Here’s a proposal for a different way of representation to be determined by election, the so-called Fair Vote Act. Putting aside my pet peeve about that sort of naming (as well as ostentatiously “designed” logos and pleas for donation), there’s some interesting points here that I’d love to see argued over so we can get an honest idea of the pros and cons of this proposal. My own take so far is that I’m frankly not in favor of more “democracy” nor “making government work better.” But… anything with the potential to break the Mafia stronghold of Team Red and Team Blue (and their respective donors) has merits worth discussing.
One thing that stood out to me is the strong probability of total gridlock and ineffectiveness. But perhaps there’s a downside as well.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Sounds like an attempt to make a Parliament. I don’t think gridlock would as likely as you think, coalitions would probably emerge pretty quickly, say Democrats/Greens/Socialists. This is common in ‘diverse’ Parliaments, and even in Canada with its 3 main parties two of them considered merging several years ago in a desperate attempt to oust the Tories.
At Reason Weekend near LA a few months ago, Fair Vote was the topic of one of the lunch events, with The Jacket interviewing Fair Vote Chairman of the Board Krist Novoselic. Packed room, but no doubt this had a lot to do with Krist Novoselic being the bass player for Nirvana. Q&A had more Nirvana questions than about ranked choice voting, go figure.
Novoselic was actually a very good speaker. I had a chance to speak with him and his wife a bit later (they actually hung around for some of the other activities) and they couldn’t have been nicer. He’s definitely passionate about the voting idea. I do always admire anyone who wants to change the world and actually has a reasonable way to do so.
My suggestion: let the states be the districts, voters get 1pick, and the top X become the states reps.
The advantage is that it allows people to become congress critters even if they only have a small number of supporters. The disadvantage is the reps would not represent a specific area. You could also argue that it is unfair for a person who got fewer votes to get the same position, but we have that already with governors and senators.
If the guy who comes in 20th in California still becomes a rep, that could bring in a more interesting mix of people.
Yeah, this would guarantee a third party in some places.
or some sort of ranked voting? same result, top X results gets in.
I’m not sure the fair vote would do that.
I guess it would depend on how many from each party can run.
and, now i watch the other video.
Some parts of NH, for the state house, work this way. You have a district which is represented by X people. Y (which is greater than X, usually) run for office. Vote for X. The top X vote getters get the seats.
The reasons are a combination of how big a district can be, how district lines can be drawn, and Court rulings.
Ooh, Taiwan’s single non-transferable vote. Fairvote’s idea is the single transferable vote, and with multi-member districts is basically the same system Ireland has.
And Ireland’s system is ridiculously complicated because they have a quota (eg. if you get more then 1/4 of the first choices in a 3-member district, you’re automatically elected), and if somebody gets more than the quota, their excess votes are then reallocated according to the second preferences.
I’m not opposed to some sort of ranked-choice voting, either in single-member or multi-member districts. But with the US running a whole bunch of elections at the same time it makes ballots that much more complicated.
the SNTV in single-member constituencies that Taiwan had opened itself up to corruption because of the relatively low number of votes you need to get elected. (Also, the US House needs to be much bigger.)
Why do I assume it’s just as stupid as the “fair tax”?
I’ll toss my idea in the pot again. Representatives should be elected by voters in a “local” district, but randomly be assigned a district to represent.
According to my theory, this would encourage a broader, less bring-home-the-bacon-y approach to spending, and encourage restraint in government expansion. You’re less likely to get re-elected for spending a bunch of money on people in some far off Congressional district than if you can point to your picture in the local paper handing over a multi million dollar check to the local schoolmarm.
Large Asteroid?
My first choice is selection by lottery. Tickets to the lottery will be sold by the government, and all proceeds go the Treasury. An unlimited number of tickets may be purchased, either by or on behalf of a “candidate”. At the end of the term, the rep is to leave Washington, never to return. Violators will be shot on sight.
Or we could just press people into service. The really decent ones dont want to have anything to do with elected office. We need the people who dont want the job.
