Shutdown

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:16 pm

NickAragua wrote: As you yourself said, people often need to visit a mini-bureaucracy (the local representative's office) to help them navigate the bureaucracy! We call that recursion in computer science.

Actually, I usually call it a hash table (or indexing).

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:18 pm

El Guapo wrote:I get that. Sort of comes with the territory when one's field is public policy though. Personally I don't think NickAragua's proposal is quite at that level of scorn, which I reserve for Eco-Logical type ideas.

His idea is "gee, let's gut representative democracy for an ill-conceived system that dramatically devalues the votes of people in large states because... umm, because I'm cynical about politics!" YAAAY CYNICISM! Hating the system for being the system FTW!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:21 pm

El Guapo wrote:I get that. Sort of comes with the territory when one's field is public policy though. Personally I don't think NickAragua's proposal is quite at that level of scorn, which I reserve for Eco-Logical type ideas.

It doesn't reach Eco-Logic levels, but casting all voters as morons and all politicians as corrupt thugs doesn't sit well with me either.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:21 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: People don't work that way. If they're used to an easy system and you give them a more complicated one where they have to think more, they don't dive right in. But let's say the average voter does over the top 20 or so candidates and really digs in. You're still going to have people elected to the 53rd spot with a few thousand votes. The echo chamber will ensure a healthy victory for a handful, a substantial victory for a few more, and a bunch of statistically insignificant victories to round out the 53 spots. Remember, the largest voting demograpic in the country is the non-voter.

To be fair, you do have that now (in close races where one candidate gets statistically insignificant more votes than the other main candidate.

At least with my system (but not this one), the candidates on the low end would have very little power compared to those "top 20 or so candidates".

And one plus that this system has - a *lot* more people will have a representative that represents them, as opposed to currently, where, say, 40-45% (or possibly more) of the population that vote for someone who loses.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:24 pm

El Guapo wrote: Personally I don't think NickAragua's proposal is quite at that level of scorn, which I reserve for Eco-Logical type ideas.

Agree.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:35 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I get that. Sort of comes with the territory when one's field is public policy though. Personally I don't think NickAragua's proposal is quite at that level of scorn, which I reserve for Eco-Logical type ideas.
His idea is "gee, let's gut representative democracy for an ill-conceived system that dramatically devalues the votes of people in large states because... umm, because I'm cynical about politics!" YAAAY CYNICISM! Hating the system for being the system FTW!

Calling it "gut[ting] representative democracy" is a bit far. Assuming that I have this right, the idea is that representatives would be elected on a state-wide basis (and then representatives would be essentially assigned a district to help with outreach). That would mostly transform House members to being statewide representatives rather than local representatives, but it's still representative democracy. I doubt that I would see that proposal as the best way to improve our democracy, but it doesn't strike me as un-serious.

If you don't find it worthy of engaging then don't engage it.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:41 pm

Defiant wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote: People don't work that way. If they're used to an easy system and you give them a more complicated one where they have to think more, they don't dive right in. But let's say the average voter does over the top 20 or so candidates and really digs in. You're still going to have people elected to the 53rd spot with a few thousand votes. The echo chamber will ensure a healthy victory for a handful, a substantial victory for a few more, and a bunch of statistically insignificant victories to round out the 53 spots. Remember, the largest voting demograpic in the country is the non-voter.
To be fair, you do have that now (in close races where one candidate gets statistically insignificant more votes than the other main candidate.

Except that the person who wins by 100 votes in a 350,000 vote race has been voted in by an electorate equal to that of every other member. The issue is the population represented, not the margin of victory. We want fewer landslide districts, after all.

At least with my system (but not this one), the candidates on the low end would have very little power compared to those "top 20 or so candidates".

Nick's "system" is the single worst proposed system of electing representatives I have encountered in years. It fails all the tests you'd look for in setting up a good representational democratic system.

And one plus that this system has - a *lot* more people will have a representative that represents them, as opposed to currently, where, say, 40-45% (or possibly more) of the population that vote for someone who loses.

