U.S. Politics: Gunnin' From The Long Arm of the Law

[Yukle]

1 minute ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

They don't have to win. If one of them runs chances are good it will split the base and pave the way for the Democrat.

Ooooh, intriguing. Trump has a narrow enough lead as it is... if they can dislodge even a few states from him it is done. Romney could possibly win the three states where a 3rd party seems ripest: Utah, Arizona and Georgia. Clinton did better than expected in those states.

Assuming he would also tip some of Trump's very narrow rust-belt lead into a third party could lead to a map like this.

 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I refer to being prepared to exploit the issue, as in morally. The Democrats were aiming to eliminate gerrymandering, while the Republicans were not. Therefore they were prepared to act immorally in a way that has ruined America's voting and the Democrats, in most cases, were not.

You're just describing the state of play, as demonstrated by California vs. Arizona in terms of "nonpartisan" redistricting commissions.  It's a long hard road, and if it was going to be won by exploitative measures the fight would already be over.

19 minutes ago, Yukle said:

One-person-one-vote should be an operating principle of all effective democratic systems. Allowing rural areas to have disproportionate power is built into the American voting system but it needn't be the case.

Needn't be?  You find something better to fight against and I'm all ears.  Til then it's just more noise.

21 minutes ago, Yukle said:

A proportional voting system would eliminate this, rather than a representative model, for instance.

Ah the inevitability of the savior PR system.  A PR system suggests a parliamentary system, which obviously always sounds better when the other guy is sitting in the Oval.  But ya know what?  I don't care.  Please cite a longer lasting presidential system than the US'.  Does it suck right now?  Of course.  Has the directionality of the system been ass-backwards since FDR and the imperial presidency?  You bet.  Has that only exacerbated since?  You mother-fucking-bet.  Frankly?  I don't care. 

I like the good it's done.  I like how we've been, by far, the biggest welfare state to make social programs work.  Plus, I like our potential to do good things more than any other big-ass country.  Obama put nearly 20 million on health care.  I say we try for more.  I'm never going to apologize for the possibility of better good government.  Part of that necessarily means a strong president, so whoever has a problem with that - bring it on.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

I think that it can mostly be explained by saying that a GOP group was extremely well-prepared for the census opportunity in 2010 and pounced.

It wasn't just that they were well prepared but that the technology was there as well finally. There were computer algorithms finally capable of gerrymandering at insane levels of detail.

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 

Ah the inevitability of the savior PR system.  A PR system suggests a parliamentary system, which obviously always sounds better when the other guy is sitting in the Oval.  But ya know what?  I don't care.  Please cite a longer lasting presidential system than the US'.  Does it suck right now?  Of course.  Has the directionality of the system been ass-backwards since FDR and the imperial presidency?  You bet.  Has that only exacerbated since?  You mother-fucking-bet.  Frankly?  I don't care. 

Length of time doesn’t imply success; in fact time seems to be exposing the cracks in the system.

If longevity is the aim, then empires - especially autocratic ones - last significantly longer than republics. I wouldn’t take America’s longevity as a given success anyway given it did fail at least once; the South seceded. The Union was restored but absolutely the scars still run deep. The trade off when allowing power to be devolved is that it becomes less stable.

The President’s power is also not connected to the method of their election. A simple nationwide vote would be fairer than the EC, for instance, a system so shit that not even one of America’s fifty states uses it in governor elections, let alone another country.

A proportional voting system can be used for just the congress, nothing more. It need not decide the presidency.

And there is a huge danger in any powerful executive: the more time you allow, the probability of a catastrophic failure (an extreme one, like electing a serial killer or something) occurring approaches one. That is not a risk worth taking to invest so much power in one person. Or at least, not without the means to remove them from office without relying on the completely unrealistic chance that their own political party - which is statistically nearly certain to be required - will vote in favour of their removal from office. Even the 25th amendment needs to be confirmed by a super majority.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Yukle said:

(1) If longevity is the aim, then empires - especially autocratic ones - last significantly longer than republics. I wouldn’t take America’s longevity as a given success anyway given it did fail at least once; the South seceded. The Union was restored but absolutely the scars still run deep. The trade off when allowing power to be devolved is that it becomes less stable.

(2) The President’s power is also not connected to the method of their election. A simple nationwide vote would be fairer than the EC, for instance, a system so shit that not even one of America’s fifty states uses it in governor elections, let alone another country.

(1) I'm not a historian, but I do know from schooling most presidential systems have a short half life.  In comparison, Madison and co. have done pretty good.

(2)  No argument here!

18 minutes ago, Yukle said:

A proportional voting system can be used for just the congress, nothing more. It need not decide the presidency.

In theory, sure, but please identify a PR system (or really any other major country) that doesn't have its head of government as the head of parliament.

20 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Or at least, not without the means to remove them from office without relying on the completely unrealistic chance that their own political party - which is statistically nearly certain to be required - will vote in favour of their removal from office. Even the 25th amendment needs to be confirmed by a super majority.