Many 18th-and 19th-century politicians mastered the art of looking like they didn’t want public office, while their friends arranged to get them elected anyway.
The Athenian solution
Return to having senators elected by state legislators. Nothing else you do will make much difference. We have multiple parties now but they cant do much as long as voters keep voting stupid evil/evil stupid.
Or just eliminate the 17th Amendment and let states decide how they want to elect senators.
Why would it work any better? I can imagine a popular independent/third party candidate getting the popular vote, even as a joke (e.g. Kid Rock). Put it back to state legislature and you’ll get nothing but series of guys whose turn it is when their party controls it.
the idea of senators being appointed by the states, is that instead of trying to win re-election by promising goodies to the people, their interest is in their state’s priorities vs the fed gov.
I.e. getting more money from the Feds in exchange for as little as possible? Otherwise opposition uses their failure to provide goodies as a reason to clear out state house.
I think several mandates on the States would not exist if the States picked senators. I.E. Real ID.
On the other hand, you’re right, they’d probably get more money out of the Feds.
On the gripping hand: fuck you, cut spending.
Bear in mind that the 17th Amendment was enacted before Reynolds v. Sims. While I like the idea of Senators being chosen by state legislatures, the state legislatures are entirely chosen by population now. The moderating effect of bicameralism at the state level is not there anymore.
At the very least, we need to increase the number of reps.
State houses too. I know the FSP picked NH because of the favorable ratio of seats to population.
I think that would just push more representation into the cities, ensuring the fedgov would become more like Detroit. So I don’t think this would be good for rights until there is enforcement of strict constitutionalism.
How about eliminating any pensions for Congress? Why do they get them anyhow?
And maybe only pay them hourly (they have to clock in)?
considering how little they are required to meet, I like this.
say, federal minimum wage? They can kickstarter for Air BnB money.
Or we could just press people into service.
That works for me. Randomly select names from property tax rolls.
I pay the property tax for my apartment. It’s in there somewhere.
I can only hope this comes true.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9416
Set the bar low enough – as Millennials did – and the next generation can be made to look good.
“Brauer cautions that while Generation Z will likely be more conservative than Millennials, they will not actively seek out the GOP unless the Party takes steps to conform to their more-moderate social views, and could be driven away by a significant rightward lurch.”
Yes, nothing says moderation like “conform[ing]” to the radical redefinition of marriage and vaguely-defined “civil rights” (whose rights? right to what?)
I keep hearing this, but I’m not around enough 18 year old kids to tell you much about their political leanings.
This guy seems to be a little mixed up though. First he says Gen Z have a strong libertarian streak, and then he says in the next paragraph that they are like moderate republicans. So which is it? Because it can’t be both.
Maybe it can depending on definition
Libertarian: Are in for pot, ass sex but not Mexicans.
Moderate Republican: Are not in for biblethumping and leaving NAFTA.
It makes perfect sense if your view of the political spectrum is the one dimensional left-right model. It forces libertarianism to essentially be centrist.
When I think moderate Republican, I think Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan. Which of those two would vote to legalize all drugs and prostitution?
Right. I was saying it’s a misunderstanding based on too simplified a view of realty.
I’ve been thinking about a fictitious legal system for a short story I want to write. So while we’re throwing out suggestions, how about no legislative body at all and a very basic law; one that sets up a simple and understandable framework for determining if any negative rights were violated, rather than enumerating a list of crimes and their punishments that are subject to change and corruption. Then expanding the jury system so you need a consensus of multiple, segregated, random, and unanimous juries to convict.
Everybody should be able to understand the whole of the law for it to be fair, and convictions should be difficult to obtain.
I realize something like this is a thought experiment, literally concocted for purposes of fiction, but I’d be interested to hear if you think it could work.
I like the idea of not having a standing government, like not having a standing army. Same thought, with a standing army or government, people want them to be doing something. So the legislature should only meet in times of crisis. Of course, they’d just make up crisis and end up making laws all the time like now. meh.
So the Icelandic Commonwealth then.
I foresee a few complications.
