cod were food for slaves, and the New York magnates were heavily involved in the slave trade. Just like today, the Northern urban centers were quite happy providing services and capital for Southern enterprise, even enterprise that operated in a way that would be illegal in the North. While the Northern industrialists were industrializing using immigrant labor, they were also providing capital to Southern experiments in building factories using slave labor.
Things ran off the rails when the Abolitionist movement made slavery into a political problem. As the population of the North became radicalized against slavery, and the South turned into a police state in reaction to the Abolitionists, Northern politicians found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to balance the increasing antipathy of the citizenry and the unease of business leaders who were still making fortunes off the Southern cotton trade.
Even then, things came to a head because Southerners overreacted and panicked, mostly because they had propagandized themselves into believing that Northern Abolition was a more powerful political force than it actually was. That ended up cracking the Whig Party, sending the Southern states into rebellion and opening the space for the small and rather radical Republican Party to gain power.
The Civil War was about slavery.
"The Civil War was about Slavery" is only tangential because slavery was the means by which the Southern aristocracy gained power and spread their influence. The North wanted to prevent the spread of political influence. Northern political power did not endure to end slavery merely because it was the right thing to do.
Thus, it's about capital first, slavery second. Though you are correct in that the Southern states whipped themselves into a frenzy.
"The Civil War was about Slavery" is a pedestrian, shallow, romanticization of the entire ordeal.
Not to mention the fact that... what, 20% of the Air Force is made up of officers? If that?
Firstly having the current government determine what is 'fair' is not fair at all.
Next, it seems to assume that people are so naturally stupid that all they have to do is tune into either foxnews or CNN to become instantly brainwashed. It is virtually impossible in the people who designed this law's eyes to consider that people watching either of these networks can still manage to decide how to vote for themselves.
Lets take a situation where all media is banned. While the press has been around longer then the U.S, until 50 years ago or so people didnt have anything like up to date information, and literacy was hardly everywhere. People are just going to have the exact same response from listening to the viewpoint of a neighbor or parents or how they were raised then they would listening to Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. All the fairness doctrine does is give more power to the government to control media and while I will agree that media in some areas (mostly social) is out of control, this is one area that we cannot let them influence if we want to keep even the illusion of freedom in this country. I may think both michael moore and rush limbaugh are completely full of shit, but it is their right to say whatever they way to say.
And the evangelical thing in the Air Force is an issue at the Air Force Academy. Air Force enlisted are pretty much like any other enlisted WRT religion (probably smarter than your average Marine or Army grunt, given what they do, though).
Rigorous Scholarship
I'm not looking for a system to filter out "informed".
In fact,
Right now you get away with banging the abortion drum and the climate change is bollocks drum because people aren't science literate and religion is used as a cudgel. I'm not pretending that there's some magic solution but if you can't see how better education can improve things than you're either choosing to be difficult or you're a Republican candidate.
It takes other voters (like maybe the kind who float around forums or organize protests about economic disparity) to form together and spread information and get the vote out.
Nothing in the system you're arguing for would do that except "people would see how bad things can get". Well, people can see how bad things get here. There's really nothing more than a semantic difference between us and the UK government. Surprisingly, they have the same problems we do, but their education system provides a more informed voting base so they're better equipped to talk about things and call their leaders out on shit.
The argument that "if we let the Tea Party go nuts people will realize how bad that is" relies on people paying attention and knowing what's going on. Also, why do that if you have a system that can prevent it if used properly? Simply being able to "assign blame" isn't enough, people who know what the fuck they're talking about can assign blame in our system well enough. It's not that difficult to understand:
Legislature creates law, Executive enforces, Judicial interprets and applies.
That's like lesson one in government class. Of course, it's not as black and white as that but that's the gist of it.
Our government was created with the idea that voters would be involved and be informed about what was going on, that they're not now has everything to do with our education standards and our mainstream media that is more likely to hound after who a presidential candidate happens to be fucking rather than stopping a President from going to war on false pretenses and giving the people who are ruining the economy a shit ton of free money. Sure there's places like ThinkProgress but its not as wide read as it could be because people don't care. Until you solve that problem, nothing you do to "fix" government will mean a damn thing.
And as someone said earlier, it isn't anything new. But it is something we can work hard to correct.
It also has a lot to do with how ingrained Christianity has become with public service. Obama's probably about as religious as anyone on this forum, but he still has to prance around and pretend to go to church.
I don't think you need a fairness doctrine if you have an audience that can call bullshit.
I'd like to see something like the BBC in the states, where you don't need to sell ad space, but we'd never get people to fork over tax dollars for it (look at NPR/PBS).
Rigorous Scholarship
Yup. The military is mostly poor kids from the "flyover" states. Even the officer corps has a fair share, at the very least they learn how to use it to their advantage.
The military is also becoming a "family business" where multiple generations of a family enlist.
Rigorous Scholarship
Some of the differences are those of scale (money in politics is a problem over here as well, not nowhere near the extent it seems to be in the US), but there are definite differences in the political system as well. One elected house over here (with another unelected house as a 'lesser' one), not two. Head of State entirely seperate from government (except in ceremony). Religion pretty much a non-factor in our elections. Regular interrogation of PM by opposition in public which means that electing someone totally nutso and unable to handle actual questions (hello Sarah Palin) won't be put forward by a party as a potential leader. Those are off the top of my head.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I can't really see it happening in the US. It would be seen as government controlled media and hell no a new tax isn't going to please anybody.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I was talking more about political corruption (which is rooted out easier in the UK), economic collapse, crippling national debt, rising unemployment, flailing manufacturing and industrial sectors, and a witch hunt against immigration.
I do like the PMQs and think that's something we could adapt to our system in some fashion, but the US is too big and too diverse for a parliamentary system on a national scale, it would probably work on a state level though.
Basically, yeah.
It's also the broadly accepted understanding among professional historians. Both states rights and economic determinism have been floated and then torn apart.
The evidence points to it being a conflict about slavery. The social divide was between people who wanted it and those that did not. All other factors are subordinate to this.
Yeah, the Civil War was definitely about slavery. Sure, there were other economic and "state's rights" causes. But all those causes? Slavery was the motivation, either stopping it or spreading it.
Not to mention putting huge hurdles in the way for people that don't fit the standard mold. That blind quad Amputee has a unique view of our society that we do well to include. Demanding he play guinea pig before we allow him to vote? Dude endures more hardship and sacrifice then most front-line soldiers on a daily basis. Dumb frat boy? Walk right this way to easy Kitchen duty abord a navy ship far from combat.(this assumes we are at war, if not.... 2 year camping trip vs risking life and sanity in medical testing):
Not to mention a heavy bias towards millitary duty with a large standing army. Never a good thing.
Building a civilization on the basis of requiring people to submit themselves to essentially a random lottery of life, death or suffering is an idiotic and amoral idea.
Why not demand people donate a non-vital organ before being allowed to vote? Why not require blood donation each year to be allowed to vote?
And, perhaps most importantly, how do you address the transition period? What about the hundreds of millions of people who have not done any military or civil or whatever service? Will their right to vote be revoked after the initiative is implemented?
Coz boy I bet the advocates of such a policy would back away right fast if that was in there.