What do you mean by "represent them"? Are you only represented if your member of Congress votes the way you would? Does it have to be the way you would every time, or does a majority of the time count? Or 40% of the time? Or 25%?

Again, there is far, far more to Congressional representation than just votes on the floor.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:50 pm

El Guapo wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I get that. Sort of comes with the territory when one's field is public policy though. Personally I don't think NickAragua's proposal is quite at that level of scorn, which I reserve for Eco-Logical type ideas.
His idea is "gee, let's gut representative democracy for an ill-conceived system that dramatically devalues the votes of people in large states because... umm, because I'm cynical about politics!" YAAAY CYNICISM! Hating the system for being the system FTW!
Calling it "gut[ting] representative democracy" is a bit far. Assuming that I have this right, the idea is that representatives would be elected on a state-wide basis (and then representatives would be essentially assigned a district to help with outreach). That would mostly transform House members to being statewide representatives rather than local representatives, but it's still representative democracy. I doubt that I would see that proposal as the best way to improve our democracy, but it doesn't strike me as un-serious.

Except that every voter would have only 1 vote, so the votes of a person in California would be *dramatically* devalued compared to voters in smaller states -- way more so than they are today. It would bleach the delegations out of many states, returning all white delegations. It would end regional diversity in representation, returning only candidates from the most populous, and richest, localities. It would make running for Congress completely out of reach in states like New York, Texas or California for candidates who could compete just fine in today's system due to the scale and cost of campaigning. His proposed system of "assigning" localities to representatives is also idiotic and unworkable (do you think a member of Congress who lives in San Francisco would have any understanding of the issues people in the High Desert? would she be required to travel constantly out there, effectively never going home?).

If you want a system that pretty much only elects rich, white, oligarchs from major urban areas, Nick's got a governing "system" for you.

If you give a half a fuck about democracy, you'd realize that Nick's idea is unworkable and undemocratic.

(Those are the generic "you," not you in particular).

Some city councils are elected using a system akin to what Nick is suggesting for Congress (except their system is more democratic by allowing folks to vote once for every seat on the council). The results are exactly what I've described above: all the winners tend to come from the same areas of town, all tend to be rich, minorities rarely win unless the city is overwhelmingly minority, and usually all the winners are from the same political party. It's a bad system, and Nick's expands on its bad points and makes them all worse, while stripping away its one fig leaf of democracy.

Anyone want to discuss things we could do to *actually* improve our political system?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:09 pm

I don't -- but I do have a postscript to the cognitive dissonance associated with the shutdown. I mentioned that there was a special election in NJ last week to fill the Senate seat left by Senator Lautenberg after he died this past June. The Republican candidate was all hopped up on the government shutdown, telling NJ voters it was super and he fully supported what was going on in Washington and that if elected, he would go and continue the fight and repeal the budget-wreck that should be the Affordable Care Act.

Well, after losing, he's quoted in our local paper today as saying he lost because of the government shutdown.

"There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of any of my campaign staff that the shutdown cost me the election," Lonegan said in a post-mortem interview today. "If I had known it was going to happen and that it was going to be handled so badly in Washington, I wouldn't have run for senate."

Ahhh...to love something so much and yet it ends up costing you an elected position - because your cohorts went "off message". As a NJ resident -- from me to you --

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:32 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
What do you mean by "represent them"? Are you only represented if your member of Congress votes the way you would? Does it have to be the way you would every time, or does a majority of the time count? Or 40% of the time? Or 25%?

OK, perhaps I didn't use the best terminology - of course your representative represents you even if you didn't vote for you and they run philosophically opposite to your views. But I for one would rather have the person I vote for in an election win office and represent me. I suspect most people would. And my plan maximizes thee number of people who are represented by the person they voted for.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:50 pm

How is a two party system democratic? In order to successfully run you almost have to belong to one of the parties. The people running are almost always going to be from one of the two parties. To me, this creates a system where choice is limited. Either the Democrat or the Republican. That's my choice? Yay me!

