Isn't this basically the world congress system from Civilization V?
A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
201–210 of 343 posts
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#202if voting was mandatory in america for all adults you would get more competent people running and third parties carrying elections until the major parties shifted away from extreme positions. you don't need to feed into madness, americans are sane people who want unity and common sense. it's not hard to do, make voting day a public holiday or put in on a weekend, use stamps on peoples hands or use name-residence regi…
3rd parties actively hurt progress towarss their goals by splitting votes between them and the larger party with platforms closer to theirs.
The 1st past the vote system, will always end up in a 2 party system. Unless that gets replaced by a ranked choice voting or another decent alternative
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically they disagree on how to treat their fellow citizens. Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes. But both have largely been ok with everyone being exploited by feudal trade economics, bombing other nations to satisfy global political norms, and swindling developing nations out of their resources, while emotionally coddling elites. It means something to not be out…
"Democrats are against outright hostility and blatant marginalization of certain classes." There are tons of YouTube videos on college campuses that prove otherwise.
I was describing the politicians themselves.
But I did conclude that they also fall short in many areas.
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would this have a similar outcome as the "lottery" for jury duty? What happens if somebody who really doesn't want to do it is chosen?
That's a very good point. I currently lean towards requiring every citizen to register for the lottery once every ten or so years (for one year of service). If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances, but at least they would be able to plan for it to some extent. This might also require a cultural shift for people to accept it, but maybe not a radical one.
> If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances
If I was "forced" into a political position, then what I would do is purposefully sabotage the position I was in, out of spite.
What are you going to do? Arrest me because I voted a certain way? That doesn't sound easily enforceable.
Be careful what kind of slavery you force people into. Those slaves might just fight back (in this case, by voting for bad policies.).
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two parties are functionally identical for the handful of issues I really, really care about. Those issues you've mentioned are not among them -- furthermore they are not as black-and-white as you imply. As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.
Which issues do you care about? Because I hear this vague-y statement ("the two parties are functionally identical") without specifics, and I can't for the life of me figure why people think this. Also, to your point "As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.", and don't see how this could possibly be true. For example, Obamacare added significant taxes for M…
The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT.
Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies and they matter much more to me than the ones you've listed.
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very good point. I currently lean towards requiring every citizen to register for the lottery once every ten or so years (for one year of service). If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances, but at least they would be able to plan for it to some extent. This might also require a cultural shift for people to accept it, but maybe not a radical one.
For someone who doesn’t want to do it, a year is a very long time to come up with ‘serious unforeseen circumstances’. There is no point in trying to force people to do things - the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it. Pay them well, in other words, in money, in prestige, or otherwise.
> the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it
This isn't a change, it's what we have now. The problem is that the kind of people that want to take it are not the kind of people you actually want doing it.
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an unresolvable tension between the quantitative and the qualitative, and it's hard to imagine a more extreme example than erasing ineffable human dignity in order to turn a human into a commodity. Let's flip this around to today: imagine a hypothetical future 100 years from now, that honors the qualitative dignity of all animal life, and views factory farming with the same horror that we view slavery now. F…
But we did take a non-incrementalist approach to slavery, and it worked. Sherman smashing through Georgia was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "moderate". And it worked much better than any of the other approaches. Travel to Asia or Africa, and ask who the leader of the US was when the slaves were freed? Then ask who the leader of the British Empire was when their slaves were freed? Or the leader of Brazil? Th…
> it worked much better than any of the other approaches.
Only if you consider a million lives lost, and many more wounded, "better" than the solution other countries with slavery, like Great Britain, adopted: they paid off the slaveowners and freed their slaves without any violence at all.
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#208Simple approval voting works. Pick only one outcome? Sure, but you lost the chance to pick others.
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#209Is there any reason that 2 is the best of all possible indices? It sounds, prima facie, reasonable, but it is unclear whether it is the best, what the best is, or even whether it can reasonably be calculated given that people behave irrationally in different ways.
Re: A New Way of Voting That Makes Zealotry Expensive
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which issues do you care about? Because I hear this vague-y statement ("the two parties are functionally identical") without specifics, and I can't for the life of me figure why people think this. Also, to your point "As a relatively high income earner the only significant tax increase I've ever seen was under Trump.", and don't see how this could possibly be true. For example, Obamacare added significant taxes for M…
The 3% tax on my dividends didn't even come close to SALT. Personally I'd like to see the government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech, reduced military spending, curbs on an an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system, and policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization. It's hard to draw a meaningful d…
Honestly I think your list highlights why I get so frustrated when people equate the parties, because there are so obvious, provable distinctions it the items you list:
1. "government stop spying on US citizens, more protections for digital privacy and free speech" - OK, this one I'll give to you, I don't see significant differences between the mainstream parties on this one. But I'd argue that is because this issue is actually so low (sadly, IMO) on the vast majority of Americans' concerns.
2. "reduced military spending" - If you honestly think the parties are equal when it comes to their enthusiasm for military spending, you are not paying attention. As one example, the whole reason for the 2013 budget sequestration rules were that they included large cuts for military (which Democrats wanted) and social programs (which Republicans wanted) which both sides thought would force them to compromise - the fact that ALL cuts went through when they couldn't reach an agreement just highlights which programs were important to which parties.
3. "an increasingly militarized police force and privatized judicial system" - again, this is an issue that Democrats are much more on your side than the average Republican, mainly because urban minorities, which tend to vote Democrat, are the group most negatively affected by these policies.
4. "policies designed to protect the American middle class against increasing globalization" - while I tend to agree with the main gist of this argument, especially in that both parties have enthusiastically supported many free trade deals, Republicans have shown much more antipathy to unions, both in the past and currently.
The fact that you say "It's hard to draw a meaningful distinction between parties on any of these policies" is just baffling to me.