Yep, not gonna deny it's a huge (yuge? too soon?) danger.  It still provides the greatest potential to activate the bureaucracy when things align.

[Shryke]

17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

(1) I'm not a historian, but I do know from schooling most presidential systems have a short half life.  In comparison, Madison and co. have done pretty good.

Have they? This is like constructing 4 of the same buildings, watching 3 of them collapse on their own and going "This 4th one? This must be the good one!".

The american system has been shaky as fuck since the start and it's stability predicated on the oppression of the black slave class. The first time this agreement started to fall apart, y'all had a bloody civil war. And then a bloody insurgency till the North conceded the issue. The second time it fell apart is the reason you have the issues you have right now. The civil rights era is what leads to the current shape of the Republican party as the party of white supremacy, willing to do anything to forward that agenda because they fundamentally do not view non-whites and the party that supports them as genuinely american and thus legitimate. Hence gerrymandering, voter suppression and a flagrant disregard for illegal activity and foreign interference.

[Teng Ai Hui]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

Fairly good. The chances of winning? Less than zero. Trump could declare the old constitution void and that he has a much bigger one, more beautiful than ever before, and it's going to be better in every way. It will have so much winning, believe me. And his followers would swallow it.

 

I just watched an episode of StarTalk (the tv version of Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s podcast).  Salmon Rushdie was the featured guest.  Jonathan Gottschall was the scientific expert that helped Tyson analysis Rushdie’s comments.

Quote

 

Rushdie:  We live in a time of irrationality.  There is a suspicion of people who know things.  If you know something, you’re called an elitist.  It’s very worrying to live in this post-factual world.  Stephen Colbert invented the term truthiness.  I think we live in that kind of world that if something sounds truthy, it is as true as something that is actually true.

Tyson:  Jonathan, you study the science of stories.  How do we distinguish fact from fiction?

Gottschall:  It’s hard for us, especially if non-facts are embedded well in stories.  [sic]  There’s a sense in which we’re all learning right now that we don’t have narratives; the narratives have us.  We like to think that we form our narratives out of fact.  But, I think it’s truer to say that we have our pre-existing narratives, and we let those narratives choose and shape the facts that we are going to believe in.

Tyson:  That is terrifying!  [sic]  Does that mean that good storytelling will always override rationality?

Gottschall:  It seems so.  It’s very, very hard to find data that will argue someone out of their favorite stories, their most deeply held stories.  The only way to beat a bad story seems to be with a better story.

 

 

Applying this science to American politics is horrifying.  Who tells stories better than Orange45?

 

 

[Shryke]

7 minutes ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

I just watched an episode of StarTalk (the tv version of Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s podcast).  Salmon Rushdie was the featured guest.  Jonathan Gottschall was the scientific expert that helped Tyson analysis Rushdie’s comments.

Applying this science to American politics is horrifying.  Who tells stories better than Orange45?

Obama did.

[TrueMetis]

Note that there are three big indicators of a presidential system heading to a dictatorship. 1) Is foreign interference in elections, 2) is conflict between the executive and judicary, and 3) is a desire for a "strong leader" among the populace. The US is currently checking off all three.

But yeah, the US has managed to be the best version of what is AFAICT a pretty inherently shitty setup.

Also DMC, when you say "head of parliament" what exactly do you mean? Because when I hear that I can't really think of anyone that fits.

[DMC]

45 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Have they? This is like constructing 4 of the same buildings, watching 3 of them collapse on their own and going "This 4th one? This must be the good one!".

Yeah, but the fourth building has lasted a pretty damn long time - but literally with the burn stains from 1812 and figuratively with the Civil War.

45 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The second time it fell apart is the reason you have the issues you have right now. The civil rights era is what leads to the current shape of the Republican party as the party of white supremacy, willing to do anything to forward that agenda because they fundamentally do not view non-whites and the party that supports them as genuinely american and thus legitimate. Hence gerrymandering, voter suppression and a flagrant disregard for illegal activity and foreign interference.

And that's the next fight!  Slavery, genocide, and Jim Crow are things we should know well.  They are things we should make sure to teach, and emphasize when teaching.  What's going on now with Trump and how he has fomented a reaction from his extremists is a horrible reminder.  But I'm not going to let that not fight for my right to the place I know as home.  If anyone else does, I entirely understand.  But there's plenty of America that wants to fight against that, and I'll be with them to the end.  Gerrymandering, voter suppression, foreign interference and all.

ETA2:  If you want to know the first thing I fight about, it's mandatory minimums and disproportionate incarceration.  The second is the gross inequality of education based on property taxes.  Gerrymandering is honestly not something I devote much time nor money to fight right now.

32 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Also DMC, when you say "head of parliament" what exactly do you mean? Because when I hear that I can't really think of anyone that fits.

Prime Minister or something similar.  The head of government.

[Shryke]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, but the fourth building has lasted a pretty damn long time - but literally with the burn stains from 1812 and figuratively with the Civil War.