I will say that it also creates shades of gray if you are willing to go that far. Do I vote for the Republican knowing he will support a smaller government, not in the way I prefer, but it's a start. But then I have to live with his conservative social values. On the other hand I could vote for the Democrat knowing he will grow the government beyond what I see as responsible. But he will support social support that I believe is necessary for a functional nation (but also needs reform) and will support the liberal social values I support. But oops, he's going to vote to reduce rights under the second amendment, does that outweigh his support for gay marriage?

So I suppose there are some nuances to a two party system.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:52 pm

That's why it makes sense to pay attention to the candidates. There are plenty of candidates that will devote efforts to what they actually want and just give lip service without actively campaigning to others.

Mr Bubbles · Post by **Mr Bubbles** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:54 pm

I vote for a parliamentary system. I'm having fun the CDU and SPD in Germany fighting over their grand coalition platform. I think it keeps the parties more accountable.

NickAragua · Post by **NickAragua** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:33 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:Except that every voter would have only 1 vote, so the votes of a person in California would be *dramatically* devalued compared to voters in smaller states -- way more so than they are today. It would bleach the delegations out of many states, returning all white delegations. It would end regional diversity in representation, returning only candidates from the most populous, and richest, localities. It would make running for Congress completely out of reach in states like New York, Texas or California for candidates who could compete just fine in today's system due to the scale and cost of campaigning. His proposed system of "assigning" localities to representatives is also idiotic and unworkable (do you think a member of Congress who lives in San Francisco would have any understanding of the issues people in the High Desert? would she be required to travel constantly out there, effectively never going home?).

If you want a system that pretty much only elects rich, white, oligarchs from major urban areas, Nick's got a governing "system" for you.

If you give a half a fuck about democracy, you'd realize that Nick's idea is unworkable and undemocratic.

How is 1 vote per person not democratic? I mean, isn't that pretty much the definition of democracy? I realize that the existing system is intended to mitigate the "rich, white guy only" problem, but when some people get effectively more than one vote, that's not strictly democracy (although now we're just arguing semantics).

Now, as for unworkable, that's true. As Lawbeef pointed out, expecting people to be able to meaningfully choose from a list of a hundred people is unreasonable. Especially (following my own opinion) when they can barely choose from a list of two (and only because they have labels on them that denote "bad guy" or "good guy").

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:58 pm

Mr Bubbles wrote:I vote for a parliamentary system. I'm having fun the CDU and SPD in Germany fighting over their grand coalition platform. I think it keeps the parties more accountable.

I wouldn't mind a Parliamentary system either. Especially if it includes Question Time.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:05 pm

gbasden wrote:
Mr Bubbles wrote:I vote for a parliamentary system. I'm having fun the CDU and SPD in Germany fighting over their grand coalition platform. I think it keeps the parties more accountable.
I wouldn't mind a Parliamentary system either. Especially if it includes Question Time.

I agree, but only if the questioner has to sit on the president's lap. It could be like story time at the library!

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:24 pm

Perhaps not so safe after all? The people blame the Republicans in Congress.

Three-fourths of people questioned in the survey said that most congressional Republicans don't deserved to be re-elected, 21 percentage points higher than the 54% who say most Democrats don't deserve another term in office. Only one in five say most Republicans deserve to be re-elected; 42% say the same thing about Democrats on Capitol Hill.

A generic Democrat out-polls a generic Republican by 8-9 points. Now let's see if that anger percolates down to the Republican districts.

Apollo · Post by **Apollo** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:38 pm

People may blame the GOP now but by the time of the next election this will all be ancient history. In politics, one year is an eternity and I'm sure the GOP will have "Outraged!!" it's followers about something to get them to the polls.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:55 pm

Fitzy wrote:How is a two party system democratic? In order to successfully run you almost have to belong to one of the parties. The people running are almost always going to be from one of the two parties. To me, this creates a system where choice is limited. Either the Democrat or the Republican. That's my choice? Yay me!

The number of political parties has nothing to do with whether the electoral system or government is democratic.

There are democracies with two parties (the United States, Australia effectively, France by and large), with two major and one major minor party (Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom), or multiple parties (Italy, Japan). The United States is a two-party system because we have a very strong President, and that President is elected in a first-past-the-post fashion. Because of that, our parties are larger, more tenuous, and less philosophically cohesive than are parties in Parliamentary countries.

