Ranchers and farmers would still be a powerful constituency. Right now they are an OVERPOWERED constituency. They have way, way more political clout than the average person and have obscene amounts of money funneled their way. And the sad thing is, by and large they are co-opted by massive ag conglomerates that suck up the money that purports to be spent on those small time farmers. Also, there are fewer small holding farmers than at any point in history. There simply aren't that many farmers any more. Why on earth would you structure a national election in a country with hundreds of millions of people and incredibly diverse interests on a few thousand people in a single industry?
And why on earth do power plant workers count as any sort of useful voting bloc? It's one job in a country that has thousands of different kinds. At any given time, someone's job is going to be under fire. Why would you structure your elections to artificially empower some over others? That's ridiculous.
Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: By the way, Kate, to answer your question: The minorities I'm talking to Tom about. Ranchers and farmers and power plant workers and so on. I know "minority" is often code for "racial minority" but I really just meant any small group bound by common interests.
Are we now defining "minority" to mean person who holds any particular type of job? Do we count, say, librarians as a minority? Trombone players?
If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that strict sense, any discrete group occupying a cohort of less than 50% is a minority. It's very broad. Too broad to be very meaningful.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
If you're talking about small holder farmers, they already have very, very little influence. Most of the influence comes from large corporations like Con Agra and Monsanto. Whatever benefits make it down to farmers are trickle down, not because they have major pull. Even in traditional farm states like here in Nebraska, you don't see candidates when they visit (if they visit) heading out to Grand Island and Alliance. They don't even come to Lincoln. They stop in Omaha and get the hell out as fast as possible. Not a lot of farmers in Omaha. But there ARE a lot of people.
Politicians aren't blind to food safety issues, which is why there will always be a number of safety measures in place to ensure that farmers don't go out of business and the corn keeps flowing, but if you think the power differential under popular voting vs. the electoral college is really that big, you'll have to explain why, because I just don't see it.
The people you empower by the popular vote are currently underpowered. The system is skewed to make some people vastly more powerful than others. It does not level the playing field. It dramatically tilts the playing field. Right now everyone is not equal. We decided decades ago that some people shouldn't count as 3/5th of a person, and yet we have states where votes are actually worth LESS than 3/5ths of other people's votes. The system is completely messed up.
Mob rule is democracy. At the end of the day, the majority of the people get to pick who the president is. We're not talking about turning every decision in the nation over to a plebiscite every time we want to decide on something, that WOULD be mob rule. But for the presidency? Once every four years every person in this country, constitutionally speaking, is going to get one vote that means just as much as another person's vote. That's fair.
And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting. Under our current system, neither the popular vote nor the electoral college will likely make much if a difference when it comes to nationally elected third party candidates. Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
quote:If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Why on earth is Jim the local power plant employee going to have increased power to make national energy policy? That's a terrible idea! If we decided to let coal miners set policy, of COURSE they would preference coal mining to everything else. They simply want their jobs. It's the job of government officials to look beyond those concerns and choose a policy that benefits the nation as a whole, and sometimes that means some people lose their jobs for everyone's sake. Frankly, that's how the free market supposedly works as well. That also supposes they all think as one, and I'd be willing to bet a solar power plant worker and a coal fired plant worker aren't on the same team there.
I'm also willing to bet a farmer doesn't have much more than his bottom line at stake in his decisions. At the end of the day he wants as much money as possible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I know farmers get obscene amounts of clout right now, that's a good point.
But I'm not sure that establishing a system where they have zero influence is a real improvement.
I mean, the crux of my issue is, Lyr, that by switching to a pure popular vote you absolutely will still be empowering some over others. The "some" just changes.
Broadly speaking, mob rule is terrible. And the popular vote seems like a step closer to mob rule. What am I missing?
(It also empowers 3rd parties, which is another example of a small group exercising disproportionate power. Which is just as bad as previously discussed. I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.)