This is literally the bad reasoning I'm talking about. The faults are still all there and just because this one version of the system has lasted longer then the others doesn't mean it's somehow avoided the inherent flaws. Things can limp along a long time before their faults bring them down.

 

Quote

 

And that's the next fight!  Slavery, genocide, and Jim Crow are things we should know well.  They are things we should make sure to teach, and emphasize when teaching.  What's going on now with Trump and how he has fomented a reaction from his extremists is a horrible reminder.  But I'm not going to let that not fight for my right to the place I know as home.  If anyone else does, I entirely understand.  But there's plenty of America that wants to fight against that, and I'll be with them to the end.  Gerrymandering, voter suppression, foreign interference and all.

ETA2:  If you want to know the first thing I fight about, it's mandatory minimums and disproportionate incarceration.  The second is the gross inequality of education based on property taxes.  Gerrymandering is honestly not something I devote much time nor money to fight right now.

 

This address nothing I said.

And not thinking about gerrymandering is foolish as hell. The US's issues with suppressing people's ability to be represented by their government is a huge problem, both for the stability and legitimacy of the government and for the ability to solve any other problem you might imagine cause to solve those issues you need to win.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Shryke said:

This is literally the bad reasoning I'm talking about. The faults are still all there and just because this one version of the system has lasted longer then the others doesn't mean it's somehow avoided the inherent flaws. Things can limp along a long time before their faults bring them down.

I'm not going to strongly oppose this argument, especially practically.  But please cite a state that has set up their system in a way with the same precepts outlined in Federalist #10, detailed in #s 51 and 78, and executed therein.

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

This address nothing I said.

That's very true.  Because I don't really care about what you said.

Quote

The civil rights era is what leads to the current shape of the Republican party as the party of white supremacy, willing to do anything to forward that agenda because they fundamentally do not view non-whites and the party that supports them as genuinely american and thus legitimate.

That's the gist of what I didn't address, right?  White Supremecists have always been here.  They are very, very hardly new.  We will beat them when we win.  That may sound dismissive, but to me it's simply recognizing your enemy and gearing up against him.  I want to focus on doing so.  Even if that sounds like an ironic obsession on winning.  I want to do so much winning so fast the "winners" don't even realize they're losing.

17 minutes ago, Shryke said:

And not thinking about gerrymandering is foolish as hell. The US's issues with suppressing people's ability to be represented by their government is a huge problem, both for the stability and legitimacy of the government and for the ability to solve any other problem you might imagine cause to solve those issues you need to win.

Yeah, you're still not getting it.  Fuck gerrymandering and let's kick some ass in the local elections that can change it for real!

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, you're still not getting it.  Fuck gerrymandering and let's kick some ass in the local elections that can change it for real!

This does have to be the attitude. Like Jared from Deadpool said. You have to finally hit 'fuck it' as an electorate.

Or something like that.

[DMC]

It's terribly ironic.  If you met me in person I'm like the most cynical person you'll ever meet.  But pushing and paying for a positive agenda really isn't hard.  And, frankly, research has recently pointed to it starts at weird ass message boards.  This is a weird ass message board.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's terribly ironic.  If you met me in person I'm like the most cynical person you'll ever meet.  But pushing and paying for a positive agenda really isn't hard.  And, frankly, research has recently pointed to it starts at weird ass message boards.  This is a weird ass message board.

We're in the future now bro. Digital warfare and personalized realities. Old white dudes keep coming on the news to decry how kids today don't go outside and meet 'real' people.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Old white dudes keep coming on the news to decry how kids today don't go outside and meet 'real' people.

I miss ME!  Whoops.

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I miss ME!  Whoops.

I miss ME as well. There's nothing like a nice bit of ME for myself

[Yukle]

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 I'm not a historian, but I do know from schooling most presidential systems have a short half life.  In comparison, Madison and co. have done pretty good.

In theory, sure, but please identify a PR system (or really any other major country) that doesn't have its head of government as the head of parliament.

On the first point, that's true.

On the second point, I hadn't thought of it like that.

3 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Also DMC, when you say "head of parliament" what exactly do you mean? Because when I hear that I can't really think of anyone that fits.

America's head of state and head of government are the same person: the president.

In Australia the head of state is the Queen (or governor-general in practice) and the head of government is the head of parliament, called the Prime Minister. This is also how Canada works.

In India the Prime Minister is head of government (and parliament) while the President is head of state.

It's common for nations to spread power between more than one person.

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I miss ME as well. There's nothing like a nice bit of ME for myself

Nah, what you don't get is I made an assertion:

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

And, frankly, research has recently pointed to it starts at weird ass message boards.  This is a weird ass message board.

Which means really dumb people need a citation for that.  Can I do that?  Yep.  Easily.  Will I?  Nope.  Because I'm not their fucking monkey.  Google scholar isn't hard - let alone understanding when I'm making a future assertion as opposed to when I'm making a general statement - but that's not going to change.  Some people actually relish being so dumb.  Sill, right?

[DMC]