How is the “very basic law” determined? Is it set in stone from day one, or is it allowed some mutability? Each choice has pros/cons vs. the other. Mutable systems allow bad laws to be adjusted/repealed, but also enable bad laws to be enacted. An immutable system prevents the issue du jour from leading to new bad laws, but it also leaves people feeling restless and unable to address bad laws.
Who gets final say over the law? When two juries reach different verdicts on cases with similar facts, people are left without consistent answers about the law. Can jury verdicts be appealed?
What happens in an emergency? Who gets to exercise power, and how?
How are the armed forces organized, and who is the commander-in-chief (if any)?
More/related questions:
How does the government resist coups?
How does the government deal with foreign governments?
Is there an impeachment process to remove bad officials?
Coups: informed and armed populace who is interested in keeping the system they have. Pretty much like today?
There could be some democracy for selecting officials, or simply hire them, and the legal system could be used for deposing them. If they are corrupt or incompetent it’s either a crime or maybe breach of contract?
Making sure that the military draws recruits from the whole populace rather than just a subset thereof, and swears loyalty to the country and its ideals rather than a specific commander helps, too. This one does seem more cultural than structural.
The real question on the officials is how do you avoid them giving themselves immunity like we have now?
Since there is no way to influence a non-existent legislative process, how would they get immunity from the law? How does a CEO avoid the wrath of the board if she fucks up?
How are the armed forces organized, and who is the commander-in-chief (if any)?
Well that’s why you need a monarch.
In my experiment the law is immutable, but it also doesn’t enumerate crimes. Instead it’s language to help determine if a negative right was violated. Every single jury needs to covict or the accused get off. There could be an allowed number of appeals, but if something like 3 juries decide to convict on the first try, the case is probably pretty clear cut. Or the defense very incompetent.
I don’t have answers for the armed forces question or emergency powers right now, but have been thinking of them.
I don’t see how this would let in third parties or make much of a difference. People will still vote for the same R’s and D’s that would have run in single member districts, but instead of voting for one, they vote for several. It would be the same trash, and the larger districts would make it harder for smaller parties to ‘get the word out’.
The moment more third party candidates start getting in is when you go to parliamentary system, where each individual legislator is a cog in the machine, and only the numbers matter. If one party can get 50%+1 legislators, all the other parties are profoundly irrelevant. If they can’t, only parties who can agree how to divvy up the power are relevant.
The concept of cross-party vote or the whips lobbying individual representative is out the window. You vote the way you are told, and if you don’t, you’re out on your ass. In some systems, that means party gets to appoint someone else, in other, you sit outside the party system, so no aides, no committee appointments, and no one gives a toss about what you think until new election, when you are out of politics.
This will, of course, mean the end of primaries, as candidate selection becomes very important, and the pliant, obedient ones are appointed by national executives.
Seriously, other countries have run experiments for you. See the outcomes before you try replicating them – it applies to politics as much as it does to economy.
I’m waiting for Pan to start ranting about how we need the liberum veto.
Fuck no – as I said, when another country kindly runs an experiment for you, learn from it!
My preference is for simple two-step political system
a) respect the rules of the game, whether it’s Trump or Zoolander who gets into power
b) keep politics away from personal life
Primary reason we came to Canada some decades ago, but no, you idiots couldn’t stick with it, and now that’s ruined. May as well start looking into moving to some shit country where Canadian dollar buys more…
Hey now, in my area we’re still running on B pretty successfully, don’t shift your urbanite West Coast-Toronto WASP problems on the rest of us.
I’m one hundred percent behind people in your area taking over the TV networks, the games industry, publishing, movies and university administration!
Until that happens, everything is political, and only one side gets to play.
I think you’re exaggerating based on the fact that you exist in an environment where you think outing yourself as a libertarian will end up with you hanging from a gas station. When complaints like “the AAA games industry make a bunch of dumb decisions and statements, just like they’ve always did” I think you’re just being whiny.
*shrug*
I admit, my experiences growing up may be colouring my perception, yes.