If you're talking about small holder farmers, they already have very, very little influence. Most of the influence comes from large corporations like Con Agra and Monsanto. Whatever benefits make it down to farmers are trickle down, not because they have major pull. Even in traditional farm states like here in Nebraska, you don't see candidates when they visit (if they visit) heading out to Grand Island and Alliance. They don't even come to Lincoln. They stop in Omaha and get the hell out as fast as possible. Not a lot of farmers in Omaha. But there ARE a lot of people.
Politicians aren't blind to food safety issues, which is why there will always be a number of safety measures in place to ensure that farmers don't go out of business and the corn keeps flowing, but if you think the power differential under popular voting vs. the electoral college is really that big, you'll have to explain why, because I just don't see it.
The people you empower by the popular vote are currently underpowered. The system is skewed to make some people vastly more powerful than others. It does not level the playing field. It dramatically tilts the playing field. Right now everyone is not equal. We decided decades ago that some people shouldn't count as 3/5th of a person, and yet we have states where votes are actually worth LESS than 3/5ths of other people's votes. The system is completely messed up.
Mob rule is democracy. At the end of the day, the majority of the people get to pick who the president is. We're not talking about turning every decision in the nation over to a plebiscite every time we want to decide on something, that WOULD be mob rule. But for the presidency? Once every four years every person in this country, constitutionally speaking, is going to get one vote that means just as much as another person's vote. That's fair.
And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting. Under our current system, neither the popular vote nor the electoral college will likely make much if a difference when it comes to nationally elected third party candidates. Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
quote:If their job is a lifestyle that dictates a large contingent of common interests, yeah, totally.
Why on earth is Jim the local power plant employee going to have increased power to make national energy policy? That's a terrible idea! If we decided to let coal miners set policy, of COURSE they would preference coal mining to everything else. They simply want their jobs. It's the job of government officials to look beyond those concerns and choose a policy that benefits the nation as a whole, and sometimes that means some people lose their jobs for everyone's sake. Frankly, that's how the free market supposedly works as well. That also supposes they all think as one, and I'd be willing to bet a solar power plant worker and a coal fired plant worker aren't on the same team there.
I'm also willing to bet a farmer doesn't have much more than his bottom line at stake in his decisions. At the end of the day he wants as much money as possible.
Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Though I agree that the power plant workers example wasn't terribly well thought out; I'm not attached to it. It was just the first rural job that occurred to me after the obvious "farmer."
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Perhaps, but the outcome is no different. If coal miners lose their jobs because mountain top removal is more economical, then what does that mean for democracy? If coal-fired plants shut down because natural gas is cheaper now, what does that mean?
Why do these things matter to democracy at all? Should they get more votes?
Should teamsters in the 19th century have gotten more votes to stop the spread of trucks?
Also, I said all that and that's your only comment? Disappointing. You got me all fired up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not going to wade into the electoral college discussion, other than to note that according to Nate Silver's model this year the Republican is more likely to win the popular vote while losing the electoral college. So while it's generally true, I think, that the electoral college is of marginal benefit to Republicans, it's not universally the case.
Continuing with my poll fixation: Romney hit 50% in a poll for the first time today. Today's Gallup poll has him up 50/46, as does a poll out today from Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP. Rasumussen has him up 2 (49/47), ARG has him up 1 (48/47), IBD/TIPP has him down one (46/47) and Ipsos/Reuters has him down three (43/46). It's interesting that Obama's number doesn't fluctuate between the polls nearly as much as Romney's does, suggesting perhaps that Romney's support is softer but also that he has a little more head room. Or maybe it suggests nothing; one should always be cautious about over-generalizing from just a handful of polls.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It's so jarring to me to see people talking so cavalierly about ending the Electoral College as if that were a great thing.
It's worth noting that the Electoral College isn't the sole representative of first-past-the-post systems (as opposed to proportional). It's just an incredibly awful version of it.
Aggregating votes on the state level is just horrible, but I'm actually pretty happy with our aggregation on the riding/congressional district level.
