Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#51

Post by pessimizer »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #47
pessimizer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism. I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after…

Well, yeah, seeing as how it's my opinion. I don't know what other scale I should follow...I certainly don't expect you to follow mine, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss them. Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves. I'm not asking for mu…

> Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump

I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#52

Post by mikeash »

colmvp wrote: post #38
mikeash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Clinton wins, it won't be because her email stuff is dismissed as a conspiracy, it will be because we only have two choices and the other one is vastly worse. (Don't try to tell me about other choices. Third party candidates are the frictionless pulleys of American politics.)

Trump might talk a lot, but we know what Clinton has done with her voting record and her interactions behind the scenes interactions with Obama as Secretary of State. It's surprising /frustrating to me so many Democrats on my Facebook glaze over this when considering her over Trump or even Sanders. Yeah, she has experience. But she also has some very poor choices in her voting record (including Iraq) and is simply pa…

Yes, we know what to expect from Clinton, and I don't particularly like it, but it's still way, way, way, way better than Trump. If she wins it'll be because a lot of people share that opinion, not because the masses actually like her.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#53

Post by EdHominem »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #43
pessimizer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't find something bad to say about everyone, it ruins the rhythm of the "plague on both your houses" argument. I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Dep…

Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad. Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now. When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points,…

> I also am very troubled with Sanders continued associated with groups that are violent [towards people I like]

Unless you're a 100% pacifist you believe in the use of some violence in some situations. The question then is just how much, and with what standards of proof / need.

Hillary associates with many of the people involved in faking evidence of WMDs. And has refused many calls to label them war criminals. That should make her unacceptable.

Trump associates with many hate groups. That should make him unacceptable.

> If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?

You do realize that there can be only one president and most of the game isn't picking the one you want, but the one you think can beat the one the other guys elect?

There's no way the USA would elect someone like Bernie because he doesn't look like he'd push the button. Especially when he has to go up against Trump who is itching to.

> Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better?

America needs voting reform. The Trump/Hillary nonsense taking over the country for two years of every four is most of the problem.

But no, a minority candidate will never win. The system is very good at assuring that, so ultimately any nuanced political discussion is meaningless.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#54

Post by venomsnake »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #46
douche wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to listen to her speak for four years on the nightly news, I might bail and move to Canada. My ears can't take that kind of prolonged shrieking.

Misogyny has no place here.

Sorry, but saying something for a specific woman even if insulting is not misogyny. When the insult is directed at a distinct being is it not -ism.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#55

Post by evan_ »

Grishnakh wrote: post #33
jdavis703 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've created tools that allow people to become more and more politically polarized along the Republican/Democratic spectrum, and even self radicalized as terrorists. Without stomping on freedom of speech I don't know what we as an industry can do. Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"

>Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?" It's not their fault. You'd have to be an idiot to now understand what guns are for: they're weapons designed to kill people efficiently. They can be used for good or evil, just like cars. Some guy in a pickup just murdered 5 bicyclists in Michigan; should we ban pickups because of this? The whole thing about suin…

In a vacuum I would agree with you that simply manufacturing guns does not in itself lead to gun violence. The person buying the gun is ultimately responsible for its use.

However, gun manufacturers don't operate in a vacuum. Gun manufacturers, through marketing and sponsorships, have intentionally worked to create a culture where people feel that they need to have a gun to feel safe. The NRA, working in concert with firearm manufacturers, has for decades pushed the idea that a home with guns in it is safer than a home without- this sells guns, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Enthusiast magazines, blogs, and radio shows, sponsored by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, espouse the idea that the end of the world is coming in the form of Islamic terror, and to be prepared you must buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you can. Politicians, lobbied by the NRA, preach that Obama and Clinton are going to take your guns away, so you need to buy more.

These are all calculated actions designed to increase the fear and panic in the public, and to convince them that the only solution to this fear is to buy more guns. This results in scared, afraid people with deadly weapons and frequently little-to-no training.

The form of these lawsuits would not be "you made this gun so you are responsible for how it's used", they would be "to sell your product, you generated endless reams of propaganda to intentionally create the circumstances which led to" whatever specific thing, be it an intentional or accidental shooting.

I'm not saying that this is definitely true, or that there is strong enough evidence that this is true to win what would be a very contentious lawsuit- but I think you're wrong to suggest it's a completely frivolous question.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#56

Post by venomsnake »

bpodgursky wrote: post #36

The US is also the longest established continuously democratic government... so clearly there is also something going right, historically at least. Ranking Brazilian government above the US is a joke.

You probably have 5 or 6 completely different USG models so far - from the very limited initially to the current situation where states are mostly afterthought and it is driven by the imperial bureaucracy in Washington. Each vastly bigger than the previous.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#57

Post by aaron-lebo »

eldude wrote: post #49
aaron-lebo wrote: post #2

People aren't willing to make their politicians accountable. It's always the other person's fault, the other side's extremes; never their own. You've got Clinton running an email server exposed to the world as secretary of state, ignoring warnings about it and then lying about it. Yet she will probably end up getting elected because it's all a "Republican conspiracy". Meanwhile, Trump is calling a judge's ruling into…

The article you cite disputes your claim, stating the quote was an unfortunate pre-scheduled pre-designed (it was an image with text) tweet that made no mention of the event whatsoever: "The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."

You are correct. The original article did not have that information.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#58

Post by aylons »

bpodgursky wrote: post #36

The US is also the longest established continuously democratic government... so clearly there is also something going right, historically at least. Ranking Brazilian government above the US is a joke.

This is not a government rank, it is an elections ranking.

From your comment history, I can see you have an axe to grind in Brazilian politics. Please keep it to relevant discussions.

Re: The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

#60

Post by rbehrends »

vaadu wrote: post #12
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism. One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.

Which is why their economies suck. Centralized planning is an utter failure. https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...

None of these European countries uses centralized planning, but instead they rely on pretty standard market economies.

The problem with the cited statistics is that even PPP-adjusted equivalized disposable household income that accounts for both cash and in-kind transfers still provides only a limited basis for comparison.

For example, observe that the average American person works 30% more than the average German or Dutch person [1]. It should not be surprising that shorter working hours are reflected in lower wages and lower household income.

However, while the reason for that is not always good – too many stay-at-home moms in Germany who'd rather pursue a career, for example – in general, this tends to express a voluntary trade-off of better work-life balance in lieu of higher income. This trade-off generally works because both income and expenses are less volatile; you may not need to save up as much for a rainy day, a huge coinsurance or deductible payment from a medical bill, for your kids' college funds, for the disruption of your income by a pregnancy, or figuring out how to pay for childcare. While few of these things have zero impact on your income situation, that impact tends to be greatly reduced. The modern European social democracy is less characterized by transfering cash from the rich to the poor, but by ensuring affordable essential services for everybody (which also tend to benefit the poor more than the rich and thus are typically redistributive).

In addition, even trying to normalize household income does not account for all the actual differences between the economies; for example, the effects on urban planning (suburban sprawl with a built-in dependence on cars vs. hybrid zones that are walkable, bikable, and have good public transport) can have a major impact on how you live. Likewise, the rise of helicopter parenting in some places comes with increasing demands on time and household budgets.

And while the Western European social democracies are not some magical paradise with both riches and year-long vacations (contrary to what some people seriously seem to believe), they are not socialist hellholes, either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

Post reply on HN