Put it this way, if the new Wolfenstein has a scene where the U.S. Nazi President is an orange haired former businessman and one of the resistance members is transexual, you’ll have a point.
I agree. I really don’t see how this would really change anything. The major parties would still run their computer programs to maximize their vote and minimize the other parties vote.
OMG this is the most important news ever
The best Doctors have been quirky, she doesn’t look quirky.
Actually that’d be the improvement, as ‘quirky’ has meant ‘balls-out lunatic who thinks he’s funnier than he is’ at least since Tennant’s term.
Not to mention, when SJWs write female characters as ‘fun’ it ends up horrible.
My wife hates the current guy
Capaldi’s got to deal with the shittiest writing of the new series, I feel bad for him, because he’s had some great roles.
I’m not a regular watcher, I only watched occasionally when wife had it on. I saw some of his first couple seasons until wife stopped watching. I kind of liked the curmudgeony old bastard.
The ‘cool older guy’ thing they tried doing with Capaldi was cringe worthy.
They should have gone with cranky, weird old guy. Would have been a refreshing change after Tennant and Smith (Ecklestone was cool, though).
Agreed. Hated that.
Friends and I were like “enough with ADHD young guys, let’s get someone with a touch of gravitas at least” and then this. But he has been better than that most of the time – that was a low.
^This.
Less quirky, please.
Also, recent seasons have been – aside from a few excellent stories – in large part unwatchable.
My personal favorites have been Patrick Troughton, Tom Baker and David Tennant, I’d say they are all quirky.
Would
Even tbough I’m old school and have never seen the new series, would.
Why is it not a transgender muslim midget? Ugh.. I can’t even. The Beeb is not woke.
Next = James Bond is gonna be black.
twitter seems to be coming to the same conclusion.
saying the same thing over and over is getting old, but still = if i were a member of a minority group and i felt it was important to be ‘represented’ by pop-culture figures, i’d be far more interested in having NEW, generated-from-the-ground up as multidimensional / multicultural / gender-bending characters in popular media.
What i’d find unappealing would be what they’re constantly doing = shoehorning old, well-established, legacy media characters into often completely arbitrary and not-necessarily complimentary minority boxes. James Bond, while a dapper gent, is mostly white-as-fuck, personality wise. simply putting him in blackface doesn’t really do anything other than pander, and ineffectively i’d think.
No, you don’t understand, Gilmore! You can’t just create new characters for the right people. That just leaves the old characters for the white males! You have to replace the icky old white males with goodthinkful progressive women, minorities and alternative lifestyles! That way you add to the right team and remove from the wrong team.
Also using an established character comes with an existing fan base, back story, etc. It’s cheaper and has a better chance of success.
Same reason entertainment is rife with remakes and cheap tv productions like reality shows in general. The profit margins may be smaller, but it’s easier to guarantee at least some success.
Diversity & Comics guy pointed out that replacing Logan as Wolverine with his clone cut the sales of Wolverine comics in half, but it still sells double what her title sold when she was just X-23.
If you consider getting your message to an audience more valuable than profit, that’s a huge success.
Honestly, I’d prefer next James Bond to be from the Indian subcontinent. “Black James Bond” just strikes me as more of aping the US neuroses. “James Bondarrath, agent of the Raj” is the way to go!
Alexander Siddig (Sudanese but whatever, he can play it). Done.
I must have subconsciously remembered this dumb episode of DS9.
Fuck that noise! I’m not even going to accept a Bollywood actor. I want a genuine, born-in-UK, Mancuian-accented guy with dark brown skin.
And, because I want SJWs to suffer, he should quote Kipling.
Guy from iZombie might do it, as he’s from UK and, importantly, is 6’4″. Bond must be tall!
Or, instead of quoting Kipling, this could happen:
“Mr. Bond, do you like Kipling?”
“I don’t know, dear boy, I’ve never kippled.”