Gerrymandering is easily solvable, we simply don't really have that as a real problem.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And NOTHING empowers third parties short of ranked voting ... Only proportional representation or ranked voting will ever get them a seat at the table. And I'm in favor of both.
Not quite true as well, Canada has five parties with a seat in the Parliament without proportional representation or ranked voting.
Most of our provinces have three or more parties as well with similar systems to the federal one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
We've had two party rule since the day the Constitution was signed, and there's rarely been any indication that the system was in danger. In recent years, it's only gotten stronger.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
I think you overestimate the ease with which such changes are made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Better than Lehrer? Sure. Better than Raddatz? Not even close.
I love that she fact checked Romney, live, and shut him down. It was incredibly effective. He didn't push back at all. But other than that she's been walked all over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QB] - china's brutal occupation of tibet: a.o.k. - china's warmongering towards taiwan: a.o.k. - america's electoral college process: GET ALL UP IN DAT BIDNESS
This here "Internationalist" stance sure seems useless
Ignoring of course the fact that as Canada's largest trading partner, your economy sucking because of your terrible anachronistic political system means negative results for Canada via economic contagion; but you go ahead there with random meaningless tangents that you won't meaningfully debate either way.
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
IP: Logged |
posted
The moderator was supposed to basically do nothing substantial so being anything other than being a carpet is violating the rules te candidates agreed upon. The rules for the debates are insane and make it hard to get anything really good from them.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting debate. Obama righted the ship, but Romney was pretty solid as well.
I'd say Obama comes out much better int he next news cycle, and then I think, if he chooses to, he can be very aggressive on the foreign policy debate.
The polls will be really interesting in the next few days.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A meaningful debate with you on those topics is simply not possible. Perhaps you permit it to be elsewhere, but not here. Not just from the usual cluster of people you feel entitled to delve into tantrum here with, either. But they're hardly irrelevant-you brought up invasions. Not Samprimary or I. Anyway, 'sucking'? Yeah. *snort*
Loved the fact check part too. I'll say there is one policy Romney has stuck to: he *is not* going to give meaningful details about his tax policy, and conservatives and others who look askance at big government and don't trust government will I suppose continue to find a way that doesn't render that bul*^#%t in the usual style of politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Re: your comparison to the free market... people don't lose their jobs "for everyone's sake," they lose their jobs because of the individual context and circumstances involved. That's an important distinction, I think.
Perhaps, but the outcome is no different. If coal miners lose their jobs because mountain top removal is more economical, then what does that mean for democracy? If coal-fired plants shut down because natural gas is cheaper now, what does that mean?
Why do these things matter to democracy at all? Should they get more votes?
Should teamsters in the 19th century have gotten more votes to stop the spread of trucks?
Also, I said all that and that's your only comment? Disappointing. You got me all fired up.
Sorry to disappoint, man! It's just that I think you've been misunderstanding me a lot, which is fair, because I've mostly been asking questions and making oblique comments, not making any big assertions.
I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever. But, that's me, and I think I'm a minority on that front. 90% of the arguments both Romney and Obama make are fundamentally flawed and taking the wrong approach, from my view.
So, to a certain extent, some of my comments here were from a devil's advocate position.
But I am genuinely leery of destroying old traditions without a very good reason, and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
The fact that California is big and mostly Democratic doesn't seem like a huge tragedy to me. That can change (hell, it has changed recent memory, even). It's a reinforcing phenomena, where more leftists are drawn here because of the atmosphere, so it gets more leftist.
The fact that the candidates don't campaign here isn't actually a tragedy to me. They'd campaign here if the people of this state gave them a reason to.
So, anyway. Sorry to get you worked up for a shadow boxing match! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: . . . he *is not* going to give meaningful details about his tax policy, and conservatives and others who look askance at big government and don't trust government will I suppose continue to find a way that doesn't render that bul*^#%t in the usual style of politics.
Well, what other choice do they have?
