141–150 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over it's 200+ year history the US has killed more civilians than that in the average week. Does that make us 4x as bad as Islamic terrorists?
No, because even if that were true you need to look at motivations and intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote. Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs…
Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and wil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote. Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs…
Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and wil…
"Rank voting" is dozens of different voting systems; its essentially one of the major kinds of ballots -- FPTP-style vote-for-one ballots are used in two main voting systems (both often referred to as FPTP): plurality and majority-runoff; "rank voting" is used in many voting systems (IRV, Borda, Bucklin, Coombs, and pretty all the Condorcet methods); and there are a few voting systems (e.g., approval) that use different balloting mechanisms -- though most of them (including the FPTP style and the approval style ballots) are special constrained cases of rank voting ballots.
> In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and will not change in the foreseeable future.
Actually, nothing in the Constitution requires either FPTP or single-winner constituencies (except, arguably, indirectly single-winner for Senate seats by way of the 1/3-per-two-years requirement.) Forms of FPTP -- both majority-runoff and plurality -- are adopted as matters of state election law, and single-member, geographically-defined legislative districts have been required since the civil rights era as a matter of federal statute as a response to states that used FPTP in multimember state-wide districts to effectively disenfranchise minorities (the same could be prevented while allowing multimember districts by using a system that produces proportional results -- including candidate-centered systems like STV as well as things like party-list proportional.)
Very little of the US system of elections is set in the federal Constitution -- about the only part that is is the Electoral College for Presidential elections, and even there the matter of how electors are chosen is expressly left to the state legislatures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and wil…
Approval voting, for example. Rank voting is ripe for tactical voting, too.
The problem with FPTP isn't that its ripe for tactical voting, its that it maximizes the difference in expressed preferences that are completely ignored by the voting system, maximizing the need to vote tactically in order to have a vote that isn't equivalent to abstention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the real problem is America's Electoral system. Because there is no rank voting, the choices are the warmongering party, the slightly-less-warmongering party, or wasting your vote. Even if the President had more power than it does now, it couldn't get away with these things if citizens had the ability to relevantly vote for another person/party. They would simply vote for whoever else was closest to their beliefs…
You address an important topic, but I think the problem at hand comes from a more fundamental dysfunction within the system. Once a president is elected into office, he/she is in charge for a minimum of four years, almost guaranteed. We can't simply rely on improving the chances of getting better people into office for at least two reasons: a lot of damage can be done in four years, and even then, most of the elector…
Winston Churchill reputedly said "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else." Our system of "checks and balances" makes it extremely slow and difficult to accomplish anything. Consider the current defunding issue. The Republican party has been taking the US to the brink of shutdown every few months—despite the American people voting against them in the last election. I'm not trying to bash the Republican party. My point is, I think the Executive branch actually has fairly limited power. I think it might actually be better for accomplishing things if it had a bit more.
I think the real issue is legitimacy. One way to improve legitimacy is to elect the person Everyone Hates The Least, rather than who Everyone Loves The Most. Hence my ranked voting suggestion.
I definitely agree we should approach it from many angles. But as you say: accountability. I think the real problem is Legitimacy, not Power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every voting system has its pros and cons. The nature of the voting system influences how candidates campaign but it's not the only mechanism that affects how government operates. It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? In short, the voting system is ingrained into the constitution and wil…
> It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? "Rank voting" is dozens of different voting systems; its essentially one of the major kinds of ballots -- FPTP-style vote-for-one ballots are used in two main voting systems (both often referred to as FPTP): plurality and majority-runoff; "rank vot…
Yep. There are actually a very few cities which use Instant-runoff voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_Un...
Unfortunately, the people who have to pass laws for non-FPTP voting, are the people it would displace :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a far to simplistic suggestion to say that "rank voting" would solve the problem. For that matter, why not any of the other dozen different types of voting systems? "Rank voting" is dozens of different voting systems; its essentially one of the major kinds of ballots -- FPTP-style vote-for-one ballots are used in two main voting systems (both often referred to as FPTP): plurality and majority-runoff; "rank vot…
> matters of state election law Yep. There are actually a very few cities which use Instant-runoff voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_Un... Unfortunately, the people who have to pass laws for non-FPTP voting, are the people it would displace :(
In many states, the only people needed to pass laws for non-FPTP voting are the people of the state -- at least for elections other than those for Presidential electors, because of initiative/referendum processes.
Sure, under the Constitution, the rules for electing Presidential electors are left to state legislatures, but once you've changed the election rules for those offices, it should be easier to get people in them that aren't attached to FPTP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, because even if that were true you need to look at motivations and intent.
Killing is killing. Drone strikes hit incorrect and innocent targets ~90% (needs citation) of the time. Are you saying that's any better?
You won't find one, given that it's not true.
Are you saying that's any better?
Are you actually asking if accidentally killing innocent people is better than routinely and intentionally killing innocent people, like this: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013%5C01%5C11...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over it's 200+ year history the US has killed more civilians than that in the average week. Does that make us 4x as bad as Islamic terrorists?
No, because even if that were true you need to look at motivations and intent.
>> you need to look at motivations and intent
Sorry to wax philosophical, but that's only true if you're a Deontologist. I am not. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good points except for... > an undefined and secret enemy Just this month alone... - Islamic terrorists gun down over 60 people in a shopping mall in Kenya. - Islamic terrorists blow up over 70 people in a church in Pakistan. - Islamic terrorists massacre over 160 travelers in Nigeria. - Islamic terrorists take hundreds hostage in a coastal city in the Philippines.
Islamic terrorists sent mail bombs to a bunch of scientists, bombed the Olympics in Atlanta, and destroyed that federal building in Oklahoma City, too, right?