Ah, I like him! I enjoy how he plays Ravi, though I haven’t seen him in anything else, so I have no idea if he can do the stone-cold-focus that Daniel Craig does so well, but it could be a fun change-up. I’d definitely be more up for that than, like, John Boyega.
ooh. that would seem more-effective UK-pandering, given the high numbers of “Asians”.
its also more consistent w/ the personality type. I doubt it would please the sort of SJW types on twitter, but then, being satisfied/pleased is not really their thing anyway.
i think you’re on to something. i wouldn’t be surprised if James Bond-Patel becomes a thing.
Make him a Muslim (even if only theoretical one, kinda like I expect at least Moore Bond was ostensibly CoE) and they can’t whine as much!
Plus, not to go SJW, but if we’re talking representation in movies, black people have it far more than the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis.
Fuck that, Sikh or no deal. They lost Khan to the English because of political correctness and a few whiners so they might as well get something back.
Hmmm… Sikhs are badasses, but now I’m thinking, a Ghurka or GTFO!
they’re like 4 feet tall. (ok, not really – but the average height is 5’3″) it would make for some funny fight(or sex) scenes at least
Maybe this is going to seem strange, but I don’t so much have a problem with a woman as the Doctor as I have a problem with selecting a woman as the Doctor, if that makes any sense. There’s nothing to my mind that precludes the Doctor being a woman. But, you know they’re going to make her the “Woman Doctor”. And you know it’s only going to mean the more aggressive pushing a political and social agenda.
Yeah, if Doctor Who was more apolitical I’d view this way more positively, but since it’s a show that is completely incessant with stuff like “HEY LOOK AT ALL THE GAYS WE HAVE, LOOK A MUSLIM, LOOK, THIS EPISODE IS A GIANT, DUMB METAPHOR FOR HOW YOU SHOULD LOVE REFUGEES” it’s just really obvious pandering, because that’s all they really have left.
In the Doctor Who universe isn’t each iteration of the doctor different anyway? It’s not like Bond where different actors are playing the same role.
Not quite. It’s the same “person” every time, who should have all the memories of previous iterations. But, the “personality” of each one is different, though not radically so (e.g. Doctor won’t kill by choice, or use deadly weapons).
I had been hoping for Richard Ayoade. I guess this shakes things up at least. I never was a big fan but I gave up watching halfway through the first Capaldi season. The show stopped telling a story and just became convoluted fan service distribution mechanism.
Slightly OT…I was completely unaware of Peter Cushing’s movies as Doctor Who, despite being a fan since the early 80s. I recently watched this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060278/
For you #10 fans, it features a young Bernard Cribbins (Wilf).
Vaguely aware of them but AFAIK they’ve never been broadcast in the US?
Comet tv channel
http://www.comettv.com/program-details/Feature+Film/Dr.+Who%3A+Daleks+Invasion+Earth+2150+A.D./37810/Science+fiction/MV007045920000/
On again tomorrow!
My idea for picking elected officials: successive rounds of Russian Roulette. Last one standing gets the office and can only hold office for one term. At least two must play or the office goes vacant and taxpayers get a refund on the office’s salary.
I’ve always thought that there should be some tangible penalty attached to holding office. Say, you get one term free, but if you’re re-elected you have to spend a day in the stocks before taking office. At the least, it would unmistakably identify the people who are *really* addicted to power.
I say the first to get the bullet should get the office.
If we took all the power and money out of Washington we would get better Representatives and better government. Since the voters don’t seem to want to do that, I’m not sure rearranging the furniture is going to do a helluva whole lot.
They’re correct in that our “two party system” is the result of single member districts. So long as we have single member districts, two parties will dominate politics.
They’re incorrect in suggesting that the problem with our politics is that they’re dominated by two parties.
In recent years, we’ve seen dramatic change come despite the two party system. We saw the Tea Party dramatically change the establishment Republican party through the primary system, and then Donald Trump came along and trounced Tea Party candidates for the presidency. Boehner and company are out on their asses. We’ve seen dramatic changes happen within the Democratic party, as well.