I mean, if one guy is offering you something you know you hate, and the other guy says he can give you something you want but refuses to say how... what do you choose? At least the second guy says he'll do it. Somehow.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: A meaningful debate with you on those topics is simply not possible.
*Shrug* Don't debate me then, no one is forcing you, but don't make claims that aren't true or at best gross exaggerations.
quote: Perhaps you permit it to be elsewhere, but not here.
I do not "permit" anything, I do not suddenly say "no" to discussion. I cannot control when people decide resorting to personal attacks is preferable to engaging the facts.
quote: Not just from the usual cluster of people you feel entitled to delve into tantrum here with, either.
No idea what your talking about, I do not feel entitled to anything other than what every poster is entitled to.
quote: But they're hardly irrelevant-you brought up invasions. Not Samprimary or I.
We're discussing the United States, is your argument it is okay if China does it? Is the United States not to be held to a higher standard? Is the United States not a member of the UNSC? Is not the United States of America not a founding member of the United Nations and a signatory of the United Nations Charter, and thus legally bound to Article 2 subsection (1),(2) and (3)? China's actions and in actions are not relevant here.
quote:Anyway, 'sucking'? Yeah. *snort*
2.1% GDP growth is stagnation, that and there's good evidence to suggest the number actually lower, in the negatives when you account for real inflation.
Then again, it was a snarky response to a snarky comment in good fun, but I guess coming from me its just screams "CONTROVERSY MAGNET" and jokes about people's country aren't funny when it's your country?
To forestall the inevitable "Bullshit you were completely serious!" Allow me to quote the exchange:
Orincoro: Us, eh? Blayne: I'm an internationalist. [Note, in context I meant "The Socialist International.", and largely a statement of how the cause of progress and egalitarianism is universal and without borders. See my above comment about how a "sluggish" since you object to the word "suck" through the well documented economic phenomenon of "contagion" is a real thing, economy can and will bring down the economies around the sluggish one. Otherwise why would the US be worried about the collapse of the European Union and why ASEAN is worried about the United States, since in 1997 the Asian economies had a huge crisis.
Blackblade, aka The Other BB: "Oh cool, so you're all up in everybody's business?"
Which I took it to be snarky riffing to which I responded in kind.
Blayne: "Canada invented getting up in everybody's business, after all we invaded two countries! Wait..."
Perhaps I needed to add "Oh snap!"? I feel BB got the joke;
The Other BB: "You managed to invade us twice while belonging to two different empires. You invaded us when you belonged to France during the Seven Years War, then you invaded us when you belonged to Great Britain in 1812.
It's no wonder where we got the inclination from."
To which Rakeesh responded to indignation.
Rakeesh: "Blayne is *totally right*, we invented getting into other people's business, because we invaded two countries.
Of course when we do it, it's 'getting into other people's business'. When certain...other countries do it, well of course it's something else entirely. But I suppose with a label as meaningless as 'internationalist', inconvenient consistency would be easily avoided."
And then came Samprimary who just can't resist his role as Forum Crusader!!! with his what would be on any other forum qualify as ~~a vendetta~~ to bring up what are in all seriousness, red herrings.nyoron~~
If you can't stand the heat get out of the fireplace.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
America can probably ignore the WTO ruling, then pull out of the WTO, pass whatever tariff's it wants and then other nations follow suit in a domino effect of protectionism ala pre-WWII during the Great Depression. Is the above automatically going to happen or likely? Probably not, but protectionism coming from the United States, as well as economic inclinations to say "screw the rest of the world, USA first". Despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the WTO could lead to disastrous consequences for world trade if another round of economic protectionism and neomercantalistic policies take hold.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not like Americans are genetically pre-disposed to favour a two-party system. Your system favours two parties, change the system, the incentives change, and the result changes. I think you underestimate the effect that even small changes can have.
i.e. "NOTHING" is a very high bar to reach
I think you overestimate the ease with which such changes are made.
Eh? People are talking about going whole-hog proportional representation. The changes that I'm talking about while difficult, are bound to be easier than that.