Unless we dramatically reduce the power of the Presidency, America's political structure will always find equilibrium in a two-party system. If you want more parties, you'd need for us to have an entirely different form of government.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:58 pm

Mr Bubbles wrote:I vote for a parliamentary system. I'm having fun the CDU and SPD in Germany fighting over their grand coalition platform. I think it keeps the parties more accountable.

Parliamentary systems are very preferable to Presidential systems. I would switch the United States government to a Parliamentary system in an instant, if I had that power. Might even just jump into the Commonwealth and have the Queen appoint a Governor General to eliminate any trace of an elected executive altogether. In diverse, multicultural nations, Parliamentary systems provide a degree of flexibility that is entirely lacking in a Presidential system.

As I mentioned before, I consider the German political system to be the best designed electoral system currently in use.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:07 am

NickAragua wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:Except that every voter would have only 1 vote, so the votes of a person in California would be *dramatically* devalued compared to voters in smaller states -- way more so than they are today. It would bleach the delegations out of many states, returning all white delegations. It would end regional diversity in representation, returning only candidates from the most populous, and richest, localities. It would make running for Congress completely out of reach in states like New York, Texas or California for candidates who could compete just fine in today's system due to the scale and cost of campaigning. His proposed system of "assigning" localities to representatives is also idiotic and unworkable (do you think a member of Congress who lives in San Francisco would have any understanding of the issues people in the High Desert? would she be required to travel constantly out there, effectively never going home?).

If you want a system that pretty much only elects rich, white, oligarchs from major urban areas, Nick's got a governing "system" for you.

If you give a half a fuck about democracy, you'd realize that Nick's idea is unworkable and undemocratic.
How is 1 vote per person not democratic? I mean, isn't that pretty much the definition of democracy?

To be a democracy, there's more than just giving everyone a single vote. You also have to take measure of the conditions those different votes are cast in. Under the system you have laid out, the vote of a voter in Maine would be far more efficacious than the vote of a voter in California because of the vast disparities created by your "elect everything statewide" concept.

There's a reason why the people who take great care and put great thought into organizing governing systems that provide equitable access to representation, general equality in the efficacy of each voter's vote, and the key precepts of consolidated representation democracy never design anything remotely like what you're proposing.

America's governing system has flaws, because there weren't many models to look at when setting our system up, and there were no experts in designing democratic institutions available at the time, but with its first-past-the-post, Electoral College, fixed-term, Presidential system flaws, it is dramatically better than what you are proposing. More modern governing systems, like those in Japan or Germany, are far better still.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:44 am

Fireball1244 wrote:
Fitzy wrote:How is a two party system democratic? In order to successfully run you almost have to belong to one of the parties. The people running are almost always going to be from one of the two parties. To me, this creates a system where choice is limited. Either the Democrat or the Republican. That's my choice? Yay me!
The number of political parties has nothing to do with whether the electoral system or government is democratic.

There are democracies with two parties (the United States, Australia effectively, France by and large), with two major and one major minor party (Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom), or multiple parties (Italy, Japan). The United States is a two-party system because we have a very strong President, and that President is elected in a first-past-the-post fashion. Because of that, our parties are larger, more tenuous, and less philosophically cohesive than are parties in Parliamentary countries.

Unless we dramatically reduce the power of the Presidency, America's political structure will always find equilibrium in a two-party system. If you want more parties, you'd need for us to have an entirely different form of government.

Is the executive really so decisive in terms of a two party system? Isn't Australia a parliamentary system, and if so why do they have a two party system?

I am sympathetic towards a parliamentary system, though (while I'm no expert) it has downsides, as you can go through periods of relative instability where parties struggle to maintain a majority and the prime minister tends not to last for long (Italy is a prime example of this).