Hillary Clinton, an establishment Democrat, lost the nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, mostly because of her support for the Iraq War, and then Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan “Marriage is between a man and a woman”. When Obama came to power, his administration raided state legal, medical marijuana dispensaries in California hundreds of times. Eight years later, recreational marijuana is or will be legal in Washington state, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Massachusetts. The issues of gay marriage and marijuana went from pariahs to litmus tests in the space of eight years–don’t tell me change isn’t possible under the two party system.
When we can’t get what we want by playing by the rules, there’s a tendency to want to change the rules, but that is not the solution. The real problem with our politics is something no politician will ever say out loud. The problem with our politics is the American people. The reason we don’t have a balanced budget is because the American people don’t want one. The reason we haven’t called off the drug war at the federal level is because the American people don’t yet want that. Changing the rules won’t change people’s minds on healthcare, welfare, foreign policy, the proper bounds of government, the American people’s fear of freedom, etc., etc., etc.
The dramatic changes we have seen in recent years have come because the American people wanted them. The reason we haven’t adopted dramatic tax increases to fight climate change, etc. or adopted gun control is because the American people don’t want those things. People wanted to get rid of preexisting conditions–and they don’t want to go back to that.
Changing the rules will not change what people want. There is no substitute for
walls of textpersuasion.Mostly true, but let’s face it – your immigration, for example, is way more open than what “American people want”.
Obamacare got pushed through over clear objection of the people, and the guys put in charge to dismantle it are refusing to do so, again.
Change the party system to be more like other countries, or more like what the political scientists want and you’ll just get more of the above. The whole point of these reform proposals is to reduce the impact of popular preference and replace it with the preferences of the political class. Your current party system, for all its flaws, is far more open and grassroots-oriented than the ones in Europe (possibly bar Switzerland, which heavily relies on referendums and is oddly never mentioned in these reform proposals).
“Mostly true, but let’s face it – your immigration, for example, is way more open than what “American people want”.
The immigration rules are, more or less, what the American people want. The rules haven’t been enforced in the past the way people want, but that’s probably changing to be more in line with what people want. Immigration is probably a big part of the reason why Trump was elected, and he seems to be doing exactly what he said. We’ll see about the wall, but his enforcement has been robust, he’s going after sanctuary cities, etc.
“Obamacare got pushed through over clear objection of the people, and the guys put in charge to dismantle it are refusing to do so, again.”
People wanted certain aspects of it (like an end to preexisting conditions), and the aspects of ObamaCare that people like are likely to survive reform. Meanwhile, undoing much of ObamaCare has already passed the House, and the Senators holding it up at this point seem to be those who want to do away with more of it than in the current bill. I wouldn’t say that’s indicative of them not wanting to get rid of ObamaCare.
It’s the Medicaid rollback that scares the moderates–but, unfortunately, I’m afraid the American people want Medicaid. I hope they roll it back anyway because I don’t think people really understand how devastating Medicaid and Medicare are to free market healthcare. But, again, the problem there isn’t the rules by which we elect our representatives. The problem is what’s in the heads of the American people.
If the Republicans in the Senate don’t get the last vote they need, we may see some of these ObamaCare items put up for a vote one at a time.
They can repeal the individual mandate all by itself–the American people don’t want that.
They can repeal the 29 hour workweek employer mandate–if the American people don’t want that.
Regardless, what survives and what is repealed in the future won’t be a function changing the rules of how we choose our representatives. What survives and what is repealed in the future will be a function of what the American people really want.
Well that’s fucking depressing
/still true
I see it as encouraging.
What if the only way to effectuate lasting change was through the election of politicians?
Yuck!
Much better to think that I can change things by talking to people.
Authoritarians of all stripes throughout all of history have been scared to death of what people are saying to each other–for good reason!
soul brothers on the moon. wearing tights.
“This video is not available”
hm.
here’s another. its half about the mellow-soul-groove, its half “What the fuck are these dudes doing on the moon?”
The only rule change I’d support is repealing the Seventeenth Amendment and going back to picking our senators like the UK picks their prime minister. Without going into too much detail, having the state legislatures pick our senators was the linchpin of federalism. Once our senators were no longer beholden to the state legislatures, the state legislatures no longer had any say in federal policy. That castrated the states’ check on federal power. That was a big mistake–but that mistake can probably never be undone.