Besides, I was under the impression Americans were an ambitious "can-do" people, where's all this defeatist talk coming from?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
@Dan Frank; I do and have seriously considered the Electoral College and while I feel that Orincoro has the right of it, if you feel you really wish to hear my reasoning here goes:
I feel that the Electoral College and by extension First Past the Post voting to be inherently undemocratic; and serves as a modern day anachronism that only exists because back in the day the 'States' were actually sovereign entities, for instance during the Civil War Kentucky declared itself neutral(!) if I recall.
Nowadays though secession is laughable, the very idea of the states exercising anywhere near the same level of sovereignty against or in opposition of national will is a fantasy. The very idea that someone from the most populace state such as California could automatically elect the President by virtue of its population such as Virginia back in the day is just as ludicrous.
The Electoral College has served its purpose and has run its course and needs to be dismantled; the basic principle of democracy is One Man-err Person, One Vote. The Electoral College ignores the votes of millions of people, because they are from states that are so Red or so Blue as Stewart says, that courting them is unnecessary and can safely be ignored.
Secondly First by the Post is inherently undemocratic because mathematically it will always lead to a two-party system where a vote for a third party is automatically a vote against the other party whose platform is mostly similar to yours and would represent your interests better than the other primary party.
It ignores smaller parties with otherwise attractive platforms but lacking in the money to compete and prevents alternate political platforms from getting traction in the national assemblies; Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Ideally you want Mixed-Member Proportional and political parties recognized as A Thing(tm) and be inbuilt into the Constitution and then do away with the Electoral College entirely.
Then truly every person will have a vote and every vote will be meaningful as a Republican in New York will finally have as much say as a Democrat in Missouri.
The only counter argument I hear is comes from either the more American specific (States Rights) and European specific (Extremist Parties holding the Balance of Power). I consider the former irrelevant in this day and age when megacorporations are gaining in power as we transform into probably an Orwellian "Jennifer Government" dystopia where boundaries in general cease to matter and the latter I consider fitting punishment for people who are silly or stupid enough to not vote.
Will people in California have more say then Iowa because of more people is more votes then less people with less votes? I don't think so, that would be to say that Californians are so inherently different in their interests that Californian interests could potentially harm Iowian interests which I feel is silly.
Not that there aren't issue where this could potentially be the case, such as Arizona wanting water from the Great Lakes; but any sane central government able to rise above the petty squabbles of its constituent states and elected proportionally instead of by geographically specific ridings should be less swayed by geographical paraochial concerns; and "pork" federal funding should decrease as constituents nolonger represent "areas."
Alternatively you could use the Shortest split line method with its algorithm available online and open sourced to be publicly critiqued and improved to still maintain geographical ridings. But the results will likely statistically vary extreme enough with lopsided elections that you might away just opt for MMP representation.
Thus you also eliminate gerrymandering which is a huge voter suppression issue in the United States.
IP: Logged |
edit: Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set.
That is much more likely what would happen. Prices on cheap goods we all want would go up, squeezing pocket books further, and China would probably appeal to the WTO and win.
America can probably ignore the WTO ruling, then pull out of the WTO, pass whatever tariff's it wants and then other nations follow suit in a domino effect of protectionism ala pre-WWII during the Great Depression. Is the above automatically going to happen or likely? Probably not, but protectionism coming from the United States, as well as economic inclinations to say "screw the rest of the world, USA first". Despite the fact that the United States is the primary beneficiary of the Bretton-Woods agreement and the WTO could lead to disastrous consequences for world trade if another round of economic protectionism and neomercantalistic policies take hold.
The US wouldn't ignore the WTO ruling, and it's in no position to cold-shoulder China, they are our largest trading partner, and nobody is prepared to fill the rift were China and the US to just cut trade ties.
It would never even reach war, because Americans would freak out as the prices of everything in Walmart and the Apple Store rises. Just about everybody falls between those two industries. Further we couldn't even get mad at the Chinese because they would be just as angry we aren't buying their stuff and suddenly their economy would collapse too. Both countries would enter a depression.