Similarly you can wind up with a small minority that can wield outsized influence - say you have a parliament of 100 seats, and Right Wing Party A has 48 seats, Left Wing Party B has 44 seats, Radical Right Party C has 3 seats, and five far left parties have 1 seat apiece. Right Wing Party A has a plurality on its own but not a majority. Ideologically it won't partner with the other major party or the small left wing parties. It can form a majority with Radical Right Party C, with which it shares limited common ground but also significant differences. Given that Radical Right Party C is Party A's only real option to actually have a majority, Radical Right Party C has *enormous* leverage to extract concessions in the new government, notwithstanding only having received 3% of the vote. Israel has periodically had this issue (often Likud and the small religious right parties).

Not that these issues are prohibitive, but just to say that there are flaws.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:52 am

El Guapo wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Fitzy wrote:How is a two party system democratic? In order to successfully run you almost have to belong to one of the parties. The people running are almost always going to be from one of the two parties. To me, this creates a system where choice is limited. Either the Democrat or the Republican. That's my choice? Yay me!
The number of political parties has nothing to do with whether the electoral system or government is democratic.

There are democracies with two parties (the United States, Australia effectively, France by and large), with two major and one major minor party (Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom), or multiple parties (Italy, Japan). The United States is a two-party system because we have a very strong President, and that President is elected in a first-past-the-post fashion. Because of that, our parties are larger, more tenuous, and less philosophically cohesive than are parties in Parliamentary countries.

Unless we dramatically reduce the power of the Presidency, America's political structure will always find equilibrium in a two-party system. If you want more parties, you'd need for us to have an entirely different form of government.
Is the executive really so decisive in terms of a two party system? Isn't Australia a parliamentary system, and if so why do they have a two party system?

The source problem is first-past-the-post elections, but that problem is hugely magnified in a Presidential system because you have a FPTO election for a single official who is as powerful, or more powerful, than the entire combined legislature. Australia is *effectively* two party because the four or five right leaning parties from an electoral coalition in advance of the election, creating an effective two party system vs the Labour Party.

I am sympathetic towards a parliamentary system, though (while I'm no expert) it has downsides, as you can go through periods of relative instability where parties struggle to maintain a majority and the prime minister tends not to last for long (Italy is a prime example of this).

Similarly you can wind up with a small minority that can wield outsized influence - say you have a parliament of 100 seats, and Right Wing Party A has 48 seats, Left Wing Party B has 44 seats, Radical Right Party C has 3 seats, and five far left parties have 1 seat apiece. Right Wing Party A has a plurality on its own but not a majority. Ideologically it won't partner with the other major party or the small left wing parties. It can form a majority with Radical Right Party C, with which it shares limited common ground but also significant differences. Given that Radical Right Party C is Party A's only real option to actually have a majority, Radical Right Party C has *enormous* leverage to extract concessions in the new government, notwithstanding only having received 3% of the vote. Israel has periodically had this issue (often Likud and the small religious right parties).

Not that these issues are prohibitive, but just to say that there are flaws.

Sure, but they can be ameliorated in various ways, such as by having a second ballot for party list seats, as Germany has done. No system is perfect, but I believe Parliamentary systems are less imperfect than Presidential ones. Or you can be French and try to have both!

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:19 am

Apollo wrote:People may blame the GOP now but by the time of the next election this will all be ancient history. In politics, one year is an eternity and I'm sure the GOP will have "Outraged!!" it's followers about something to get them to the polls.

That may be, but they do keep rescheduling these crises every few months. There'll be more reminders over the next 13 months.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:24 am

Just make the whole country the government and let everyone vote for everything. Popular vote wins.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:11 am

Daehawk wrote:Just make the whole country the government and let everyone vote for everything. Popular vote wins.

That doesn't sound very practical.

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:32 am

Apollo wrote:People may blame the GOP now but by the time of the next election this will all be ancient history. In politics, one year is an eternity and I'm sure the GOP will have "Outraged!!" it's followers about something to get them to the polls.

I agree with this, but if the right flank of the GOP pulls these shenanigans every time a CR comes up like they are talking about doing in January already then 2014 midterms might kick the GOP in the teeth.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:26 am

Alefroth wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Just make the whole country the government and let everyone vote for everything. Popular vote wins.
That doesn't sound very practical.