I took a tour of San Simeon (Hearst Castle) with a girlfriend once, and the other people in our tour group were from the UK. I believe the tours are run by the National Park Service. At one point, the tour guide go to the part in his spiel where he mentioned that before Hearst’s efforts, the senate wasn’t really democratic. When he hit the boilerplate part of his speech, “Any questions?”, I asked, “So are you saying that the UK isn’t really a democracy because they don’t get to vote for their prime minster directly?”. They thought that was hilarious–ridiculous–that I would make such a suggestion. They didn’t seem to understand that’s exactly what the tour guide was saying.
If there’s one view average British people seem to hold universally (besides the impression of Americans as arrogant, rude, and greedy), it’s that they don’t want a presidential system. Americans aren’t like that. Americans will probably never vote to have their own votes taken away. Rather than advocate repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, it’s much more realistic to advocate for warp drives and interstellar colonization.
But when we get to planet Libertopia, let’s let our state legislatures choose our senators.
Hell, in a case like Cameron-to-May, the voters ultimately didn’t even get the PM they expected when they voted. It would be like us voting in the general knowing that Paul Ryan would become Prime Minister with a Republican majority, but then partway through his term he resigns and the party picks, oh, Diane Black.
Eeeh…Theoretically that can happen.
No oneFew people expected Gerald Ford, too. And there was an understanding thata) Cameron will negotiate reform with EU.
b) Cameron will put that reform up for referendum.
c) If he pushes for “stay” and it fails, he cannot remain the Prime Minister.
The only thing that was not expected was that May would come through – but there are precedents for most obvious candidates not making it through the party machinery machinations (and May came through not only without input from general voting public, but without the input of the membership of the party).
If you have an imaginary choice of only repealing one, it should the Sixteenth.
And not just for the normal “taxation is theft” and “Thou shalt not steal” aspects, either, but for the reasons expressed in the title of the post.
– It starves the beast.
– It takes away the special interests’ playgrounds.
– It takes away the main tools the state uses for social engineering.
Until all those are hammered down, and people think of the state as poor and limited (largely by income sources), representative government will stay messed up.
I think we need an ‘enough already’ amendment. The purpose of the amendment is that we already have far too many laws. From this point on, the only job of Congress will be to repeal stuff.
I myself am very wary of any changes like this. If we want to fix politics, there’s only one way to do it. Get rid of politics as a career. Let a person serve one two year term and then they are banned from running for or serving in public office, and lobbying, forever. Short of doing that, the corruption and cronyism with continue unabated.
How do you outlaw lobbying while respecting 1A?
Good question, OMWC. My point is that the problem is career politics. I see what you’re saying and I’d be ok with leaving lobbying out of the ban, just as long as the person is elected, serves one term, at a modest pay, no pensions or other special benefits, and then goes back to their community and a real job. Outside of doing this, you can change rules all you want and nothing will change. Politics attracts the worst in our society in general because of how much money and power there is in it. There should be no money or power in it, it’s supposed to be a public service, not a free pass to tax payer money.
Don’t outlaw it. Make it pointless and useless by stripping any desirable power from those being lobbied.
Bingo. If there’s no incentive to lobby, there won’t be lobbying.
My entire point is about stripping power from those ‘serving’ in public office. They’re supposed to be serving us, but it’s turned around to where we are serving them as personal ATM machines.
Blind nut finds squirrel,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449536/congress-warmaking-powers-new-authorization-use-military-force-unlikely
Today’s Oglaf once against shows that, with skill, you can mix dicks with current political commentary without being preachy!
SFed
Sad. Low energy. Bad links.
Make HTML great again!
Nothing will change without a “none of the above”. That is how we get a libertarian moment.
Quick Left!
well, that must have seemed odd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzKTK0024kw
OT: In the morning links OMWC had a story about a small Mass town that sent in their SWAT team and helped a possibly suicidal young man become definitely suicidal. I don’t know if anyone mentioned it, but there was a likely reason that the police acted the way they did (besides just the usual reasons). It seems that the father had an ongoing legal dispute with the Hingham police deptartment.