Maybe after the depression the flames of resentment could be fanned, but neither side wants that and are far too pragmatic to do so. Romney is making noise about China because it gives him an easy target to beat up on. Nobody in China takes it seriously, they do it too, but to us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing
How could giving me a choice other than a center-right party and an extremely right party be a bad thing?! Seriously!
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Erm. When I look at the history of Parliament and the handy colour-coded column on the left-hand side of this handy wiki article, the *last* thing I see is a rapid convergence to two parties.
If anything, Canada's parliament has become more diverse than in the beginning where there often were just two parties.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't watch the whole debate, but my favorite part was when Romney promised to create 12 million new jobs and later rebutted something Obama said with "Government doesn't create jobs!"
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Edit to add: Not that I want to wade into the larger point, I'm just sayin'. Credit where credit is due.
On a related note, but not addressing that issue specifically. This is of interest:
quote:China is poised to lose its place as the U.S.’s biggest creditor for the first time since the height of the financial crisis, blunting one of Mitt Romney’s favored attacks in the presidential campaign. Chinese holdings of Treasuries rose 0.1 percent this year through August to $1.15 trillion, Treasury Department data on international capital flows released today show. Japan, a stronger ally of the U.S., raised its stake by 6 percent to $1.12 trillion, on pace to top the list of foreign creditors by January.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Canada is seeing a similar position as to where its rapidly coming down to a Conservative vs New Democratic Party choice with the Liberals dying into third party minority status as strategic voting is a real thing and and will largely insure that the system eventually averages out to just two parties.
Erm. When I look at the history of Parliament and the handy colour-coded column on the left-hand side of this handy wiki article, the *last* thing I see is a rapid convergence to two parties.
If anything, Canada's parliament has become more diverse than in the beginning where there often were just two parties.
I didn't say rapid, I said eventual/inevitable. I believe here is a comprehensive video on the subject. That there are electoral 'events' that made Canada's system non two party for significant lengths of time has alot to do with our history and culture, but I feel that this may no longer be sufficient to prevent a 2 party system from arrising, the Bloc has collapsed, and the Liberals were badly mauled and the NDP by shifting slightly to the middle and with the Conservatives a "umbrella" party of various economically or socially right wing parties. Thus spoiler vote is definitely a thing and results in anyone seeking to not let the CPC win must find the party must likely to win and strategically vote for them to win. This is liberals in some ridings but may increasingly be the NDP.
quote: The US wouldn't ignore the WTO ruling, and it's in no position to cold-shoulder China, they are our largest trading partner, and nobody is prepared to fill the rift were China and the US to just cut trade ties.
It would never even reach war, because Americans would freak out as the prices of everything in Walmart and the Apple Store rises. Just about everybody falls between those two industries. Further we couldn't even get mad at the Chinese because they would be just as angry we aren't buying their stuff and suddenly their economy would collapse too. Both countries would enter a depression.
Maybe after the depression the flames of resentment could be fanned, but neither side wants that and are far too pragmatic to do so. Romney is making noise about China because it gives him an easy target to beat up on. Nobody in China takes it seriously, they do it too, but to us.
I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, if you'll recall it wasn't about China v US. It was about your claim to be an 'internaionalist' (which I suspect means whatever you want it to mean at a given moment), coupled to your denunciations and sneering at a few examples of American behavior. I wasn't claiming the US was clean and pure, I was calling your implied claim of rational objectivity so much bunk. Because it is. You're 'an internationalist' when the US invades two countries. You're something else when China sticks it to Tibet, or threatens war over free elections in Taiwan, or has thugs brutalize the families of dissenting lawyers, so on and so forth.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I don't know why you felt the need to step into a joking exchange between me and BB to bring up other threads airing vague grievances, nor do I see your claim about me having some kind attitude of "objective rationality" convincing as the most appropriate response to the post in question about said attitude.