Nor does it sound very representative. As a person who grew up in a small state (Hawaii) I appreciate the voice that is given to my home state via the 100-member Senate system and the Electoral College. Now that I live in Virginia and find myself no longer in the majority (which was a big shock coming from Hawaii, let me tell you), I appreciate that my representatives have to at least pay attention to issues that minorities like myself face.

It is amazing to me that we have this kind of representative system of government which lets small states and minority groups have some measure of influence, particularly when you think about the fact that the Founding Fathers really didn't have much in the way of previous examples to go on, and decided to try to build this stuff into the system - even though at the time everyone was pretty much homogeneous - at least in race, if not creed.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:44 am

Apollo wrote:People may blame the GOP now but by the time of the next election this will all be ancient history. In politics, one year is an eternity and I'm sure the GOP will have "Outraged!!" it's followers about something to get them to the polls.

Losing allegiances takes time but it does occur and I think the democrats managed to lose a lot of their blind allies in the 70s (and have been gaining them back ever since) and the republicans have losing blind support over the last 14 years or so. Short term memories become ingrained memories with continual reinforcement.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:33 am

Fireball1244 wrote:
How many people really, truly understand what "taxes on the rich should be higher" (for example) actually entails? The only ones that can make that claim probably have PhDs in economics, and dedicate their careers to studying said subjects.
Nonsense.

Not nitpicking, but I think it's important considering lawbeef's comment, I tend to agree with Nick. We can't even agree what "rich" is here, let alone in the broader sense. There's also vast disagreement over whether it should be an income/wealth/property/sales tax.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:52 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
How many people really, truly understand what "taxes on the rich should be higher" (for example) actually entails? The only ones that can make that claim probably have PhDs in economics, and dedicate their careers to studying said subjects.
Nonsense.
Not nitpicking, but I think it's important considering lawbeef's comment, I tend to agree with Nick. We can't even agree what "rich" is here, let alone in the broader sense. There's also vast disagreement over whether it should be an income/wealth/property/sales tax.

People understand what the two parties mean when they discuss taxes. They understand that the Democrats want higher taxes on people with higher incomes, and Republicans want income tax rates to go down. They know that Democrats say that this is important to fund programs essential to the middle class, and that Republicans say that this punishes success and kills jobs. From there, they can judge the competing claims of the two parties against their own life experiences (were they politically aware during the Clinton and Bush presidencies, for example), or their own sense of fairness. That's really all they need to know to make an informed vote.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:58 am

Fireball1244 wrote: People understand what the two parties mean when they discuss taxes. They understand that the Democrats want higher taxes on people with higher incomes, and Republicans want income tax rates to go down. They know that Democrats say that this is important to fund programs essential to the middle class, and that Republicans say that this punishes success and kills jobs. From there, they can judge the competing claims of the two parties against their own life experiences (were they politically aware during the Clinton and Bush presidencies, for example), or their own sense of fairness. That's really all they need to know to make an informed vote.

And that's why it's a problem. It's a terrible way to vote and a below average way to govern. It drives everyone to extremes instead of finding compromise and nuance.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:59 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
How many people really, truly understand what "taxes on the rich should be higher" (for example) actually entails? The only ones that can make that claim probably have PhDs in economics, and dedicate their careers to studying said subjects.
Nonsense.
Not nitpicking, but I think it's important considering lawbeef's comment, I tend to agree with Nick. We can't even agree what "rich" is here, let alone in the broader sense. There's also vast disagreement over whether it should be an income/wealth/property/sales tax.

One could start by examining tax rates in years prior to the ballooning of the deficit, or look at historical trending data and identify points in time where the disparity between the upper 10% and lower 90% of median incomes started diverging by more than 20%. Then examine the tax rates in that window and find the tax rate before the divergence. Use that.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:02 am

So FB, you don't believe people vote based on the metric shit ton of intentional misinformation out there, spewed by the left and right extremes?

When you have X% of the population believing that Obama is a secret Muslim, and that percentage is even close to 50%, then you have an uneducated, or easily influenced (by FOX/MSNBC types) voting population (or a broken poll). Those voters don't care about facts. They are fed a steady diet of anti-THEM when they tune into their partisan channel on TV, radio, website etc.