“Reeves alleged that in the three years after the email was sent out, Hingham police officers repeatedly showed up at his house and demanded to search the property, questioned his son at school and parked police cruisers outside his home. His complaint characterizes the police actions as “malicious” retaliation for critical remarks he had made about the police department on his blog.”
http://www.patriotledger.com/x1274024156/U-S-judge-dismisses-Hingham-blogger-s-complaints
Thanks for unearthing that gem!
That cant be. The police are altruists who only do their job because they care about their communities.
If we want to fix politics, there’s only one way to do it. Get rid of politics as a career.
The wholesale nattering class freakout over Trump’s “lack of qualifications” and evil profiteering self-interest illustrate just how true this is.
If there is agreement across the political spectrum, it’s that career politicians are the only people who should be allowed to hold public office.
I was just telling someone the other day that the most shit-stupid ideas seem to come from lifelong career politicians (as opposed to politicians who had some other line of work for most of their lives and later went into politics). It’s easy to see why: politicians live in wealth, privilege, and a good degree of immunity from the law. They are also in a position where keeping their job is almost entirely unconnected with their ideas actually working (if an engineer or computer programmer made equally grandiose promises of great results and constantly failed to deliver, they would be out the fucking door in a heartbeat).
Career politicians have no idea what it’s like to be a regular person.
Bullshit. I’ve read Dilbert for years and Wally is still employed.
heck, that’s what makes the “Hillary is the Most Qualified Candidate EVER!” so hilarious. She’s qualified because she literally hung out near politics for most of her life. She had exactly one more elected office than DJT’s zero, and yet the hanging around was enough to make her ‘qualified’.
…and she accomplished nothing during her time as Senator (even if you’re a prog, she did nothing). She did have some accomplishments as SOS, and they’re exclusively negative. SHE HAS EXPERIENCE! …at fucking up, again and again.
I’m not convinced. Districts represent their voters. People choose to live in districts for a reason.
Uh huh… I don’t like “game theory” schemes to make it more “fair” for the various “teams”. Maybe the real problem is with the teams themselves.
Just my hot take. OK I’ll read y’all’s takes now.
I don’t know if making a bigger area will help with the urban/rural splits.
I’m guessing the two major parties will be able to game the proposed system just like their able to game the old system. Their might be a change of one or two in the count, but I don’t think it will make much of a difference.
The urban/rural split is real. I don’t see that as something that needs to be “fixed”.
Don’t you see, Rhywun, no one in the history of this country has ever migrated from their birthplace, especially for political reasons.
Yeah, I’m not seeing the problem with that. They seem to be dancing around the idea that career politicians are corrupt with power without actually getting there.
The focus here is on representation. For libertarians, it seems to me the focus should be on voluntary actions. We’re focusing on the wrong thing. It’s about whose money is getting redistributed and to where. Perhaps representatives should only be able to spend funds that come from those who elected them. We’d really get to see just how generous people are then.
Of course, that’s a pipe dream.
I stopped reading after the first sentence: “Our democracy is fundamentally broken by a dangerous new era of fierce partisan divisions.”
If you think what breaks democracy is partisanship, then you deserve to be forced to kneel before a hastily-dug trench while the tip of a rifle barrel is placed to the back of your skull and the trigger is pulled.
it’s like you morphed into Tom Kratman for a second there.
I had his response to Rosie in mind. Because that’s what “democracy” is, the moral rationalization for the threat of force against an unwilling, peaceful minority.
I also had this in mind.
+1 Great Leader Standing Above Politics
I stopped reading after the first sentence: “Our democracy is fundamentally broken by a dangerous new era of fierce partisan divisions.”
“Their mob won’t let my mob rule unopposed. That’s not fair.”
A timely reminder of who calls all the shots in New York.
But remember, government employees are selfless angels who just want to serve the public; they’re never motivated by evil profits (not like in that filthy private sector).