Everyone has two choices, to use comments as a springboard for bickering or to constructively discuss the topic at hand. America having a "sluggish" economy is definitely I feel worthy of discussion and saddened that you felt the need to focus on implied tone rather than the substance as to what was said.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... a comprehensive video on the subject. That there are electoral 'events' that made Canada's system non two party for significant lengths of time has alot to do with our history and culture ...
Bah, video is 6 minutes long and totally theoretical. Theory is fun and all, but I tend to think that if a model has to ignore most of the historical record as exceptions or in your vocabulary "events" then I think it's time to find a new model.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
I'm a pragmatist. Traditions that serve no positive purpose should be done away with. I don't see how any one can look at modern elections with the EC and say "yeah, we should keep that." I don't get it at all. The EC is disastrous and disenfranchises tens of millions.
quote:I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever.
I generally agree with this as well, which is perhaps why your above statements really confused me and I objected to them. Perhaps this would be easier, if you're so inclined, if you'd actually state what you like about the EC, what service you believe it provides, and why it's better than the alternative? Since I'm apparently just shouting at the wind here.
quote:I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.
Why would it be a bad thing? If we had ranked voting or viable third parties, I'd be voting for Jill Stein. Since I want my vote to matter, I'm voting for Obama. He's not my first choice. But any other vote would be like not voting at all.
Mucus -
quote:People are talking about going whole-hog proportional representation. The changes that I'm talking about while difficult, are bound to be easier than that.
Besides, I was under the impression Americans were an ambitious "can-do" people, where's all this defeatist talk coming from?
What smaller changes do you suggest?
And I try not to buy into hype about Americans from Americans. The only thing exceptional about American Exceptionalism is the volume with which we proclaim it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Not really, Canada was expanding considerably through most of its history, with a rapidly growing population and consistently shifting demographics. That plus the Quebec Question, the question of Canada's role within the Empite/Commonwealth (Sir Wilfred Laurier is my favorite Prime Minister if you ever wondered), not being an independent country for most of our history, can all be very circumstances as to why we didn't shift to a two party system sooner.
A look at three countries chosen at random with Winner take all systems and are developed G20 countries: Mexico, South Korea and the United Kingdom all show typical Two Party politics; third party's exist in each example and actually get a non trivial amount of the votes relative to American Third Party's but seemingly no where near what would qualify as a vibrant multiparty democracy.
Mexico had one election recently where they had a 33% three way split it seems, but every other recent election is typical two party, without looking into it my guess is ~drama~.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
@Lyrhawn; I think a viable "Little Solution" to solve Gerrymandering at least would be the "Shortest Split Line Method" as the most fair to insure votes matter more in Senate/Congressional races. As for elections for President I can't really think of anything.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: @Lyrhawn; I think a viable "Little Solution" to solve Gerrymandering at least would be the "Shortest Split Line Method" as the most fair to insure votes matter more in Senate/Congressional races. As for elections for President I can't really think of anything.
The best solution to solve gerrymandering would be to create non-partisan commissions at the state level to determine districts. It's what California does.
Near as I can tell, there's no such thing as gerrymandering at the presidential level. We don't redraw the state lines every ten years. It's simply a function of how the EC apportions votes in combination with the census.
Now, if we changed the law to make it so that the EC afforded states votes based on population rather than based on congressional representation, I'd be more in favor of keeping it. It would remove many of my objections. But it still wouldn't be perfect.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Disenfranchises hundreds of millions would be more accurate I'm guessing? Presuming we define "Don't care to vote as vote does not matter/A Pox on both their houses." as disenfranchise, which I think is reasonable.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I do count "there's no point in voting, I live in a red/blue" state.
People who make the choice not to go to the polls are not disenfranchised. Or are only by their own choice.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would argue that not having a vote that matters is essentially the same thing as not having a vote at all.
The difference between the legal difference and the effective difference doesn't matter much to someone whose vote is useless. I'm far more interested in actual equality as opposed to equality on paper.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