I wonder if you are underestimating the effect of the left and right echo chambers, where each side only seeks out and listens to their appropriate side's biased "news" about such things?

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:22 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote: People understand what the two parties mean when they discuss taxes. They understand that the Democrats want higher taxes on people with higher incomes, and Republicans want income tax rates to go down. They know that Democrats say that this is important to fund programs essential to the middle class, and that Republicans say that this punishes success and kills jobs. From there, they can judge the competing claims of the two parties against their own life experiences (were they politically aware during the Clinton and Bush presidencies, for example), or their own sense of fairness. That's really all they need to know to make an informed vote.
And that's why it's a problem. It's a terrible way to vote and a below average way to govern. It drives everyone to extremes instead of finding compromise and nuance.

No, it doesn't. Those two positions were the same positions back in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, etc, when compromising was much more common than it is today. It is flaws in our electoral process, made worse by gerrymandering and, on the Republican side, the embrace of the sort of John Birch lunatics who in previous decades were shunned as being the far right fringe that they are, that have kept us logjammed these last few years.

Except for the influx of many younger voters in the 1970s, people who vote today are about as politically informed as those who were voting in the 1980s. In fact, in many ways people are more informed.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:33 am

Carpet_pissr wrote:So FB, you don't believe people vote based on the metric shit ton of intentional misinformation out there, spewed by the left and right extremes?

Most people vote their electoral party identification (which may not match their party registration, for historical reasons). The prevailing trend that voting for the candidates of the same party three elections in a row locks your political preferences in for life (or until a major life changing event intervenes) has continued unbroken for as long as political scientists have studied voting patterns (since the beginning of the present party system).

When you have X% of the population believing that Obama is a secret Muslim, and that percentage is even close to 50%, then you have an uneducated, or easily influenced (by FOX/MSNBC types) voting population (or a broken poll).

The percentage believing that has never approached 50%, and none of the people who believe that were ever going to vote for him. And almost none of them voted for Kerry or Gore, either.

I wonder if you are underestimating the effect of the left and right echo chambers, where each side only seeks out and listens to their appropriate side's biased "news" about such things?

While the "echo chambers" are more pronounced now than they were before the advent of Fox News and the leftward shift of MSNBC, in truth the ingestion of biased information in recent years pales in comparison to the way people got their political information and news in the 1800s. Republicans getting their information from Republican sources, and Democrats from Democratic sources, has been the standard arrangement throughout our national history. Even in the hey day of "unbiased" journalism between the 1950s and early 1990s there was aggressive right wing talk radio, and most towns had multiple newspapers, including ones that always endorsed Democrats and ones that always endorsed Republicans.

SpaceLord · Post by **SpaceLord** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:14 pm

raydude wrote: It is amazing to me that we have this kind of representative system of government which lets small states and minority groups have some measure of influence, particularly when you think about the fact that the Founding Fathers really didn't have much in the way of previous examples to go on, and decided to try to build this stuff into the system - even though at the time everyone was pretty much homogeneous - at least in race, if not creed.

Roger Sherman for the fucking win.

The U.S. Constitution blows my mind sometimes.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:27 pm

John Stewart quoted some poll last night that showed that 12% of respondents believed that after the shutdown Obamacare had been defeated. If that was a real poll there is at least 12% who have no fucking idea what is going on. You have to hope they don't vote.

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:31 pm

Scuzz wrote:John Stewart quoted some poll last night that showed that 12% of respondents believed that after the shutdown Obamacare had been defeated. If that was a real poll there is at least 12% who have no fucking idea what is going on. You have to hope they don't vote.

I forget if it was linked in this thread, but there was also a Jimmy Kimmel video clip a few weeks ago where he interviewed people on the street about whether they preferred the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. The best part wasn't just that people thought one or the other was better, but that they came up with explanations of why they preferred the one they did. "I definitely prefer the Affordable Care Act, I mean, it's right there in the name."

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Don't these polls show that while people hate congress, and blame the repubs for the shutdown and think they shouldn't control the house, they still think that their rep is doing a good job and should be re-elected?

If that's the case then nothing will change.